Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

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

**FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER**

**AND**

**FIFTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: January 11, 2001** **Released: January 17, 2001**

**Comment Date:** 30 days after publication in the Federal Register

**Reply Comment Date:** 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

III\. fourth report and order 6

A. Interoperability Channel Licensing Framework 6

1\. Administrative and Technical Oversight 6

a\. State Interoperability Executive Committees 12

b\. Regional Planning Committee Responsibilities 14

c\. Pre-coordination Database 17

d\. Memoranda of Understanding and Sharing Agreements 21

2\. Federal Use of the Interoperability Spectrum 25

3\. End User Licensing 28

B. Trunking on the Interoperability Channels 34

1\. Mandatory Trunking 34

2\. Permissive Trunking 36

3\. Guard Channels 46

C. Channel Designation and Access Priority 54

1\. Channel Designation 54

2\. Display Labeling (Nomenclature) 57

3\. Access Priority 60

4\. Calling Channels 65

D. Technical Standards 69

1\. Narrowband Digital Voice Standards for Interoperability Channels 69

2\. Migration Path to 6.25 kHz Technology 73

a\. 700 MHz Band Interoperability Channels 73

b\. 700 MHz Band General Use Channels 79

3\. Narrowband Low Speed Data Transmission Standard and Channel
Reservation 83

4\. Encryption 91

5\. Receiver Standards and Interference 93

IV\. Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making 95

V. Procedural matters 100

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 100

B. Ex Parte Rules \-- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 101

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 102

D. Comments 103

VI\. Ordering clauses 109

Appendices:

Appendix A - List of Commenters

Appendix B - Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

Appendix C - Final Rules

# INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1.  In this *Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, we adopt various technical and operational rules and
    policies regarding the use of frequencies in the 764-776 MHz and
    794-806 MHz bands (the 700 MHz band) designated for interoperability
    uses.[^1] The actions we take today are based on the recommendations
    that we received from the Public Safety National Coordination
    Committee (NCC), [^2] an advisory committee established in
    accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.[^3] In the
    *Fourth Notice* in this proceeding,[^4] we sought comment on the
    NCC's recommendations and certain other related issues.[^5]

2.  We believe that our decisions today promote and facilitate the
    achievement of nationwide and regional interoperability in the 700
    MHz band.[^6] We further believe that our actions will enable and
    accommodate the expeditious development and deployment of public
    safety equipment in the 700 MHz band without compromising our goal
    of effective and efficient utilization of the spectrum in this band.
    The major decisions and proposals in this *Fourth Report and Order
    and Fifth Notice* are as follows:

-   We determine that the administrative and technical oversight of
    operations on the Interoperability spectrum should be performed at
    the state level. In the event that a state declines to do so, we
    determine that such functions should be performed by the 700 MHz
    band regional planning committee for that state.

-   We make determinations regarding certain operational requirements
    for use of the 700 MHz band spectrum, such as channel designation
    and access priority.

-   While we do not mandate trunking on the Interoperability channels,
    we permit trunked operations on eight of the Interoperability
    channels on a secondary basis under certain circumstances.

-   We adopt Project 25 Phase I, a standard based on 12.5 kHz channels,
    as the voice standard for communications on the 700 MHz band
    Interoperability channels, and decide to revisit the issue of
    migration to a 6.25 kHz technology for these channels at a later
    date. In addition, we adopt the data standard incorporated in the
    Project 25 suite of standards for narrowband data communications on
    the 700 MHz band Interoperability channels.

-   Equipment designed exclusively for voice communications is not
    required to be data-capable. Similarly, equipment designed
    exclusively for data applications is not required to be
    voice-capable.

-   Licensees may employ encryption on any Interoperability channel,
    except the two calling channels, provided that they use the
    encryption standard specified by the Commission. Licensees that
    employ encryption must ensure that it may be disabled by the radio
    user using a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible
    control.

-   We defer disposition on the issue of receiver standards for the 700
    MHz band pending recommendations from the NCC on this matter.

-   In the *Fifth Notice*, we seek specific comment on a migration path
    to 6.25 kHz technology for the 700 MHz band General Use channels.

# BACKGROUND 

3.  In the *First Report and Order* in this proceeding, we adopted
    licensing and service rules for the 700 MHz band, which consists of
    twenty-four megahertz of radio spectrum comprised of TV Channels 63,
    64, 68 and 69.[^7] Specifically, we adopted a band plan for the 700
    MHz band whereby 12.6 MHz of spectrum was designated for General
    Use, 2.6 MHz for Interoperability and 8.8 MHz as Reserve
    Spectrum.[^8] In addition, we found strong support for national
    planning for both the Interoperability spectrum and the General Use
    spectrum in the 700 MHz band.[^9] Accordingly, we chartered the NCC
    as an advisory committee for the purpose of addressing and advising
    us on certain issues regarding the 700 MHz band.[^10]

4.  Among its major responsibilities, the NCC was charged with:
    (1) formulating and submitting for Commission review and approval an
    operational plan to achieve national interoperability that includes
    a shared or priority system among users of the Interoperability
    spectrum, for both day-to-day and emergency operations, and
    recommendations regarding Federal users\' access to the
    Interoperability spectrum; (2) recommending interoperability digital
    modulation, trunking, and receiver standards for Commission review
    and approval; (3) providing voluntary assistance in the development
    of coordinated regional plans; and (4) providing general
    recommendations to the Commission on operational plans of the public
    safety community.[^11] We stated that we intended to provide
    formality to the NCC and to ensure participation by representatives
    of all elements of the public safety community and that the
    Commission would not unnecessarily disturb technical standards
    recommended through this open and neutral process.[^12] We explained
    that the NCC's recommendations regarding technical standards and
    operational requirements would be subject to Commission approval.

5.  On February 25, 2000, the NCC submitted its report to the
    Commission, describing the participants in the NCC's
    decision--making process, the meetings that the NCC conducted, and
    the exchanges of information that occurred in developing the NCC's
    recommendations.[^13] On August 2, 2000, we released the *Fourth
    Notice* seeking comments on the NCC Report and its recommendations.

# fourth report and order

## Interoperability Channel Licensing Framework

### Administrative and Technical Oversight 

6.  *Background.* In the *Third Notice*, we sought comment on how best
    to administer the Interoperability spectrum.[^14] As a general
    matter, we envision that the entity administering the spectrum would
    be responsible for developing an interoperability plan and most
    likely hold the license for the Interoperability spectrum under its
    control.[^15] In this regard, we believe that some of the
    responsibilities involved in administering the Interoperability
    channels would include the creation and oversight of incident
    response protocols, creation of chains of command for incident
    response and reporting. We sought comment on whether the 700 MHz
    band regional planning committees (RPCs), the states, or some other
    entity should administer the Interoperability channels.

7.  In its report, the NCC asserted that most states have statutes or
    regulations governing disaster response protocols.[^16] The NCC also
    noted that most wide-area mutual aid operations are managed and
    controlled by state-level organizations,[^17] and that, in states
    where there are multiple RPCs, or where one RPC covers multiple
    states, RPC administration of Interoperability spectrum may be
    difficult.[^18] For these reasons, the NCC recommended that the
    states and RPCs work together at the state level. Specifically, the
    NCC recommended that the states administer the Interoperability
    channels while oversight of the interoperability infrastructure
    would be the responsibility of the RPCs.[^19] Under this framework,
    the states would plan the use and operation of the Interoperability
    channels, with the RPCs performing technical reviews of the
    applications. If a state were unwilling to administer the channels,
    however, then the NCC recommended that the RPCs would assume the
    states' administration responsibility as well.[^20]

8.  In the *Fourth Notice*, we agreed with the NCC that administration
    of the Interoperability channels should occur at the state
    level.[^21] Thus, we proposed to have the states administer the
    Interoperability channels. Under our proposal, applications for
    Interoperability spectrum would be approved by a state-level agency
    or organization responsible for administering state emergency
    communications. Under this approach, a state may be the licensee for
    all stations operating on the Interoperability channels or it may
    approve other eligible public safety entities to be licensees. We
    also noted that the state could delegate the approval process for
    Interoperability channels to another entity, such as a RPC.[^22]

9.  *Discussion.* Based upon the record in this proceeding, we conclude
    that administration of the Interoperability channels should occur at
    the state level. As noted by the NCC and several commenters,
    state-level organizations are usually in control at large-scale
    events and disasters or multi-agency incidents.[^23] Given the
    central role states currently play in managing emergency
    communications, we believe that the states are best suited for
    administering the Interoperability channels. Further, we believe
    that state-level control will promote safety of life and property
    through seamless, coordinated communications on the Interoperability
    channels.[^24] In this connection, we note that states are usually
    in the best position to coordinate with Federal Government emergency
    agencies.

10. The majority of the commenters who addressed the issue of
    administrative oversight agree that administration of the
    Interoperability channels should be performed at the
    state-level.[^25] Thus, the state, or state-level agency, would hold
    licenses, resolve licensing issues and develop the statewide
    interoperability plan. However, we recognize that certain states may
    be unable or unwilling to perform these administrative
    functions.[^26] In this regard, we note that the City of Mesa,
    Arizona (Mesa) contends that the RPCs should administer the
    Interoperability channels.[^27] Mesa maintains that the RPC should
    administer these channels because it is the most representative
    group for the largest number of users.[^28] However, we are not
    persuaded by this reasoning. While we recognize that the RPCs may
    have certain technical expertise, we nonetheless believe the ability
    of most states to organize and respond to multi-jurisdictional
    incidents and the interests the states have in protecting the lives
    and property of their citizens outweighs the concerns expressed by
    Mesa. Thus, we conclude that the states, in the first instance,
    should be responsible for administration of the Interoperability
    channels.

