**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area ) Gen. Docket No. 90-7

Regional Public Safety Plan )

(Region 20) )

)

Philadelphia Metropolitan Area ) Gen. Docket No. 89-573

Regional Public Safety Plan )

(Region 28) )

)

**ORDER**

**Adopted: October 21, 1999 Released: October 22, 1999**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

By this *Order*, we resolve certain long-standing disputes among Regions
20 and 28, and with other related regional and governmental entities.
Pending before us is an \"Inter-Regional Channel Re-Assignment
Agreement\" (Re-Assignment Agreement) submitted on September 2, 1999, by
the Region 20[^1] Public Safety Regional Plan Review Committee (Region
20 Committee), the Region 28[^2] Public Safety Planning Update Committee
(Region 28 Committee), and the Region 36[^3] Regional Plan Review
Committee.[^4] Also submitted were a \"Second Addendum to the Petition
to Amend the Region 20 821 MHz Public Safety Plan\" (Region 20 Second
Addendum), and a request from the Region 28 Committee to accept the
Region 28 Fifth Filing Window assignments that were included in the
Re-Assignment Agreement. On September 3, 1999, the Re-Assignment
Agreement was placed on public notice for comment.[^5] In addition,
there are several pleadings related to outstanding disputes between
Regions 20 and 28, including: (a) a Petition for Emergency Declaratory
Ruling, filed by Region 20;[^6] (b) a Motion for Emergency Injunctive
Stay, filed by Region 20;[^7] (c) a Petition for Declaratory Ruling,
filed by Cumberland County, New Jersey, a Region 28 member;[^8] (d) a
request to approve the most recent amendment to the Region 20 regional
plan, filed by Region 20;[^9] and (e) a petition, filed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania), a Region 28 member, to
modify or revoke licenses issued to Region 20 member Carroll County,
Maryland (Carroll County).[^10]

For the reasons set forth herein, we approve the Re-Assignment Agreement
and Region 20 Second Addendum, grant the Region 28 request regarding its
Fifth Filing Window assignments, dismiss the Petition for Emergency
Declaratory Ruling, deny the Motion for Emergency Injunctive Stay, and
dismiss the Pennsylvania Petition. We find that Regions 20 and 28 have
reached a reasonable settlement of their dispute,[^11] that this
settlement fulfills the requirements established in the *December 1996
Order*,[^12] and that this settlement and our approval thereof are in
furtherance of the public interest.

**II. BACKGROUND**

Since at least 1994, the Region 20 Committee, the Region 28 Committee,
and other affected entities[^13] have attempted to resolve disputes over
frequency assignments, regional planning coordination procedures, and
alleged cross-border radio interference. These disputes arose out of the
management by the respective regional planning committees of the six
megahertz of radio spectrum in the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands (800 MHz
band).

**A. The Region 20 Plan and Amendment**

Region 20 established an operating committee that developed and filed
its regional plan with the Commission.[^14] The Region 20 Plan
designated interoperability channels, state-wide channels and guard band
channels in the 800 MHz band spectrum over which it had authority.[^15]
The plan also specified certain operating and application procedures to
be used in the region, created a Regional Plan Review Committee and made
specific channel assignments to region members. On November 25, 1994,
Region 20 submitted an amendment to its plan which included additional
frequency assignments arising from its second filing window (Region 20
Amendment).[^16] The Region 20 Amendment added several frequency
assignments to the Region 20 Plan, including assigning Channel Nos. 686,
690, 693, 706, 709, 711, 713, 720, and 748 to Carroll County. The Region
20 Amendment generated opposition comments after it was placed on public
notice.[^17]

On October 2, 1995, Carroll County filed an application for an 800 MHz
public safety radio system to be operated in part on the nine channels
assigned to Carroll County in the Region 20 Amendment. Attached to this
application was a letter of \"official notification of frequency
coordination,\" dated April 29, 1994, signed by the Maryland/Washington,
D.C. APCO frequency coordinator[^18] and the Chairman and Vice Chairman
of the Region 20 Committee. Acting on this application, the Commission
issued licenses to Carroll County (the Carroll County licenses) on
November 2, 1995, for Call Sign WPIQ515, and on December 13, 1995, for
Call Sign WPIU695, covering the nine channels assigned to Carroll County
in the Region 20 Amendment.