11. Because some states may not establish a state-level agency for a
    variety of reasons, we establish the following safeguards to ensure
    that a responsible entity maintains responsibility for the
    administration of the Interoperability channels. First, each state
    must decide whether it will administer the Interoperability spectrum
    or defer to the RPC. Regardless which entity the state chooses to
    administer the Interoperability spectrum, it must notify the
    Commission by December 31, 2001 what entity will administer its
    channels. If a state fails to notify the Commission by December 31,
    2001, then effective January 1, 2002, the RPC will administer the
    channels. We believe that the 700 MHz band RPC is the next best
    entity to administer the Interoperability spectrum based on the
    familiarity and expertise it will obtain in the context of planned
    operations for the General Use spectrum. If a state declines to
    administer the Interoperability channels in a situation where more
    than one RPC provides coverage to the state, then the state must
    decide which RPC will administer the Interoperability channels. As
    stated previously, a state's declination may be formal or as a
    result of inaction. In either scenario, however, the end result
    remains the same in that on January 1, 2002, the RPC would begin
    administering the Interoperability channels.

#### State Interoperability Executive Committees

12. *Background.* In the *Fourth Notice,* we discussed the NCC's
    recommendation that each state should form a State Interoperability
    Executive Committee (SIEC) to administer the Interoperability
    channels.[^29] Under this approach, the NCC recommends that entities
    desiring a license to operate on the Interoperability channels would
    enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the relevant
    SIEC.[^30] The SIEC would be charged with enforcement of the MOU's
    terms,[^31] with final authority vested with the Commission. The NCC
    recommended that, among other duties, SIECs develop interoperability
    operational plans. If a SIEC or another state agency elected not to
    oversee development of such plans for a state, then the NCC
    recommended that the RPC perform this function.

13. *Discussion.* Based on the record, we agree with the NCC and the
    majority of the commenters and support the creation of SIECs.[^32]
    The states best know their own capabilities and the best management
    of their resources. Some states already have a mechanism in place
    that could administer the Interoperability channels. In such cases,
    requiring a SIEC would be duplicative and overly burdensome for the
    states. Although we support the idea of creating a SIEC or another
    equally effective state level agency to administer the
    Interoperability channels, we decline to require the formation of
    SIECs. However, we adopt the NCC's recommendation that if a SIEC or
    other state agency elects not to oversee the administration of its
    Interoperability channels, the RPCs will assume this responsibility.
    We believe a voluntary framework that allows each state to determine
    its requirements is the best approach. As previously noted, however,
    the state does not have an unlimited amount of time to determine
    whether they will establish the SIEC, or equivalent state agency.
    Therefore, if the state has not set forth a plan for establishing
    its SIEC, or its equivalent, by December 31, 2001, effective January
    1, 2002, then the RPCs will have the responsibility for
    administering the Interoperability channels.[^33]

#### Regional Planning Committee Responsibilities

14. *Background*. In its report*,* the NCC recommended that (1) the
    oversight of the technical parameters of the interoperability
    infrastructure should reside with the RPCs; (2) the RPCs should urge
    the states to jointly develop interoperability operational
    plans---and failing that---to develop such plans independently;
    and (3) the RPCs should request the states to hold the licenses for
    infrastructure---and failing that---to have the licenses held by the
    next highest level of government.[^34] In the *Fourth Notice,* we
    requested comment on whether the RPCs should review the technical
    parameters of applications for Interoperability channels.[^35] The
    RPCs already have a mechanism in place to review the technical
    parameters of applications in the 700 MHz band spectrum.[^36] We
    also sought comment on whether we should require the RPCs to verify
    that the application is in accordance with the state-approved plan
    for Interoperability spectrum, or if there is no plan, to certify
    that the application has been approved by the appropriate
    state-level agency.[^37] Under this approach, RPCs would be free to
    advocate that the states develop interoperability plans or, with
    state approval, develop a plan on their own. In addition, as
    discussed above, states could hold the licenses for Interoperability
    spectrum or approve other entities to hold licenses.[^38]

15. *Discussion.* Several commenters concur with the NCC that the RPCs
    should exercise some form of review over the technical parameters of
    applications for Interoperability channels.[^39] We believe that
    there are benefits associated with the RPCs being responsible for
    reviewing the technical parameters of applications for
    Interoperability channels and verifying that the applications are in
    accordance with the state-approved interoperability plan. The RPCs
    have a review mechanism in place for the 700 MHz General Use
    spectrum. At times, this expertise puts them in a superior position
    to efficiently review the technical parameters for the
    Interoperability channels. Technical review is necessary to assure
    continuity between separate systems, as well as the proper support
    of the administration of the Interoperability channels in the
    region.[^40] We believe, then, that RPC review can help ensure
    compliance with the interoperability plan developed for the
    states.[^41]

16. If the state agrees to administer the Interoperability channels, it
    will have primary responsibility and authority over these channels,
    with technical review of applications being handled in the context
    of the frequency coordination process. For example, if a state
    decides it will be the sole licensee on the Interoperability
    channels, the state will file the necessary FCC applications for
    each base station, following the normal application process,
    including frequency coordination. If a state's interoperability plan
    authorizes a base station in a particular county with the license to
    be held by that county, the county will file the necessary FCC
    application. Finally, if the state plan contemplates using the
    Interoperability channels only for mobile to mobile communications,
    no applications would be filed with the Commission, because mobile
    units will be blanket licensed. In each of these cases, we encourage
    (but do not require) the state to include the pertinent RPC, with
    the state defining the RPC's role. We believe that setting detailed
    rules on the RPC's role would be inconsistent with our decision to
    give the states administrative responsibility. If the state declines
    to administer the Interoperability channels, the relevant RPC(s)
    will have primary responsibility and authority over these channels.
    Under this scenario, the RPC will develop the interoperability plan,
    review applications for base stations, and provide pre-coordination
    technical review.

#### Pre-coordination Database 

17. *Background*. In the *Fourth Notice*, we sought comment on the NCC's
    recommendation that we require RPCs to use a "pre-coordination
    database" that would be developed for the 700 MHz band.[^42] Under
    the NCC's proposal, the pre-coordination database, which would be
    provided and maintained by the National Law Enforcement and
    Corrections Technology Center and funded by the National Institute
    of Justice, would be a source of real-time data regarding
    interoperability assignments, including pre-application requests.
    The NCC believes that our mandating use of the pre-coordination
    database would ensure the avoidance of co-channel and adjacent
    channel interference.[^43]

18. *Discussion*. While the majority of those commenting on this issue
    support the use of a pre-coordination database,[^44] they disagree
    on whether such use should be required by our Rules. While we agree
    with the commenters that a pre-coordination database has great
    merit, we decline to mandate use of the pre-coordination database at
    this time. We believe that use of a pre-coordination database could
    be deemed desirable not only for the planning purposes of individual
    states but also for the purpose of facilitating smooth and effective
    coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. As a result, we concur
    with the Joint Commenters' contention that such a database could be
    used as an effective planning tool in administering the
    Interoperability spectrum.[^45] We are not persuaded, however, that
    it would be the most prudent course of action to require the use of
    a database that has not yet been developed, completed, and tested.
    We are concerned that our decision could inadvertently delay the
    actual utilization of the Interoperability spectrum.

19. Moreover, we believe the pre-coordination database may have the
    greatest benefit in planning for the General Use channels, given
    that we expect to have more applications filed for the General Use
    channels, and to have more licensees in the General Use channels.
    Indeed, it is not clear to what extent public safety entities will
    build infrastructure for use on the Interoperability channels
    requiring the filing of applications, as opposed to using the
    Interoperability spectrum for mobile-to-mobile communications.

20. We fully support the efforts underway to complete development of a
    pre-coordination database for the 700 MHz band. We believe it is
    appropriate to direct the NCC to revisit the issue of mandating use
    of the pre-coordination database once the database is developed and
    has begun operation. Moreover, we encourage those entities
    administering the Interoperability spectrum to consider using the
    database in their planning and oversight of the spectrum. In
    addition, our decision not to mandate use of the pre-coordination
    database should not be viewed as a statement on the feasibility or
    usefulness of such database. We note that nothing precludes the
    states from voluntarily using the pre-coordination database once it
    is operational. In addition, we ask the NCC to continue to monitor
    the efforts under way to develop the database and report to the
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, once the database is
    complete.

#### Memoranda of Understanding and Sharing Agreements

21. *Background.* In the NCC Report, the NCC Interoperability
    Subcommittee proposed that states use templates for: (i) memoranda
    of understanding between the SIECs and interoperability channel
    applicants; and (ii) sharing agreements whereby a licensee
    authorizes non-licensees, federal government agencies and
    non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate mobiles on the
    licensee's system.[^46] The sharing agreement template was designed
    for the non-licensees, NGOs and federal agencies.[^47]

22. Based on that recommendation, the NCC developed a model Memoranda of
    Understanding (MOU) that would govern the use of the
    Interoperability channels, and proposed that we require an applicant
    and the relevant SIEC, or other entity that is charged with
    administering the Interoperability channels, to sign an MOU before a
    license could be granted. The model MOU requires, *inter alia*,
    licensees to use plain language on the Interoperability channels; to
    monitor the calling channels and coordinate use of the tactical
    channels; to limit secondary trunking on the Interoperability
    channels; and to follow a set of priority levels when using the
    channels.[^48] The NCC noted that the SIECs and RPCs might adapt the
    model MOU to their own needs.[^49] The NCC also has developed a
    model sharing agreement for use of the Interoperability
    channels.[^50] The NCC contemplated that when foreign users (*i.e.*,
    non-licensees, federal government agencies, or NGO) respond to a
    particular incident, sharing of the Interoperability channels would
    be done on the basis of an *ad hoc* "virtual sharing agreement" that
    would begin at the time of the response and end at the conclusion of
    the incident.[^51] Use of the virtual sharing agreements would be
    restricted to licensees eligible for Interoperability channels and
    non-licensees, NGOs and federal agencies that have executed written
    sharing agreements in their home jurisdictions.[^52]

23. We have determined that the states (or their designees) will
    administer the Interoperability spectrum.[^53] In order to receive a
    license to operate a base or control station on Interoperability
    channels, the applicant must secure approval from the state. The
    exact procedures that a state may use to administer its channels
    were not clearly explained by the NCC. We therefore sought comment
    on the NCC's proposals on the issues of MOUs and sharing agreements
    and how these proposals would work in practice.[^54]

24. *Discussion.* The commenters were divided concerning how to
    implement the MOUs and sharing agreements. With such inconsistency
    among the commenters, at this time, we do not believe that a formal
    rule requiring states to use MOUs is appropriate. We are not
    convinced that our Rules should dictate the specific details of this
    approval process. Requiring a formal rule at this juncture could
    only serve to increase the administrative burden placed on the
    states, many of whom may be poised to implement the MOUs and sharing
    agreements or similar documents voluntarily. Thus, we strongly
    encourage states to follow the NCC's proposal and have the relevant
    SIEC, or other entity that is responsible for the administration of
    the Interoperability channels, sign an MOU before a license can be
    granted.