On December 9, 1996, the Chief of the Private Wireless Division
(Division) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Deputy
Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology approved the Region 20
Amendment, subject to three conditions.[^19] These conditions were: (a)
that Region 20 submit a detailed statement by March 30, 1997, which
established satisfactory inter-regional coordination procedures
acceptable to Region 28; (b) that Region 20 file a list describing the
status of construction and operation of stations licensed on the new
channels set forth in the Region 20 Amendment; and (c) that Region 20
file a change of the designation of Channel 720 as the \"MCT Medical
Services\" channel to a more appropriate channel designation.[^20]

On January 30, 1997, in response to the *December 1996 Order*, Region 20
submitted a pleading in the current proceeding (Region 20 January 1997
Response) describing the construction and operational status of the
channels contained in the Region 20 Amendment and containing a
commitment to change the Channel 720 designation to one of the names
suggested in the *December 1996 Order*.[^21]

In March 1997, Region 20 requested and was granted an additional
forty-five days, from March 30, 1997 to May 14, 1997, within which to
come to an agreement with Region 28 regarding satisfactory
inter-regional coordination procedures.[^22] On May 14, 1997, Region 20
submitted its second response to the *December 1996 Order.*[^23] In this
pleading, Region 20 represented that although Regions 20 and 28 were in
agreement with respect to the basic concepts of inter-regional
coordination, because of disagreements over the Carroll County licenses,
Region 28 was unwilling to sign the inter-regional coordination
agreement attached to the response.[^24] Region 20 further detailed
Region 28\'s objections to the Carroll County licenses and Region 20\'s
arguments against the objections.

Notwithstanding the lack of concurrence from Region 28 to the regional
coordination procedures described in the Region 20 May 1997 Response,
Region 20 represented that it had made all reasonable efforts to secure
such concurrence, and therefore asked the Commission to provide an
unconditional approval of its plan amendment.[^25] Region 20 further
represented that upon the issuance by the Commission of an
\"unconditional\" order removing the conditions from the *December 1996
Order*, Region 20 would incorporate the inter-regional coordination
procedures outlined in the May 1997 Response into its own plan and it
would also withdraw its Declaratory Ruling Petition.[^26]

By letter of June 23, 1997, Region 28 replied to the Region 20 May 1997
Response. Region 28 stated that it disagreed with Region 20\'s arguments
regarding the disputes concerning the Carroll County licenses. Region 28
indicated that both Regions had agreed on inter-regional coordination
procedures to be observed in the future, but stated that it was
unwilling to execute the coordination agreement with Region 20 until
Pennsylvania and Carroll County resolved their differences concerning
the frequency conflict.[^27]

On December 5, 1997, Cumberland County filed with the Commission a
Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Cumberland Petition). Cumberland
asserted that the Carroll County licenses were wrongfully granted and,
unless voided, would cause harmful interference to Region 28 stations.
Accordingly, Cumberland requested that the Commission void the
conditional approval of the Region 20 Amendment, ascertain any conflicts
that exist between Region 20 and 28 licensees, and propose resolutions
to the conflicts.[^28]

On August 21, 1998, Region 20 filed with the Commission a pleading that
included a document entitled \"Inter-Regional Coordination Procedures
Agreement\" (Region 20/28 coordination agreement) signed by the chairmen
of both the Region 20 and Region 28 committees.[^29] In this pleading,
Region 20 renewed its request that the Commission issue an unconditional
Order removing the conditions from the *December 1996 Order*, and
repeated its offer to incorporate the Region 20/28 coordination
agreement into its own plan and to withdraw its Declaratory Ruling
Petition.

On September 3, 1998, Pennsylvania filed a pleading in which it opposed
the \"unconditional\" approval of the Region 20 Amendment until such
time as the problems of the Carroll County licenses that were assigned
in that amendment were resolved.[^30] Region 20 filed a response to the
Pennsylvania Opposition dated September 18, 1998 (Region 20 September
1998 Response). In its September 1998 Response, Region 20 argues that
the Pennsylvania Opposition is \"the equivalent of an injunctive stay
upon Carroll County, Maryland\'s licenses\" which Region 20 asserts
should be rejected because it fails to meet the four-pronged test
required under Federal law for issuance of a writ of injunction.