### 2. Federal Use of the Interoperability Spectrum {#federal-use-of-the-interoperability-spectrum .unnumbered}

25. *Background*. In the *Fourth Notice*, we noted the NCC's
    recommendation that our Rules should be sufficiently flexible to
    allow state and local authorities to enter into contractual
    agreements with Federal authorities.[^55] In this connection, the
    NCC correctly observed that Section 2.103(b) of our Rules[^56]
    already offers flexibility in this regard. Specifically, Section
    2.103(b) permits Government entities to use channels in the public
    safety 700 MHz band with non-government entities if the Commission
    finds such use necessary where:

> \(a\) The stations are used for interoperability or part of a
> Government/non-Government shared or joint-use system;
>
> \(b\) The Government entity obtains the approval of the non-Government
> (State/local government) licensee(s) or applicant(s) involved;
>
> \(c\) Government operation is in accordance with the Commission\'s
> Rules governing operation of this band and conforms with any
> conditions agreed upon by the Commission and the \[NTIA\]; and
>
> \(d\) Interoperability, shared or joint-use systems are the subject of
> a mutual agreement between the Government and non-Government entities.
> This section does not preclude other arrangements or agreements as
> permitted under Part 90 of the Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.179,
> 90.421.[^57]

26. In the *Fourth Notice*, we referenced our earlier conclusion that
    there is no impediment to Federal use of the 700 MHz band through
    the use of sharing agreements.[^58] As a result, we tentatively
    concluded that an additional rule was not necessary to facilitate
    Federal sharing of the Interoperability spectrum and sought comment
    on our tentative conclusion.[^59]

27. *Discussion*. Most commenters agreed with our tentative conclusion
    that no further changes to our Rules are necessary in order to
    facilitate or accommodate Federal use of the 700 MHz band
    Interoperability spectrum. Because Section 2.103(b) of our Rules
    already provides this flexibility, we will not amend our Rules
    further. In this regard, we reiterate that Federal stations may be
    authorized in the 700 MHz band provided certain conditions are
    met.[^60] One of these conditions is that the operation of such
    stations, whether for the purposes of interoperability, shared or
    joint-use systems, be the subject of a mutual agreement between the
    Federal entity and the non-Federal licensee.[^61] We nonetheless
    note that our Part 90 rules permit other arrangements or agreements
    whereby a Federal entity can be a user on a system that is owned and
    operated by a non-Federal licensee.

### 3. End User Licensing {#end-user-licensing .unnumbered}

28. *Background.* The NCC recommended in the *Fourth Notice* that we
    license subscriber equipment (mobiles and portables),[^62] asserting
    that such licensing would forestall abuse of the Interoperability
    channels in the 700 MHz public safety band.[^63] In support of its
    recommendation, the NCC stated that we should take measures to guard
    against abuses that allegedly have occurred in the five mutual aid
    channels in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands (800 MHz
    band).[^64] Because the NCC believed that abuses had occurred, we
    sought comment concerning the nature and type of abuses.[^65]

29. Currently, an entity must have a license to operate a base or
    control station on the five 800 MHz band mutual aid channels.[^66]
    Mobile operation, however, is permitted on these channels without an
    individual license by any entity operating in accordance with an
    approved 800 MHz regional plan (*i.e.*, a blanket licensing
    approach).[^67] Thus, we presumed that the NCC was recommending that
    we require entities that want to operate mobile units, including
    portables, on the 700 MHz Interoperability channels to obtain an
    individual license. In the *Fourth Notice,* we stated that we favor
    blanket licensing, as opposed to individual licensing. Therefore, we
    proposed to allow public safety entities to operate mobile units on
    the 700 MHz band Interoperability channels without an individual
    license if (1) such entities are eligible to hold a 700 MHz band
    license, or (2) such entities otherwise are licensed under Part 90
    of our Rules.[^68] We sought comment on these proposals, the NCC's
    recommendation for licensing end users, as well as the issue of
    whether the NCC's suggestions would require amendments to Sections
    90.179 and 90.421 of our Rules.[^69] A number of commenters support
    our proposal for blanket licensing.[^70]

30. *Discussion.* We do not believe that the current record supports the
    NCC recommendation. As explained in the *Fourth Notice*, the primary
    objective in setting aside Interoperability spectrum and requiring
    all 700 MHz equipment to be capable of operating on these channels
    was to ensure that all public safety entities could communicate with
    one another, especially during disaster situations.[^71] Blanket
    licensing all public safety licensees so that they are authorized
    for mobile operation, rather than requiring an individual license,
    better supports this objective. Furthermore, blanket, rather than
    individual, licensing eliminates many administrative burdens
    associated with licensing (*i.e.*, entities would not have to apply
    for a mobile license, and the Commission would not have to process
    the applications).[^72]

31. Several commenters, however, support licensing end users.[^73] The
    Illinois State Police, for example, fear that if subscribers are not
    licensed, control of the channels will be diminished.[^74] In
    addition, the FLEWUG has concerns that unless equipment is licensed
    directly by the Commission, potential problems could arise with
    equipment compatibility and security.[^75] However, FLEWUG maintains
    that blanket licensing will not provide a benefit if licensees
    develop and adhere to appropriate equipment licensing procedures and
    interoperability plans.[^76] In addition, FLEWUG takes issue with
    Florida's statement that subscriber licensing will not improve the
    effectiveness of interoperability and that it will likely hinder,
    rather than promote, acceptance of the interoperability system by
    local agencies.[^77] The PSWN shares this view and disagrees with
    both the NPSTC and of Florida.[^78]

32. The record does not support the conclusion that abuses exist to an
    extent that would justify the administrative burdens of individual
    licensing. The NCC did not identify in its Report any specific
    abuses it believes have occurred in the 800 MHz public safety band.
    Accordingly, we sought comment on the types of abuses that have
    occurred allegedly as a result of not requiring licensing of end
    users.[^79] Few commenters provided responses regarding the types of
    abuse that have resulted from not requiring licensing of end users.
    Florida explained that during the implementation of the NPSPAC
    channels, there was sporadic abuse. No mention of the type or nature
    of abuse was provided. It is our understanding, however, that such
    abuse was resolved through improved understanding and cooperative
    use. Florida also stated that it could not cite any ongoing
    occurrences of abuse that are significant enough to warrant
    licensing of end users.[^80] In addition, the NCC stated that abuses
    are difficult to document because they are generally received and
    addressed verbally.[^81] Thus, the record contains little evidence
    of abuses. Moreover, parties have commented that end user licensing
    would not eliminate all abuses that have occurred.[^82]

33. In response to our request for comment on whether adoption of the
    NCC's suggestion requires amendment to Sections 90.179 and 90.421 of
    our Rules, FLEWUG stated that maintaining individual licensing of
    base and mobile equipment could obviate the need to amend Sections
    90.179 and 90.421.[^83] We believe that the limitation of blanket
    licensing to entities eligible under the two-part standard
    referenced above will help prevent abuses without being overly
    burdensome. Thus, we will make necessary amendments to Sections
    90.179 and 90.421 of our Rules in order to implement this standard.

## Trunking on the Interoperability Channels

### Mandatory Trunking

34. *Background*. In the *Fourth Notice*, we tentatively concurred with
    NCC's recommendation that we not mandate trunking on the thirty-two
    Interoperability channel sets because trunking can occur only when
    communications take place through a system infrastructure.[^84] The
    NCC asserted that most interoperability communications would occur
    at the scene of an incident on a mobile unit-to-unit basis, not
    through an infrastructure.[^85] Accordingly, only a few
    infrastructure interoperability channels are required in most
    cases.[^86] The NCC therefore contended that the cost of configuring
    a small number of infrastructure channels for trunked operations
    would not be justified by the slight increase in spectrum efficiency
    that would result with trunking.

35. *Discussion.* Our review of the record shows that if we mandate
    trunking, then *all* mobile units nationwide must have trunking
    capability. We believe the small benefit gained in spectrum
    efficiency does not outweigh the disadvantages associated with
    mandatory trunking, specifically, the expense of added cost, weight,
    and complexity to the units. We believe the availability, lower
    cost, and simplicity of direct unit-to-unit and conventional
    repeated communications[^87] will result in true interoperability
    between two or more different entities on a larger scale than by
    mandating trunking. We note, too, that trunking requires a
    communications system infrastructure, which generally will not be
    found in rural areas.[^88] Similarly, only large metropolitan areas
    would employ a sufficient number of Interoperability channels to
    justify trunking from a cost standpoint.[^89] The alternative to a
    nationwide database would be to have "foreign" units responding to a
    major incident register at the scene of an incident, thereby
    possibly introducing unacceptable delays. We note that the ability
    of foreign units to respond to emergencies could be compromised if
    those units were required to register with the trunked system before
    they could be used. We concur with the NCC that registration during
    an emergency could cause unacceptable delays.[^90] Thus, we will not
    mandate trunking on the Interoperability channels.

### Permissive Trunking

36. *Background*. The NCC recommended that we allow trunking on a
    limited number of Interoperability channel sets.[^91] The NCC
    maintained that jurisdictions would likely implement trunked
    interoperability systems if they could use the Interoperability
    channels as part of their General Use systems when the channels were
    not needed for interoperability purposes.[^92] At the same time, the
    NCC noted that with such trunking, some jurisdictions' systems might
    fail to release, or "de-trunk," the trunked channels immediately
    when the channels were required for unit-to-unit conventional
    interoperability communications.[^93] Thus, the NCC recommended
    adoption of a number of safeguards. First, to help ensure that
    Interoperability channels were always available when necessary, the
    NCC recommended that we permit trunking only on a secondary basis
    and then only on ten of the thirty-two Interoperability channels
    designated for interoperability use. Trunking would be prohibited on
    the remaining Interoperability channels. Second, the NCC recommended
    that we permit secondary trunking only if a jurisdiction maintains a
    continuous (twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week) dispatch
    facility at which the facility operator releases the
    Interoperability channels for conventional (*i.e.*, non-trunked) use
    on demand, with no discretion on the operator's part.[^94]

37. The NCC further recognized that secondarily trunked channels might
    become so integral to the jurisdiction's trunked system that it
    could become "politically impossible" to release them for
    interoperability communication. To prevent a jurisdiction from
    holding the channels hostage, the NCC recommended a third safeguard
    that would permit systems to use secondary trunking only as
    follows: (1) systems with ten or fewer general use channels could
    use one Interoperability channel for secondary trunking, and (2)
    systems with more than ten general use channel sets could use two
    Interoperability channels for secondary trunking.[^95] Systems with
    twenty or more general use channel sets could request to use more
    than two channel sets for secondary trunking. These requests for
    more than two channels would be decided on a case-by-case basis by
    the entity that administers the Interoperability spectrum.[^96]

38. In the *Fourth Notice*, the Commission asked for comments on the
    NCC's trunking recommendations. In doing so, the Commission
    tentatively concluded that some limited trunking capability had
    merit. The Commission also stated, however, that it was not
    convinced that it should establish rules other than the secondary
    restriction to safeguard conventional use. Further, it asked for
    comment on whether ten channels was the appropriate number of
    channels to designate for secondary trunking.[^97] In addressing the
    issue of trunking Interoperability spectrum, the Commission noted
    that the spectrum immediately adjacent to the Interoperability
    channels is part of the reserve spectrum. Rather than combine two
    12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs, the Commission raised the
    option of combining 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs with
    12.5 kHz reserve channel pairs to form 25 kHz channels. The
    Commission requested comments on this option.[^98] Further, to
    insure that this operation was available, the Commission designated
    spectrum adjacent to the narrowband Interoperability channels as
    temporary guard band channels.[^99]

39. The Joint Commenters disagreed with the NCC proposal regarding
    permitting ten of the Interoperability channels to be trunked on a
    secondary basis, out of concern about the ability to revert to
    conventional use in an emergency situation.[^100] The Joint
    Commenters stated that, should the Commission adopt NCC's proposal
    to allow such trunking, then continuous "24/7" monitoring is
    absolutely essential.[^101]

40. *Discussion*. As noted above, we have decided not to mandate
    trunking. We agree with the NCC and others, however, that allowing
    trunking on a permissive basis has merit. Governmental entities
    largely supported the idea of permissive trunking on a limited
    number of Interoperability channels. For example, Florida, Ohio, and
    California noted the role that local sharing arrangements and the
    regional planning committees have in ensuring the integrity of the
    Interoperability channels for their intended purpose.[^102] Further,
    California stated that it "supports the idea of permitting some of
    the Interoperability channels to be integrated into the trunked
    systems that may be constructed by specific agencies,"[^103] but
    expressed concern about the proposal that " . . . operation must
    immediately be discontinued whenever any channel sets are needed for
    interoperability communications,"[^104] suggesting there are many
    instances in which a particular emergency can be handled without
    requiring the release of a channel that is being used in the trunked
    system.[^105]

41. Orange County and Mesa concurred with the NCC recommendation.[^106]
    Mesa noted that "\[I\]f jurisdictions are going to the expense of
    building emergency capacity into their trunked systems, they must be
    getting something for it. Allowing them secondary use for their
    normal, day-to-day operations gives them something . . . . \[Mesa
    is\] not going to spend \$160,000 per channel for equipment we
    cannot routinely use just so it's there in case of emergency."[^107]
    Buchanan stated that permissive trunking "will aid large
    multi-agency systems like the County of San Bernardino system, where
    most day-to-day interoperability and some large scale emergencies
    are conducted on the trunked system among the different agencies
    involved."[^108] Nokia and Kenwood also supported the NCC
    recommendation, stressing the need for quick clearance of the
    Interoperability channel when it is needed for conventional
    use.[^109]

42. Based on the record in this proceeding, we believe that
    jurisdictions are more likely to implement interoperability
    capability in their trunked infrastructure if they could use some of
    the Interoperability channels pairs as part of their general use
    trunked systems during the majority of the time when the channels
    are not needed for interoperability purposes. Further, we agree with
    the NCC that to obtain the benefits here we need only to allow
    trunking on a few of the Interoperability channels. The majority of
    Interoperability channels should remain available for the most
    likely interoperability communications scenario, conventional
    communications on a unit-to-unit basis. Therefore, we will allow
    trunking on a limited number of Interoperability channels. To ensure
    that these Interoperability channels are always available when
    necessary for conventional interoperability operations, we will
    allow trunking only on a secondary basis as recommended by the NCC.
    Further, as recommended by the NCC, we will put a limit on the
    number of Interoperability channels that can be used in a trunked
    system.

43. With respect to the NCC's recommendation that a jurisdiction must
    maintain continuous monitoring so that the channels can be released
    immediately when needed for interoperability communications, we
    believe it is appropriate to require such monitoring when the
    channels are being used in trunked operation. The majority of the
    commenters support such monitoring.[^110] We believe that the
    entities charged with administering the Interoperability channels
    are in an appropriate position to determine the specific means by
    which they will comply with this monitoring requirement.
    Accordingly, we adopt a rule regarding the monitoring and clearance
    of the Interoperability channels.

44. The final questions that must be answered here are how many channels
    we intend to allow for permissive trunking use, and which ones. As
    noted above, we recently revised the 700 MHz band plan in the *Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*.[^111] Based on the changes made in
    this item, we will permit trunking on eight 12.5 kHz
    Interoperability channels on a secondary basis to conventional
    operations, instead of allowing trunking on ten Interoperability
    channels as recommended by the NCC.[^112] The NCC recommendation of
    ten was based on the previous band plan. Each of the eight channels
    that we are allowing 25 kHz trunked operation on will consist of a
    12.5 kHz Interoperability channel (two contiguous 6.25 kHz channels)
    and one of the adjacent guard band channels (two contiguous 6.25 kHz
    channels).

45. Entities will be able to use one Interoperability 12.5 kHz channel
    pair in the trunked mode for every ten 12.5 kHz general use channels
    trunked. The maximum number of Interoperability channels that can be
    used by any individual licensee is four. Taking this option
    minimizes the impact that trunked operations have on the spectrum
    set aside for interoperability, and ensures that one licensee does
    not prevent other licensees from using these channels. The guard
    band channels will be called secondary trunking channels and can
    only be used in connection with the adjacent Interoperability 12.5
    kHz channel pair in a trunked system. Because the secondary trunking
    channels (guard band channels) are combined with Interoperability
    spectrum, they will be administered by the State. The specific 6.25
    kHz channels that can be combined to form the eight 25 kHz trunked
    channels are as follows: 21, 22, 23 and 24; 61, 62, 63 and 64; 101,
    102, 103 and 104; 141, 142, 143 and 144; 181, 182, 183 and 184; 221,
    222, 223, and 224; 261, 262, 263 and 264; and 301, 302, 303, and
    304.[^113] The remaining guard band channels that were held in
    reserve pending our decision on this matter are allotted to the
    reserve pool.

### Guard Channels

46. *Background.* As noted in the *Fourth Notice,* the NCC asserted that
    we should preserve the possibility of converting specified
    two-channel groups in the Interoperability band to four-channel
    groups to accommodate technologies that require more than a 12.5 kHz
    bandwidth.[^114] The NCC recommended that if we did not adopt
    Com-Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc.'s (Com-Net Ericsson)
    proposal,[^115] that we should preserve as "guard channels" the two
    contiguous 6.25 kHz reserve channels immediately below the ten 12.5
    kHz Interoperability channel sets on which the NCC recommends we
    permit secondary trunking."[^116] This designation would allow users
    to combine the guard channels with certain Interoperability channels
    to form 25 kHz channel blocks. The NCC proposed that the guard
    channels should not be available except for use in conjunction with
    secondary trunking on the Interoperability channels. It also stated
    that guard channels could be combined to form 25 kHz channel blocks
    if we decide at some later date to increase the bandwidth of the
    Interoperability channels to 25 kHz.[^117] The NCC further notes
    that if the Com-Net Ericsson proposal were approved, then guard
    channels would no longer be necessary.[^118]

47. In the *Fourth Notice,* we proposed to prohibit trunking on all but
    ten Interoperability channels because the remaining channels are
    reserved for conventional operations. Thus, we did not anticipate
    that entities would employ technologies requiring 25 kHz
    bandwidths---such as TETRA---on these channels. We also expressed
    concern about, and solicited comment on, the potential adjacent
    channel interference that may result from repositioning the
    Interoperability channels into groups of four contiguous channel
    sets, as proposed by Com-Net Ericsson.[^119] Specifically, we
    requested comments on the allocation of the temporary guard
    channels. We also sought comments on the potential for adjacent
    channel interference if the Interoperability channels were
    reallocated in groups of four, as previously suggested by Com-Net
    Ericsson. Finally, we sought comments on the need to provide 25 kHz
    aggregated blocks on all the Interoperability channels, or only on
    the channels where secondary trunking is permitted.