On September 28, 1998, Pennsylvania filed a formal petition
(Pennsylvania Petition for Revocation), based on the arguments contained
in the Pennsylvania Opposition, seeking the initiation of revocation or
modification proceedings against the Carroll County licenses. In
response to the Pennsylvania Petition for Revocation, Region 20 filed a
pleading in which it asked the Commission to \"delete\" the Pennsylvania
pleading.[^31] Carroll County filed a pleading in opposition to the
Pennsylvania Petition for Revocation, asking the Commission to deny the
Pennsylvania Petition for Revocation, and, as partial grounds,
incorporating the Region 20 September 1998 Response.[^32]

**B. The Region 28 Plan**

The Region 28 plan was originally developed by the Region 28 Committee
and filed with the Commission in 1989.[^33] The original plan contained
channel assignments to three counties in Delaware, twelve counties in
New Jersey, and twenty-eight counties in Pennsylvania.[^34] In 1996,
Region 20 complained to Region 28 about potential interference to Region
20 stations in Maryland from some of the Delaware stations. In a letter
dated July 31, 1996, the Chairman of the Region 20 Committee stated that
Region 20 had reviewed Motorola literature and FCC licensing data for a
Delaware state radio system and \"using this data, extrapolated
operational 40 dBµ contours.\"[^35] From this extrapolation, Region 20
concluded that when constructed, the Delaware system would cause harmful
interference to the northern and eastern areas of Region 20.[^36] In a
letter dated August 29, 1996, Region 28 responded to Region 20\'s
assertions by saying that the Delaware system, \"when fully implemented
and tested, will be in compliance with the mandates of the Region 28
plan."[^37] Region 28 further stated that the system would either \"not
exceed +40 dBµ at 3 miles beyond the State\'s border,\" or the
contractor would obtain concurrences from affected regions to operate
the system with protection contours of +5 dBµ for co-channel protection
and +25 dBµ for adjacent channel protection.[^38] Finally, Region 28
asserted that if concurrences were required under this approach but not
forthcoming from adjacent regions, the contractor was prepared to apply
the resources necessary to meet the requirements of the adjacent region
and the Region 28 Plan.[^39]

On December 12, 1996, Region 20 submitted the Region 20 Declaratory
Ruling Petition and the Region 20 Motion for Stay. The Region 20
Declaratory Ruling Petition asserted that the Region 28 Plan lacked
adequate inter-regional interference protection criteria and, on that
ground, the Commission should order Region 28 when making channel
assignments to abide by the protection criteria contained in the Region
20 Plan.[^40] The Region 20 Motion for Stay alleged that the design of
the 800 MHz radio system proposed by the State of Delaware, under
licenses that had been granted by the Commission according to accepted
channel assignments in the Region 28 Plan, if built and operated as
proposed, \"would exceed the \'three (3) mile outside of boundary rule\'
of the Region 28 Plan,\" and would cause harmful interference to
stations in Region 20.[^41] Accordingly, Region 20 asked the Commission
to prohibit further construction of the Delaware system until Delaware
modified its system to operate within the requirements of the Region 28
Plan and obtained additional concurrence from adjacent regions.[^42]

**C. Settlement Agreement**

On September 2, 1999, the Region 20 Committee submitted the
Re-Assignment Agreement which presented proposed resolution of various
inter-regional channel conflicts, particularly between the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and Carroll County, Maryland. In addition, the Region 28
Committee and the Region 20 Committee filed proposed amendments to their
regional plans associated with the implementation of the proposals
presented in the Re-Assignment Agreement. On September 3, 1999, we
released a public notice seeking comment on the Re-Assignment Agreement
and the associated proposed amendments to the Region 20 and Region 28
Plans. In Response to this public notice, we received one request for
extension of time, two comments, and two reply comments.

On September 17, 1999, the deadline for submitting comments, the City of
Philadelphia (City) requested an extension of time for the filing of
comments to September 27, 1999, with reply comments due October 4, 1999,
in order to permit the City to analyze data supplied by Chester County,
Pennsylvania\'s technical consultant. It appears that this data would be
in furtherance of a mutually agreeable solution for a
transmitter-combiner problem being experienced between Chester County
and the City.

On September 17, 1999, Pennsylvania submitted comments indicating that
the Re-Assignment Agreement addresses its interference concerns, and
supporting approval of the Re-Assignment Agreement and the Region 28
Fifth Filing Window. In addition, the State of Delaware, Office of
Information Services (Del. OIS), submitted comments describing
co-channel conflicts with four channels in the State\'s system (*viz*.,
Channels 642, 678, 730, and 732) involving frequencies either currently
licensed or previously licensed to the State of Maryland. The Del. OIS
questions whether renewal of three State of Maryland licenses (namely,
Stations WPFG834, WPFG842, and WPFG858) is in the public interest,
expresses an interest in the reallocation of certain channels for which
the State of Maryland did not seek renewal to Region 28, and states that
the completion of its system may require additional channels. Finally,
the Del. OIS supports Commission approval of the modified regional plans
so as to resolve the remaining co-channel conflicts with its system and,
therefore, permit dismissal of Region 20\'s Motion for Emergency
Injunctive Stay against its system.

On September 24, 1999, the State of Maryland responded to Delaware\'s
comments regarding the renewal of Stations WPFG834, WPFG842, and
WPFG858. It rejects the assertion that construction and operation of the
licenses would present the potential for co-channel interference with
Delaware\'s system because the sites are all located West of the City of
Baltimore. Also, on September 24, 1999, the State of Delaware Department
of Public Safety submitted comments asking that we consider the State of
Delaware\'s needs for 800 MHz frequencies to complete the installation
of a fully effective, statewide 800 MHz system.

On September 28, 1999, the Region 20 Committee filed its Motion to
Dismiss Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Petition for Revocation. The Region
20 Committee requests dismissal, without prejudice, of the Pennsylvania
Petition for Revocation. The Region 20 Committee reiterates its
objection to Pennsylvania\'s characterization of Carroll County\'s
licenses as improperly granted and the implication that the Region 20
Committee did not comply with Commission procedures. It also objects to
the contention that the alleged interference has delayed construction of
the statewide system. On October 8, 1999, Pennsylvania filed its
Response to Motion to Dismiss Filed by Region-20 821 MHz Public Safety
Regional Plan Review Committee. Pennsylvania does not object to the
Region 20 Committee\'s motion to dismiss its Petition for Revocation if
and only if we approve the Re-Assignment Agreement. Until such action,
however, Pennsylvania contends that the Region 20 Committee\'s motion is
premature.

**III. DISCUSSION**

At various times during the course of this proceeding, the Division has
attempted to assist the parties in their efforts to reach mutually
agreeable solutions to the interrelated disputes. Through face-to-face
meetings, conference calls, letters and formal orders the Division has
repeatedly urged Regions 20 and 28 and their constituent members to
develop reciprocal and mutually agreeable procedures for undertaking
their responsibilities for managing and assigning the 800 MHz band
National Plan spectrum in their respective regions. The Division is well
aware of the difficulties faced by the many technically trained and
skilled professionals who devote a great many hours as unpaid volunteers
in accomplishing the work of the regional planning committees. This work
is invaluable to the public safety community and the officers in the
field who rely on the communications systems made possible in many areas
only by the spectrum allocated to public safety use in the 800 MHz band.
While it is unfortunate that the issues raised in the course of these
proceedings have resisted solution for a long period of time, we
nonetheless believe that the proposed resolution offered as a result of
the joint efforts of Regions 20, 28 and 36 \-- namely, the Re-Assignment
Agreement \-- is in furtherance of the public interest. In this
connection, we deny the City\'s request for an extension of time to
submit comments. Our action is consistent with the Commission\'s policy
that extensions of time are not routinely granted.[^43] We believe that
an extension of time is not warranted in these circumstances because
this matter has remained unresolved for an extended period of time and
that further delay, especially when we are presented with a solution
that is mutually agreeable to the involved regions, would not be in the
public interest. Further, we note that the problem the City seeks to
remedy does not appear to be one which was previously raised in the
context of this matter. Thus, we believe that it would be more prudent
for the City to continue to pursue this matter with its regional
planning committee. Moreover, based on the comments received in response
to the Re-Assignment Agreement, we conclude that the public interest
would be served by approval of the Re-Assignment Agreement and the
associated proposed plan amendments because they resolve a longstanding
controversy and address past, present, and future public safety
communications needs in Regions 20, 28 and 36.