48. We note that in June 2000, the NCC offered a revised band plan,
    wherein four contiguous 6.25 kHz channels make up each
    Interoperability channel set.[^120] The center channels of each set
    comprise the 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, with 6.25 kHz
    channels on either side serving as guard channels. The four channels
    could be aggregated to form a single 25 kHz channel.[^121]

49. *Discussion*. While we intend to allow permissive trunking on eight
    Interoperability channels, with its concomitant need for four 6.25
    kHz channels, we decline to adopt a band plan that has guard
    channels. Instead, as we noted when discussing permissive trunking,
    we recently revised our 700 MHz band plan.[^122] This plan, while
    not incorporating guard channels *per se*, does provide one of the
    benefits of having guard channels, *i.e.,* the ability to aggregate
    four 6.25 kHz channels (two 6.25 kHz Interoperability channels, plus
    two 6.25 kHz reserve channels) so that secondary trunking may occur.

50. Interestingly, while most commenters generally agreed with NCC's
    recommendation, their reasons spoke not so much of "guarding"
    against adjacent channel interference, as adopting a band plan
    allowing for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels to 25 kHz. For
    example, the Joint Commenters concurred that the band plan should
    provide for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels for 25 kHz
    operation,[^123] while APCO supported NCC's recommendation, as well
    as the NCC's June 2000 band plan. APCO believes that "\[a\]doption
    of that plan will facilitate flexibility to create contiguous
    spectrum blocks, without posing new adjacent channel interference
    problems.[^124] Mesa supported the assignment of four contiguous
    channels for some Interoperability use. It suggested that the two
    middle channels in the four contiguous blocks should be used for the
    12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, to ensure freedom from
    interference. Mesa also suggested that all four channels in this
    contiguous group should be labeled "Interoperability/guard band" so
    their use is assured in interoperability situations regardless of
    future technology.[^125]

51. California, Florida, NYSTEC, and Kenwood all agreed, with minor
    variations, with the NCC proposal to develop a scheme allowing the
    aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels to form a 25 kHz contiguous
    block of spectrum for interoperability operations.[^126] Florida
    supported a 6.25 kHz guard channel be positioned on each side of the
    12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, instead of implementing two
    contiguous 6.25 kHz (*i.e.,* 12.5 kHz) channels above or below the
    12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs. While the total bandwidth
    is the same (25 kHz), Florida argues that there should be less
    adjacent channel interference with guard bands on each side.[^127]
    The FLEWUG asked the Commission to adopt the June 2000 version of
    NCC's band plan.[^128]

52. Others were even more circumspect in their view toward guard
    channels. E.F. Johnson favored leaving the Interoperability channels
    as 32 channel sets of 12.5 kHz, but agreed that the 6.25 kHz guard
    channels on either side of the Interoperability channels should be
    available for aggregation. E.F. Johnson believes that such
    aggregation should be allowed only on the ten defined trunking
    channels.[^129] Nokia, while not commenting explicitly on what band
    plan to adopt, "wishes to emphasize that the alignment of the
    Interoperability channels must be maintained in a technologically
    neutral manner so as not to preclude use of any valid technology in
    the future."[^130] Meanwhile, Com-Net Ericsson, following up on its
    assertion that permissive trunking should not be allowed, argued
    that "\[n\]ot allowing permissible (*sic)* trunking removes the need
    to provide four (4) contiguous channels in the Interoperability
    spectrum. In fact, Com-Net Ericsson no longer sees any need to
    reorganize the Interoperability spectrum such that four 6.25 kHz
    Interoperability channels are contiguous." Com-Net Ericsson further
    argued that the Interoperability spectrum not entertain any channel
    bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz.[^131]

53. We do not discern among the commenters an overriding urgency to
    adopt a band plan that has guard channels; there was little
    discussion of adjacent channel interference. Rather, the commenters
    stated that the band plan we adopt should be configured so that four
    6.25 kHz channels could be aggregated into 25 kHz. As noted
    previously, the band plan in the *Third MO&O* provides for such
    aggregation, and we here reiterate our adoption of that plan.

## Channel Designation and Access Priority

### Channel Designation

54. *Background.* The NCC recommended that we adopt a table of channel
    assignments for the Interoperability channels.[^132] The table would
    assign a particular purpose and name to each Interoperability
    channel set (two 6.25 kHz channels). In the *Fourth Notice*, we
    indicated that certain benefits as well as disadvantages were
    inherent in a table of channel assignments.[^133]

55. *Discussion*. Upon review of the record, we believe the
    disadvantages associated with limiting flexibility of channel use
    outweigh the advantages. Thus, we will not adopt a table of channel
    assignments. We agree, with the majority of commenters who, while
    generally supportive of channel designation, expressed concern about
    codifying the recommendation. Florida, for example, while noting
    that such designation "has considerable value to the effective and
    cooperative use" of mutual aid channels, expressed concern about
    "the degree of specificity and exclusiveness incorporated in the
    NCC-recommend (sic) naming and use designation . . . ."[^134] For
    their part, the Joint Commenters asserted that adoption of a table
    of assignments would be Federal micro-management of a local issue,
    resulting in the deprivation of the states' flexibility to address
    local situations.[^135]

56. We are concerned, too, about the administrative problems inherent in
    adoption of such a table. For example, each time the public safety
    community wished to revise a channel label, we would have to
    initiate a rulemaking proceeding or rule upon a waiver request
    before the table could be amended. We believe this procedure would
    be cumbersome, and can be avoided by simply deferring to the states
    to devise a suitable channel designation scheme. In addition, such a
    "hard and fast" table would limit system flexibility. For example, a
    channel designated for Fire Services could not be used for Police
    Services. Such inflexibility would seem to defeat a main purpose of
    Interoperability, *i.e.,* interagency cooperation. Accordingly, we
    will not adopt a table of channel assignments into our Rules.

### Display Labeling (Nomenclature)

57. *Background.* Generally, transmitters used under Part 90 of our
    Rules must be certificated for use.[^136] In its report, the NCC
    recommended that we require mobile units certificated for use under
    Part 90 of the Rules be capable of displaying Interoperability
    channel labels alphanumerically if the radios are equipped with
    alphanumeric displays.[^137] The NCC also recommended that when a
    mobile radio is operating in the direct (simplex) mode,[^138] the
    letter "D" should be appended to the end of the displayed channel
    label.[^139] The NCC asserted that adoption of these rules would
    allow the establishment of a nationally standardized format to
    communicate on Interoperability channels, as well as to eliminate
    guesswork during a multi-agency response.[^140]

58. *Discussion*. In general, the commenters believed the recommendation
    was appropriate, but differed as to whether we ought to codify it.
    At a minimum, however, all commenters agreed that establishment of a
    minimum national standard that was available to public safety
    entities and equipment manufacturers was necessary. For example, the
    Joint Commenters and Florida offered tepid support of the
    recommendation.[^141] Florida was "hesitant to encourage this degree
    of detail \[*i.e*., requiring alphanumeric channel labeling\] as a
    requirement of the Commission's Rules, particularly considering that
    the provision of alphanumeric display is not itself a requirement
    for equipment certification."[^142] Kenwood rejected the
    recommendation, asserting that it represented too much Federal
    regulation over essentially local matters, and that what NCC
    recommended would not fit, physically, on some of the equipment
    favored by local public safety entities.[^143]

59. We believe the practical and administrative burdens of such a
    requirement outweigh the benefits. It strikes us as excessive
    Federal involvement in the equipment certification process. Thus, we
    will not adopt a rule codifying the NCC's recommendation. Instead,
    we agree with those commenters, like Kenwood, who urge development
    of an industry standardized display labeling scheme for the
    Interoperability channels, including numbering and display schemes
    for conventional and trunked mode operation. An industry standard
    would provide the flexibility that is necessary to accommodate
    changes. Additionally, manufacturers will have an incentive to
    provide radio equipment with user programmable display options,
    capacity and modes satisfying the industry standards of the public
    safety user community."[^144] Given that its membership is drawn
    from a wide range of interests in the public safety community, we
    believe the NCC would be an appropriate body to develop such an
    industry standardized scheme. Accordingly, we direct the NCC to
    consider the development of an industry standardized scheme for
    display labeling.