**A. The Region 20 Proceeding**

**1. Second Amendment**

As previously noted, the Region 20 Amendment was accepted by the
Commission in the *December 1996 Order*, subject to the fulfillment of
three conditions.[^44] The Division has previously informed the parties
hereto, and we confirm here, that two of the conditions were fulfilled
by the filing of the Region 20 May, 1997 response.[^45] The last
remaining condition required the filing of a detailed statement
establishing inter-regional coordination procedures satisfactory to
Region 28. We find that this condition was satisfied by the filing of
the Region 20 August, 1998, response containing a copy of the Region
20/28 coordination agreement signed by the Chairman of Region 28. As a
result, we conclude that all three conditions set forth in the *December
1996 Order* for approval of the Region 20 Amendment have been fulfilled.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Region 20 Amendment should be, and by
the terms of this *Order* is, fully accepted and approved, with all
conditions now removed because they have been fulfilled. Further, we
deny the Cumberland Petition to the extent it seeks voiding of the
conditional approval of the Region 20 Amendment and set aside of any
licenses.

**2. Second Addendum to the Petition to Amend Region 20 Plan**

In connection with the Re-Assignment Agreement, the Region 20 Committee
has requested approval of revised frequency matrix changes to the Region
20 Plan. For the reasons stated above regarding the Re-Assignment
Agreement, we approve these amendments to the Region 20 Plan.

**B. The Region 28 Proceeding**

**1. Region 28 Plan**

The Region 20 Declaratory Ruling Petition, asserting that the Region 28
Plan lacked adequate inter-regional interference protection criteria and
on that ground requesting that the Commission order Region 28 to abide
by the inter-regional protection criteria contained in the Region 20
Plan, is dismissed as moot. The finalization of the Region 20/28
coordination agreement and the Region 20 Committee\'s statement to
withdraw such Petition if certain actions were taken regarding the
Region 20 Plan amendments resolves these issues without the need for
further Commission action.

In connection with the Re-Assignment Agreement, the Region 28 Committee
has requested approval of revised frequency matrix changes to the Region
28 Plan. For the reasons stated above regarding the Re-Assignment
Agreement, we approve these amendments to the Region 28 Plan.

**2. State of Delaware 800 MHz System**

In its Motion for Stay, Region 20 requests that we prohibit further
construction of the State of Delaware\'s radio station authorizations,
WPIQ-290, WPIQ-294 and WPIZ-596. Region 20 asserts that these stations,
licensed in 1989, but at the time of the motion not yet constructed,
would, when completed and operational, generate 40 dBµ signal contours
as far as 50 miles over the Delaware state boundary into eastern
Maryland. Consequently, Region 20 further asserts that these stations
would thereby cause harmful interference to licensees in Region 20.[^46]
Region 20 bases its assertions on its own "research of the Delaware
system, based on valid Commission licensing data."[^47]

Moreover, Region 20 asserts that cross-border emissions of the strength
described would violate Section 90.621(g) of the Commission's Rules as
well as the requirement in the Region 28 Plan that cross-border
emissions not exceed 40 dBµ further than three miles into adjacent
Regions, the so called "three mile outside of boundary" rule in the
Region 28 Plan.[^48] Region 20 apparently acknowledges that it submitted
a signed concurrence agreeing to the original Region 28 Plan containing
the frequencies assigned to Delaware.[^49] Region 20 asserts, however,
that it did not thereby consent to Delaware operating in such a fashion
as to exceed the three mile out of boundary rule into Region 20.[^50]

We agree with Region 20 that Delaware must operate its licensed public
safety radio stations in the 800 MHz band in accordance with the Region
28 Plan and the Commission's Rules. To date, we have not received any
formal notification that any public safety entity in Region 20 is
experiencing harmful interference as a result of Delaware's operations.
Thus, we have no basis on which to conclude that Region 28\'s assurances
to Region 20 on this subject were untrue. Further, we note that Region
20 concurred with the original Region 28 Plan Amendment designating the
subject frequencies for Delaware\'s use.[^51] Accordingly, based on the
record before us, we deny the Region 20 Motion for Stay, without
prejudice to Region 20\'s right to renew their motion, or seek other
relief from wrongful or harmful operation of these stations, should it
have sufficient evidence upon which to base a request for such relief.

In its comments regarding the Re-Assignment Agreement, the Del. OIS
requests that we take certain actions regarding the licensing and use of
certain frequencies in Region 20. We believe that this request is beyond
the scope of the matters currently before us. Moreover, we believe that
resolution of this matter should first be pursued through coordination
between the Region 20 and Region 28 Committees, particularly in light of
the coordination procedures which the committees have instituted as a
result of the resolution of this matter, and be brought to the
Commission only after such coordination has failed. In this connection,
we encourage the Region 20 and 28 Committees to work cooperatively in an
attempt to assist the State of Delaware in its efforts to fully
implement its 800 MHz statewide system. Accordingly, based on the record
before us, we decline to take action on the matters raised in the Del.
OIS comments filed in this proceeding, without prejudice to Del. OIS\'s
ability to seek relief in the future should the suggested inter-regional
coordination efforts fail.

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 90.16 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.16, that the Inter-Regional
Channel Re-Assignment Agreement filed on September 2, 1999 **IS
APPROVED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 90.16 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.16, that the Region 20 Plan
Amendment filed on November 25, 1994, and modified on January 25, 1996,
**IS APPROVED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 90.16 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.16, that the Region 28 Plan
Amendment filed on August 12, 1999 **IS APPROVED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Petition for
Emergency Declaratory Ruling filed by Region 20 on December 12, 1996,
**IS DISMISSED** as moot.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Motion for Emergency
Injunctive Stay filed by Region 20 on December 12, 1996, **IS DENIED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Motion to Delete
filed by Region 20 on November 3, 1998, **IS DISMISSED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Petition for
Declaratory Ruling filed by Cumberland County, New Jersey, **IS
DENIED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Motion to Delete
filed by Region 20 on November 3, 1998, **IS DISMISSED**.

**IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of
the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Petition for
Revocation or, in the alternative, for Modification of Licenses filed by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Septmeber 28, 1998, **IS
DISMISSED**.

This Action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D\'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

**J:\\PSPWD\\FERNDZ\\reg20-28.rem**

(02/22/99 (Clark); Rev. 09/29/99)

cc: D. Terry

H. Zeiler

R. Melson

J. Kowalski

J. Borkowski

M. Shultz

K. Hosford

S. Stone

S. Linn

J. Fernández

[^1]:     ^?^ Region 20, aka the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area
    Region, is comprised of Washington, D.C., parts of Northern
    Virginia, and the State of Maryland, pursuant to the National Plan
    for public safety radio services (National Plan) established in
    1987. The Region 20 Committee was convened in 1989 by Public Safety
    Radio Service licensees within that region to develop a plan for
    administration and allocation of radio frequencies assigned to the
    region by the Commission under procedures set forth in the National
    Plan.

[^2]:     ^?^ Under the National Plan, Region 28, aka the Philadelphia
    Metropolitan Area Region, is comprised of Eastern Pennsylvania,
    Southern New Jersey, and the State of Delaware.

[^3]:     ^?^ Region 36 is comprised of Western Pennsylvania.

[^4]:     ^?^ Written Ex Parte Presentation: Response Statement, GN
    Docket Nos. 90-7 & 89-573, submitted by Region 20 821 MHz Public
    Safety Review Committee, Legislative/Regulatory Affairs Committee
    (filed Sept. 2, 1999).

[^5]:     ^?^ Wireless Bureau Seeks Comment on Inter-Regional Channel
    Re-Assignment Agreement Submitted by Regions 20, 28 & 36 in GN
    Docket Nos. 90-7 & 89-573, *Public Notice*, DA 99-1812 (released
    Sept. 3, 1999).

[^6]:     ^?^ *See* Petition for Emergency Declaratory Ruling, GEN
    Docket No. 89-573, Region 20 Public Safety Plan Review Committee,
    December 12, 1996 (Region 20 Declaratory Ruling Petition).