### Access Priority

60. *Background.* The NCC recommended that we adopt a priority scheme
    for the use of the Interoperability channels.[^145] The NCC
    recommends that users receive priority access only for "mission
    critical" communications, not for administrative or other
    non-mission critical communications.[^146] Under the NCC's scheme, a
    party wishing to use an Interoperability channel in use by another
    party would declare its level of priority. The higher level of
    priority would gain use of the channel; the party with the lower
    priority level would be required to cease its communications
    immediately. Under the NCC's proposal, the highest level of
    priority, Level 1, would be for disaster and extreme emergency
    operations for mutual aid and interagency communications. The next
    level, Level 2, would be for emergency or urgent operations
    involving imminent danger to life or property. Level 3 would be for
    special event control, generally of a preplanned nature (including
    task force operations). Finally, Level 4, the lowest level (and the
    default when no higher priority level has been declared) would be
    for single agency secondary communications.[^147] Conventional use
    of the Interoperability channels always would have precedence over
    secondary trunked use.[^148] Within the same level of priority, the
    NCC recommends giving access to the organization with the wider span
    of control or authority. The NCC states that the proposed priority
    levels are taken from the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee
    (PSWAC) report and represent the consensus opinion of experts in the
    field.[^149]

61. *Discussion.* In the *Fourth Notice*, we expressed our view that,
    while we found merit in a priority scheme, we were not convinced
    that such a scheme should be codified in our Rules. We believed the
    states were in a better position to determine priority use and
    resolve disputes. We also noted that the priority levels the NCC
    recommends differed from the Priority Access Service (PAS) levels we
    adopted to allow commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to
    provide PAS for national and security and emergency preparedness
    (NSEP) personnel.[^150]

62. The majority of commenters agreed with our tentative conclusion in
    the *Fourth Notice*, and sought to preserve the ability of
    localities to devise appropriate priority levels, and not have
    priority levels imposed on them.[^151] These commenters opposed the
    access priority scheme as a rule for a variety of reasons, including
    excessive Federal involvement in an essentially local matter;
    concepts of federalism, and over-regulation.[^152] Yet, some
    commenters sought codification of the NCC's recommendations. NYSTEC,
    for example, opined that some form of priority access scheme must be
    introduced, and that mere recommendation (as opposed to
    codification) would have the unintentional consequence of allowing
    different regions to implement different, perhaps confusing or
    conflicting, priority schemes, which would be detrimental in region
    border areas.[^153] For similar reasons, Baltimore County, Maryland
    urged that rules governing priority access "should be clearly
    defined . . . . To have an operation moved \[from an
    Interoperability channel\] based on priorities that another
    jurisdiction defines as 'higher' will lead to either confusion on
    the first or second incident or the lack of support by all
    jurisdictions within a region to adopt the standards."[^154]

63. As first noted in the *Fourth Notice*,[^155] we continue to believe
    that states, not the Commission, are in the superior position to
    devise, coordinate and operate an appropriate access formula.
    Priority levels are determined as part of a state's plan, and states
    should coordinate frequency use and priority levels to develop a
    seamless Interoperability system at mutual border areas. Thus, the
    states should address these border issues when devising their
    Interoperability plans with the goal of a seamless Interoperability
    system.

64. In addition to our desire to provide the states with flexibility to
    adopt a priority access system, we still observe that the priority
    levels the NCC recommends are different from the PAS levels that we
    recently adopted in rules allowing CMRS providers to provide PAS for
    NSEP personnel. We are not persuaded that codifying new Federal
    access levels would be appropriate at this time. We believe that
    another set of priority levels would serve only to create confusion
    during a large-scale or multi-agency response. Therefore, after
    consideration of the record, we decline to codify an access priority
    scheme for the Interoperability channels. We nonetheless encourage
    states, as they adopt priority access schemes, to consider Federal
    access levels associated with communications during disaster or
    emergency situations.

### Calling Channels

65. *Background.* The NCC recommended, and we agreed, that we should
    designate two Interoperability channels as calling channels to use
    as gateways to other channels.[^156] Public safety entities,
    particularly those from "outside the system," would use calling
    channels to access the public safety communications infrastructure
    in the area where they are located. For example, a fire department
    responding to an incident in another county could use the calling
    channels to find out the appropriate on-scene tactical channel or
    how to contact other public safety entities such as the police. In
    addition, the NCC recommended that we require licensees using the
    associated Interoperability channels to monitor the calling
    channels. In addition to normal calling channel use, the NCC
    recommends using the channels to declare emergencies and to request
    the immediate release of any channels being used for secondary
    trunking.[^157] Finally, the NCC recommends that we forbid the use
    of encryption on calling channels.

66. We agreed that calling channels were a key part of any
    Interoperability system. Accordingly, we proposed to specify two of
    the 700 MHz Interoperability channels as nationwide calling
    channels.[^158] We indicated that these channels would be reserved
    for activities such as coordination of multiple public safety
    entities at the scene of an incident or entities that were outside
    the system, but were requesting help or information.[^159]

67. *Discussion*. After consideration of the comments and the
    overwhelming support for codifying the NCC's recommendation,[^160]
    we reiterate our support for designating two Interoperability
    channels as calling channels. We continue to believe that calling
    channels are integral to a successful Interoperability system.
    Accordingly, we will designate two nationwide calling channels in
    the band plan.[^161] In addition, as the NCC recommended, [^162] we
    prohibit encryption on the calling channels; these channels must be
    open and readily-accessible, so that public safety entities from
    neighboring jurisdictions can communicate easily, and identify on
    which channel they should meet in the event of an emergency.

68. With regard to licensees operating fixed equipment on the
    Interoperability channels to monitor the calling channels, we will
    allow the states to address this issue. We agree with those parties
    commenting on this issue that the details of such monitoring,
    including the specific monitoring scheme for the release of channels
    being used for secondary trunking, should remain at the state
    level.[^163]

## Technical Standards

### Narrowband Digital Voice Standards for Interoperability Channels

69. *Background.* In its report, the NCC indicated that it considered
    three digital voice standards before reaching its recommendation of
    a standard for the Interoperability channels: Project 25 Phase I,
    Project 25 Phase II, and the European Technical Standards Institute
    (ETSI) 392 TETRA[^164] system (TETRA).[^165] After considering these
    different voice standards, the NCC recommended that we adopt Project
    25 Phase I as the digital voice standard for the Interoperability
    channels.[^166] While we sought comment on what digital voice
    standard we should adopt for use on the Interoperability channels,
    we nonetheless tentatively concluded that we should adopt the
    Project 25 Phase I standard at this time.[^167] In seeking comment
    on this issue, we urged parties to be cognizant of the dual goals
    of (1) encouraging the development and usage of the most
    spectrum-efficient technology, and (2) providing public safety
    entity access to the 700 MHz Interoperability channels on a
    near-term basis in a cost-effective manner.[^168]

70. *Discussion.* We, as an initial matter, continue to believe that if
    interoperability is to be achieved on the Interoperability channels,
    a single standard must be selected to ensure equipment
    compatibility.[^169] Based on our review of the record in this
    proceeding, we conclude that the Project 25 Phase I standard should
    be the single narrowband digital voice standard for the
    Interoperability channels at this time, as recommended by the NCC.
    We note that most commenters generally support adoption of the
    Project 25 Phase I standard at this time.[^170] We believe that
    adopting this standard will further our goal of providing public
    safety entities access to the Interoperability channels on a
    near-term basis in a cost-effective manner.[^171] First, we believe
    that of the three standards considered by the NCC, adoption of this
    standard best promotes our goal of fostering competition in the
    manufacture and sale of public safety equipment because it is an
    ANSI standard and the other two currently are not ANSI standards.
    Second, we believe that using the Project 25 Phase I standard[^172]
    would most likely result in public safety entities being able to
    utilize the Interoperability channels on a near-term basis given
    that it has been implemented successfully in other public safety
    bands, such as the 800 MHz public safety frequencies.[^173] Further,
    we believe that this result is particularly important in those areas
    of the country where the 700 MHz band is not encumbered by broadcast
    television operations and, thus, available now.[^174]

71. Thus, at this juncture, we decline to pursue the other alternatives
    discussed in the *Fourth Notice* or comments thereto. Specifically,
    we decline to adopt either the Project 25 Phase II or TETRA
    standards. We recognize that these standards have certain spectrum
    efficiency advantages (such as being consistent with the spirit of
    one voice channel per 6.25 kHz bandwidth). We nonetheless are
    concerned that adopting either of them might have an adverse impact
    on realization of our goal of facilitating expeditious access to the
    Interoperability spectrum and rapid delivery of 700 MHz band public
    safety equipment. In this regard, we note that the Project 25 Phase
    II standard currently is not a common denominator between several
    technologies in development. In addition, the TETRA system is not
    yet an ANSI standard. Also, we reject the suggestion by the Joint
    Commenters and Baltimore County that we immediately permit 12.5 kHz
    analog operations on an interim basis, subject to a specific
    phase-out schedule tied to the development and availability of 6.25
    kHz digital equipment.[^175] In this connection, we note our earlier
    decisions on this issue. In the *First Report and Order* in this
    proceeding, we determined that all 700 MHz band public safety
    equipment, when operating on the General Use and Interoperability
    channels, must employ digital modulation as the primary modulation
    mode.[^176] We further determined that mobile and portable units,
    when operating on the Interoperability channels, could also utilize
    analog modulation as a secondary mode in addition to the primary
    digital mode.[^177] In the *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* in
    this proceeding, we denied petitions for reconsideration on this
    issue because we wanted to ensure from the outset the incorporation
    of spectrally efficient modulation technology in the 700 MHz band
    public safety equipment.[^178] Neither the Joint Commenters nor
    Baltimore County have presented arguments that persuade us to
    revisit or change our earlier decisions on this matter. As a result,
    we decline to adopt their suggestion.

72. In light of our decision to adopt the Project 25 Phase 1 standard,
    we, in effect, have addressed Ericsson's pending request that we
    modify the channel efficiency requirement (data throughput) of 4.8
    kilobits per second (kbps) per 6.25 kHz for the narrowband
    Interoperability channels.[^179] Specifically, Ericsson requests
    that we adopt a requirement that transmitters for voice
    communications in the narrow bandwidth segment of the 700 MHz band
    meet a spectrum efficiency requirement of one voice channel per 6.25
    kHz of channel bandwidth, regardless of the data rate
    supplied.[^180] As we stated in the *Fourth Notice*, Ericsson's
    recommendation was at odds with adopting the Project 25 Phase I
    standard, which satisfies the current channel efficiency requirement
    of 4.8 kbps per 6.25 kHz, but not Ericsson's recommended modified
    channel efficiency requirement.[^181] In addition, we note that a
    significant number of the commenters discussing this issue support
    retaining the current channel efficiency requirement for the
    Interoperability channels.[^182] We further note that in response to
    the *Fourth Notice* Ericsson indicated its support for the adoption
    of the Project 25 Phase 1 standard on the Interoperability
    channels,[^183] thus we believe that, at this juncture, it too
    supports retaining the current channel efficiency standard for the
    narrowband Interoperability channels. For these reasons, we retain
    the efficiency requirement of 4.8 kbps per 6.25 kHz as initially
    adopted in the *First Report and Order*.

### Migration Path to 6.25 kHz Technology

#### 700 MHz Band Interoperability Channels

73. *Background.* In connection with our tentative conclusion to adopt
    the Project 25 Phase I standard as the digital voice standard for
    the Interoperability channels, we tentatively concluded in the
    *Fourth Notice* that we should incorporate a "migration path" to
    6.25 kHz standards for the Interoperability channels.[^184] We
    sought comment on specific issues pertaining to migrating from a
    standard based on 12.5 kHz channels (Project 25 Phase I) to a
    standard based on one voice channel per 6.25 kHz (6.25 kHz
    standard), including, but not limited to, the appropriate length of
    time for such migration, how the migration would be effectuated and
    the costs associated with such migration.[^185]

74. *Discussion*. We find that the majority of commenters addressing
    this issue oppose our adopting a migration path to a 6.25 kHz
    standard for the Interoperability channels at this time. We note,
    however, that the commenters are not in agreement as to whether we
    should revisit the migration at some later date. While we continue
    to believe that there are benefits to adopting a migration path to a
    6.25 kHz standard for the Interoperability channels, we do not
    believe that we should adopt a specific migration path at this time
    based on our review of the record in this proceeding. What follows
    is our analysis of the comments we received on this issue and the
    rationale for our approach regarding this issue. We first address
    why we continue to believe that we should not foreclose the adoption
    of a migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard for the Interoperability
    channels. Next, we discuss our rationale for not adopting a
    migration path for the Interoperability channels at this time.
    Finally, we address when and in accordance with what principles we
    should revisit the issue of adopting such a migration path.

75. As we noted in the *Fourth Notice*, we are pursuing the dual goals
    of (1) providing public safety entities access to the 700 MHz
    Interoperability channels on a near-term basis in a cost-effective
    manner, and (2) encouraging the development and usage of the most
    spectrum-efficient technology.[^186] We continue to believe that
    incorporation of a migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard for the
    Interoperability channels is an effective means by which we can
    foster use of spectrally efficient equipment in the 700 MHz band,
    but we note the substantial obstacles to the implementation of an
    interoperability standard incorporating 6.25 kHz technology. In this
    regard, we disagree with those commenters who oppose a migration
    path for the Interoperability channels on the basis that no spectrum
    efficiency gains would be realized.[^187] We believe, as a general
    matter, that the public safety community should pursue effective,
    efficient and maximized use of the 700 MHz band spectrum in its
    entirety. We nonetheless acknowledge the technical challenges
    associated with such migration as described by certain commenters,
    these challenges include requiring adjustments to public safety
    equipment, changing out of infrastructure and mobile units, and
    requiring logistical modifications necessitated by a narrower
    bandwidth operation.[^188] While overall spectrum efficiency in the
    700 MHz band remains an important long-term goal of this proceeding,
    we also have the more immediate goal of achieving interoperability
    in an expeditious manner. And, as we have learned during the course
    of this proceeding, there are obstacles to achieving both of these
    goals at this time due to the current lack of an interoperability
    standard that incorporates 6.25 kHz technology. The Project 25 Phase
    1 12.5 kHz standard offers the means for public safety users to
    implement competing and otherwise incompatible 6.25 kHz technologies
    in the General Use channels without sacrificing interoperability. We
    believe, however, that a 6.25 kHz standard may be established in the
    future given technological developments currently underway regarding
    6.25 kHz equipment.

76. Based on our review of the comments in this proceeding, however, we
    believe that it would be imprudent for us to establish a specific
    migration plan at this time. In this connection, we note that
    several commenters believe that now is an inopportune time to
    establish a migration plan for the Interoperability channels.[^189]
    These commenters offer various reasons as to why they believe that
    an inquiry into a migration path for the Interoperability channels
    is premature at this time. For example, some of them believe that we
    should not address the migration issue until all or a significant
    portion of the digital television transition out of the 700 MHz band
    is completed.[^190] Others contend that given that the standards for
    6.25 kHz technology in the 700 MHz band are still under development
    and not anticipated to be completed in the near future, we should
    not establish a migration plan until such standards are
    defined.[^191] We find these concerns to be sufficient basis for us
    to conclude not to establish a migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard
    for the Interoperability channels at this time. We believe that this
    approach would be the more prudent course of action at this juncture
    because we do not yet have the benefit of experience in the
    utilization of the Interoperability channels and an approved 6.25
    kHz standard for the 700 MHz band. We further believe that such
    information will allow us to make a more informed decision as to
    what migration path, if any, should be pursued for the
    Interoperability channels.

77. As a result, we will adopt the suggestion by several commenters that
    we revisit this issue at a later time. We note, however, that the
    commenters differ as to when we should revisit this matter. For
    instance, the City of Mesa, Arizona suggests waiting ten years after
    completion of the DTV transition and the issuance of licenses for
    public safety use before opening an inquiry into migrating to 6.25
    kHz technology.[^192] APCO and IACP, on the other hand, suggest
    deferring the issue of migrating to a 6.25 kHz standard until 2006
    or six months following Commission notice that at least fifteen of
    the top twenty metropolitan areas have been cleared of all relevant
    television stations.[^193] Similarly, the NCC recommends that we
    evaluate the status of technological development in the 700 MHz band
    in approximately six years (perhaps co-incident with the potential
    ending of the DTV transition period on December 31, 2006).[^194] It
    believes that waiting this period would permit evaluation of whether
    technological developments have reached a point that selection of an
    "one-voice-per-6.25 kHz" technology is achievable as an
    interoperability standard.[^195] After reviewing these suggestions,
    we believe that the best course of action would be to revisit this
    issue no earlier than 2005. We believe that this timeframe is
    appropriate for several reasons. First, we believe that this is a
    sufficient period of time in which considerable progress on, if not
    completion of, the development of 6.25 kHz standards for the 700 MHz
    band can be made. Second, we believe that this time period would
    allow for the planning and possibly initial construction of some 700
    MHz band public safety systems utilizing the Interoperability
    channels. Third, we anticipate that considerable progress will have
    been made in the transition of broadcast operations out of the 700
    MHz band. With all of these benchmarks being met, we believe that we
    will be better able to examine and evaluate the technological and
    operational implications of a specified migration path.

78. Against this backdrop, however, we want to take measures to ensure
    that our decision to revisit the migration path issue in 2005 does
    not hinder the development and deployment of 700 MHz band public
    safety equipment or the planning and construction of public safety
    systems in this band. Thus, we are adopting certain principles
    underlying our decision to revisit the issue of establishing a
    migration path for the Interoperability channels. Given that we
    envision that some 700 MHz-band public safety systems will be
    planned and/or built prior to our final decision on this issue, we
    conclude that any migration path must, at a minimum, allow such
    stations to continue operating for a certain period of time. We
    believe that it would be reasonable for that period of time to not
    be less than ten years from the commencement of the system's
    operations in order to afford the public safety licensees sufficient
    planning time to modify their systems as necessary. In addition, we
    will require that such migration path include a standard that is
    backward compatible with the Project Phase I standard so that the
    achievement of interoperability will not be compromised while these
    systems remain in operation. We believe that these principles will
    provide a level of certainty to public safety entities so they can
    use the spectrum in the near-term as well as a sufficient incentive
    for equipment manufacturers to develop and deploy 700 MHz band
    equipment in an expeditious manner.

#### 700 MHz Band General Use Channels

79. We state, as an initial matter, that with respect to a migration
    path to 6.25 kHz technology, the *Fourth Notice* sought comment on
    this issue only for the 700 MHz band Interoperability
    channels.[^196] We note, however, that in responding to the *Fourth
    Notice* issue several commenters opined not only on migration path
    issues regarding the Interoperability channels, but also the General
    Use channels.[^197] Given that we did not seek specific comment on
    this issue in the *Fourth Notice*, we do not believe that this
    *Fourth Report and Order* is the proper vehicle to adopt final rules
    regarding how 6.25 kHz technology will be implemented on the General
    Use channels. Thus, we decline to require, at this time, that
    equipment operating on the General Use channels must meet a spectrum
    efficiency standard of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz. We
    nonetheless are committed to ultimately requiring migration to such
    efficiency standard. We, however, believe that we need additional
    information as to the most expeditious and effective manner to
    achieve this result. Consequently, we are issuing a *Fifth Notice*
    to develop a complete and comprehensive record as to how we can best
    effectuate the use of 6.25 kHz technology on the General Use
    channels.

80. We nonetheless take this opportunity to reiterate and expound upon
    the determinations that we have made regarding operations on the 700
    MHz band General Use channels. First, we note that we established a
    standard channel bandwidth of 6.25 kHz for all narrowband segments
    of the 700 MHz band (which includes both General Use and
    Interoperability channels). In this connection, consistent with our
    approach in the Refarming proceeding, we adopted a data rate
    efficiency (channel efficiency standard) of 4.8 kbps for narrowband
    channels. We also indicated that 6.25 kHz channels could be combined
    to create 12.5 kHz and 25 kHz channels, provided that a spectrum use
    efficiency of 4.8 kbps is maintained.[^198] Second, we have not
    required employment of a single standard for equipment operating on
    the General Use channels. We envisioned that this approach would
    allow use of various technologies in the General Use portion of the
    700 MHz band, thus fostering competition in the public safety
    equipment marketplace. We continue to believe that we should pursue
    policies that promote competition in the development of public
    safety equipment for the 700 MHz band.