[^7]:     ^?^ *See* Motion for Emergency Injunctive Stay, GEN Docket No.
    89-573, Region 20 Public Safety Review Committee, December 12, 1996
    (Region 20 Motion for Stay).

[^8]:     ^?^ *See* Petition for Declaratory Ruling, GEN Docket Nos 90-7
    and 89-573, County of Cumberland, New Jersey, December 5, 1997
    (Cumberland Petition).

[^9]:     ^?^ *See* Written Ex Parte Presentation: Response Statement,
    GEN Docket Nos. 90-7 and 89-573, Region 20 Public Safety Review
    Committee, August 21, 1998 (Region 20 August 1998 Response).

[^10]:     ^?^ *See* Petition for Revocation or, in the Alternative, for
    Modification of Licenses, GEN Docket Nos. 90-7 and 89-573,
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, September 28, 1998 (Pennsylvania
    Petition).

[^11]:     ^?^ *See* Washington DC Metropolitan Area Regional Public
    Safety Plan (Region 20) Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Regional
    Public Safety Plan (Region 28), Gen. Docket Nos. 90-7 and 89-573,
    *Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 21510 (1996) (*December 1996 Order*).

[^12]:     ^?^ *See infra*.

[^13]:     ^?^ Entities with an expressed interest in this proceeding
    include government entities that are members of the two named
    regions, including the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of
    Delaware, and Cumberland County New Jersey, all members of Region
    28, Carroll County, Maryland, a member of Region 20, and the other
    Regions adjacent to Regions 20 and 28, including particularly Region
    36 (western Pennsylvania).

[^14]:     ^?^ Region 20 filed its plan with the Commission on November
    15, 1989. It was approved March 26, 1990. *See* Washington DC,
    Metropolitan Area Plan, 5 FCC Rcd 1984 (1990).

[^15]:     ^?^ *See* Public Safety Radio Communications Plan for Region
    20. Copies of this plan and the plans for the other 54 regions are
    available for public inspection during regular business hours at the
    Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, 445 Twelfth Street S.W., Room 4-C207,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

[^16]:     ^?^ The Region 20 Amendment was reviewed by Commission staff
    and, on June 16, 1996, the Commission\'s Public Safety Liaison
    Officer met with the Region 20 Planning Committee. At that time, the
    Region 20 Committee agreed to coordinate the Region 20 Amendment
    with the surrounding regions and submit any necessary revisions
    before any action by the Commission would be taken. By letter signed
    by the Chief, Private Wireless Division and dated December 11, 1995,
    the Commission notified Region 20 that the Region 20 Amendment would
    be returned unless a modification was received by January 31, 1996.
    On January 5, 1996, Region 20 submitted to the Commission a letter
    and written *ex parte* presentation. On January 25, 1996, Region 20
    submitted an addendum to the Region 20 Amendment along with a
    revised Region 20 Plan for the Commission\'s consideration.

[^17]:     ^?^ *See* *December 1996 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21514, 21515.

[^18]:     ^?^ The Association of Public Safety Communications Officers,
    International (APCO) is one of four public safety frequency
    coordinators certified by the Commission.

[^19]:     ^?^ *See* *December 1996 Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21510.

[^20]:     ^?^ *Id.* at 21514, 21515. Region 20 had designated Channel
    720 for an individual doctor. The Commission suggested a series of
    possible generic designations stating "we cannot accept a
    designation within a regional plan that would provide a single
    individual with exclusive use of a channel.\"

[^21]:     ^?^ *See* Written Ex Parte Presentation: Response Statement,
    filed by Region 20, dated January 30, 1997.

[^22]:     ^?^ *See* Washington DC Metropolitan Area Regional Public
    Safety Plan (Region 20), Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Regional
    Public Safety Plan (Region 28), GEN Docket Nos 90-7 and 89-573, 12
    FCC Rcd 4984 (1997).

[^23]:     ^?^ *See* Written Ex Parte Presentation: Response Statement
    filed by Region 20, dated May 14, 1997 (Region 20 May 1997
    Response).

[^24]:     ^?^ *See* Region 20 May 1997 Response at 3-6, 10-11

[^25]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 12.

[^26]:     ^?^ Region 20 May 1997 Response at 12.

[^27]:     ^?^ *See* Letter from Richard Reynolds, Chair, Region 28, to
    David Horowitz, Chief, Private Wireless Division, at 2, 3, dated
    June 23, 1997.

[^28]:     ^?^ *See* Cumberland Petition at 2.

[^29]:     ^?^ *See* Written Ex Parte Presentation: Response Statement,
    filed by Region 20, dated August 21, 1998 (Region 20 August 1998
    Response).

[^30]:     ^?^ *See* Opposition to Written Ex Parte Presentation:
    Response Statement, filed by Pennsylvania, Gen. Docket Nos. 90-7 and
    89-573, September 3, 1998 (Pennsylvania Opposition) at 2.

[^31]:     ^?^ *See* Written Ex Parte Presentation: Motion to Delete -
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Opposition Filing of 10/3/98, filed by
    Region 20, dated November 3, 1998. In this pleading, Region 20
    argues that the request contained in the Pennsylvania Petition for
    Revocation that the Commission initiate a proceeding to modify or
    revoke the Carroll County licenses \"constitutes a change in the
    legal venue concerning this matter\" and on that ground asks the
    Commission to delete the Pennsylvania Opposition. As no such motion
    is recognized in the Communications Act or the Commission\'s Rules,
    Region 20\'s motion will be dismissed.

[^32]:     ^?^ *See* Reply Comments in Opposition to Petition for
    Revocation/Modification of Licenses, filed by Carroll County, dated
    October 27,1998 (Carroll County Response).

[^33]:     ^?^ Region 28 filed its plan on October 2, 1989. It was
    accepted by the Commission pursuant to delegated authority on
    February 2, 1990. *See* Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Public Safety
    Plan, *Order*, GEN Docket No. 89-573, 5 FCC Rcd 7611 (1990). The
    Region 28 plan was subsequently amended on July 21, 1993. *See*
    Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Public Safety Plan, *Order*, GEN
    Docket No. 89-573, 5 FCC Rcd 82 (1994).

[^34]:     ^?^ *See* Region 28 Plan at Appendix \"F.\" The assignments
    to Delaware were to New Castle County (20 channels), Kent County (14
    channels), and Sussex County (18 channels).

[^35]:     ^?^ *See* Letter from Steve Souder, Chairman, Region 20
    Committee, to Richard Reynolds, Chairman,

    Region 28 Committee, at 1, dated July 31, 1996.

[^36]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 1.

[^37]:     ^?^ *See* Letter from Richard R. Reynolds, Chairman, Region
    28 Committee, to Steve Souder, Chairman, Region 20 Committee, dated
    August 29, 1996, at 1.

[^38]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 1

[^39]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 1.

[^40]:     ^?^ *See* Region 20 Declaratory Ruling Petition at 2.

[^41]:     ^?^ *See* Region 20 Motion for Stay at 3, 4. Attachments
    1(A-K) appended to the Motion for Stay contain photocopies of maps
    showing propagation contours and locations identified by latitude
    and longitude that appear to refer to stations located in New
    Castle, Kent and Sussex Counties in Delaware.

[^42]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 2.

[^43]:     ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.46.

[^44]:     ^?^ *See* para. 10, *supra.*

[^45]:     ^?^ *See* Terry April 1998 letter at 2. We note that neither
    the change in designation of Channel No. 720, nor the inter-regional
    coordination procedures have yet been formalized in a plan amendment
    submitted to the Commission. We are confident that both changes will
    be contained in the next Region 20 plan amendment.

[^46]:     ^?^ *See* Region 20 Motion for Stay at 4, 5.

[^47]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 3.

[^48]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(g). *See* Region 20 Motion for Stay at
    4.

[^49]:     ^?^ *See* letter from Weldon P. Hale, Chairman, Region 20, to
    Thomas E. Gibson, Chair, Region 28 Planning Committee, dated
    September 15, 1989, (Region 20 1989 concurrence) stating \"I have
    reviewed your draft of the Region 28 Plan. I can find no problems or
    conflicts between our two plans as each has been run by the CETINC
    computer program allowing consideration for the edge effect.\" at 1.

[^50]:     ^?^ *Id*. at 5.

[^51]:     ^?^ *See* Region 20 Motion for Stay at 5. *See also* Region
    20 1989 concurrence at 1.