81. Against this backdrop, we believe that it would be prudent to adopt
    measures that facilitate use of the 700 MHz band spectrum during the
    pendency of the issue raised in the *Fifth Notice*. This approach is
    similar to the actions we are taking in analyzing the migration path
    issue for Interoperability channels. Our underlying purpose in
    adopting the conclusions that follow is to ensure that our actions
    with respect to this issue do not hinder the development and
    deployment of 700 MHz public safety equipment or the planning and
    construction of public safety systems in this band. We recognize
    that raising the issue of a standard for the General Use channels
    now could inadvertently create uncertainty with manufacturers and
    users that could result in a delay in equipment availability in this
    band. Uncertainty could result if equipment manufacturers were
    hesitant to produce, and public safety entities were wary of
    purchasing, 12.5 kHz-capable equipment because they were concerned
    that operation of that equipment could become illegal on short
    notice. In order to allay such concerns, we adopt the following
    framework to accommodate the expeditious development and deployment
    of 700 MHz band equipment on the General Use channels, where
    possible. We conclude that any 12.5 kHz-based systems constructed
    and placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005, will be able to
    continue to purchase and deploy 12.5 kHz equipment for system
    expansion or maintenance, and that such 12.5 kHz systems will not be
    required to cease operations and convert to 6.25kHz technology prior
    to December 31, 2015, at the earliest. In addition, we conclude that
    in any specific migration plan for the General Use channels, the
    earliest date we would require new systems to have 6.25 kHz
    technology would be December 31, 2005. In the context of the *Fifth
    Notice*, we will determine the specific requirements by which this
    conclusion will be implemented.[^199]

82. We believe that this approach will have several public interest
    benefits. First, it will promote both development of equipment and
    utilization of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum in the near-term
    where available. Second, our approach affords public safety entities
    at least a 10-year period over which they could operate a 12.5 kHz
    based system without having to cease operations, provided that such
    systems are placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005. Third,
    public safety entities that implement 700 MHz band systems prior to
    December 31, 2005 will be able to obtain 12.5 kHz equipment to meet
    additional equipment requirements due to increases in personnel,
    replacement of inoperable equipment, or geographic expansion of
    their systems over at least a ten-year period. We note that our
    approach here is intended to set forth the framework upon which we
    can establish a migration path to 6.25 kHz technology in response to
    the *Fifth Notice*. We further note that our approach is not
    intended to preclude or hinder the development and deployment of
    6.25 kHz-based systems prior to December 31, 2005.

### Narrowband Low Speed Data Transmission Standard and Channel Reservation

83. *Background*. In the *Fourth Notice*, and pursuant to the NCC's
    recommendation, we proposed to reserve two Interoperability channels
    for data transmission. The NCC specifically requested that we
    reserve Interoperability channels 21 and 51 with their designation
    changed to DTAC 21 and DTAC 51.[^200] The data standard for these
    two channels must be able to support three specific transmission
    modes.[^201] We asked for comment on this proposal.

84. Additionally, we sought comment on the proposal that subscriber
    units designed for data-only applications not be required to have
    voice capability, and that subscriber units designed for voice-only
    applications not be required to have data transmission capability.
    Finally, we noted the NCC's recommendation that we adopt the data
    interoperability standard that is incorporated in the Project 25
    suite of standards and is defined by one ANSI standard and four
    TIA/EIA standards.[^202] This data interoperability standard
    requires use of a 12.5 kHz channel - the same channel size
    recommended by the NCC for voice transmission. The NCC asserts that
    using the same size for voice transmission will reduce the
    complexity and cost of equipment. It notes that the gross data rate
    meets our spectrum efficiency requirement of 9600 bps for a 12.5 kHz
    channel.[^203] We solicited comments on the appropriate technical
    standard for narrowband data transmissions on Interoperability
    channels. We urged parties to consider the matter of spectrum
    efficiency and any changes necessary in our rules.

85. *Discussion.* We agree with the NCC that we should reserve two
    Interoperability channels for data only communications.[^204]
    Generally, the commenters support reservation of two
    Interoperability channels for data transmission.[^205] Given the
    high demand for voice communications in the 700 MHz band, we agree
    with FLEWUG that reservation of more than two channels is not
    prudent at this time.[^206] However, Com-Net Ericsson believes it is
    impossible to render an opinion on the adequacy of reserving two
    Interoperability channels for data without knowing the type(s) and
    volume of data to be transmitted.[^207] We do not believe it is
    necessary to specify the type(s) of data to be used on the
    narrowband channels, as we already require 9600 bps for a 12.5 kHz
    channel. Consequently, any data applications that satisfy this
    requirement may be transmitted on these channels. We do not wish to
    inadvertently prohibit the use of data types that through future
    technological improvements will satisfy our requirements for these
    channels. Moreover, we agree with APCO that, in the instant case,
    the narrow bandwidth data will be required to support only those
    applications having a low data throughput requirement.[^208]
    Additionally, other applications requiring higher data throughputs
    will be implemented on channels having wider bandwidth.[^209] By
    establishing a standard for the transport on the narrow bandwidth
    channels, it then becomes possible to allocate specific data
    applications to either the narrow bandwidth channels or the wide
    bandwidth channels. Therefore, we adopt and identify two
    Interoperability channels for data transmission and will amend the
    band plan to identify these two channels for nationwide
    Interoperability.

86. In addition to reserving two Interoperability channels for data
    transmission, we adopt the data interoperability standard that is
    incorporated in the Project 25 suite of standards, as it is defined
    by one ANSI standard and four TIA/EIA standards. Most parties
    believe that adoption of the Project 25 suite for data
    interoperability is appropriate.[^210] Com-Net Ericsson, however,
    does not believe there is any basis for supporting the Project 25
    data standard as the narrowband data interoperability
    standard.[^211] Further, Com-Net Ericsson strongly recommends that
    we reject the NCC recommendation.[^212] Com-Net Ericsson argues that
    selection of the Project 25 standard is premature because the NCC
    has left too many variables unanswered.[^213]

87. Dataradio also opposes the recommendation, asserting that the
    Project 25 standard does not address issues involved in achieving
    data interoperability, nor does it meet the forward-looking needs of
    data users, or standardize the application layer to properly
    communicate with data. We note that Project 25 Phase I is both for
    voice and low speed data applications. In other words, it supports
    both voice and data on the Interoperability channels. Dataradio
    believes that the standard does not meet the Commission's mandate of
    developing data standards that will facilitate spectrum efficient
    technological advancement and promote competition among
    manufacturers, and has not been thoroughly discussed and considered
    by the NCC participants.[^214] APCO maintains that the NCC conducted
    open proceedings and provided ample opportunity for the presentation
    and discussion of alternative standards.

88. In its response, APCO notes that the NCC had indeed examined the
    type of data transmission that would be necessary for
    interoperability purposes.[^215] It notes the "user needs statement
    of Requirements for low speed data standards on interoperability
    channels" is contained in Appendix H of the NCC Recommendations
    submitted on February 25, 2000.[^216] Further, APCO notes while it
    is appropriate for the Commission to adopt an interoperability
    standard applicable to the "transport layer" of a data
    communications system, the establishment of standards application to
    the "application layer" are not a necessary prerequisite for
    interoperability standards.[^217] APCO also notes that the transport
    layer certainly needs to support the requirements imposed upon it by
    the various applications; however, it also by necessity places
    limits on the types of applications that may be implemented.[^218]

89. In its February Recommendation submitted to the Commission, the NCC
    had examined the type of data transmission that would be necessary
    for interoperability purposes. This issue is summarized in Appendix
    H of the Recommendations. Defining the type of data applications to
    be supported by the application layer as Dataradio and Ericsson
    suggest is not necessary at this point because doing so before field
    experience on mobile data in interoperability operations environment
    would limit the type of applications that may be implemented. The
    recommendations, which are met by the Project 25 Phase I Standard,
    will support any type of application intended for low speed data
    channels.[^219] These include short status messages; fill in blank
    forms, and short emails. Although the Project 25 Phase I may not
    meet the speed desired by Dataradio, it meets our spectrum
    efficiency requirement of 9.6 kbps for a 12.5 kHz wide channel.

90. Finally, we adopt our proposal that end user equipment designed for
    data is not required to be voice-capable. Further, end user
    equipment designed for voice is not required to be data capable. The
    commenters also concur, by and large, with this view.[^220] If an
    end user unit designed for data is also voice capable, it must meet
    the Project 25 Phase I standard.

### Encryption 

91. *Background.* In the *Fourth Notice*, we noted that the NCC
    recommends we require a standard encryption algorithm if we decide
    to permit licensees to use encryption on the 700 MHz public safety
    Interoperability channels.[^221] We agreed with the NCC that the use
    of encryption by public safety entities was increasing.[^222] We
    supported encryption on the band except on calling channels.[^223]
    We requested comments on the NCC's recommendations that if
    encryption is permitted on the Interoperability channels, a single
    standard should be adopted.[^224]

92. *Discussion*. We continue to believe that there is an increasing use
    of encryption by the public safety entities and therefore it should
    not be prohibited on Interoperability spectrum. However, we are
    concerned that the use of encryption could be detrimental to
    interoperability communications. Therefore, we will permit the use
    of encryption on interoperability spectrum, except for the two
    calling channels, only if the encryption function may be disabled by
    the radio user using a readily accessible switch or other readily
    accessible control.[^225] We agree with the commenters that if we
    allow encryption on Interoperability channels then we should have an
    encryption standard. We adopt TIA/EIA IS 102 AAAAA Project 25 DES
    encryption protocol as recommended by the Project 25 Steering
    Committee and the NCC as the encryption standard.[^226] In this
    regard, we note that no party suggested a different standard.

### Receiver Standards and Interference

93. *Background.* In the *First Report and Order*, we observed that we
    traditionally have adopted rules only as necessary to limit
    interference between communication systems and have not specified
    performance or quality standards for receivers. In the *Fourth
    Notice*, we sought comment on whether we should require equipment
    manufacturers to label equipment to indicate the interference level
    that a customer might expect with a given receiver.[^227] For
    interoperability, we charged the NCC with recommending the
    parameters (*e.g.,* sensitivity, selectivity, dynamic range, and
    durability characteristics) to include the receiver standards. The
    NCC has included this matter in its second year work plan.[^228] We
    also sought comment on whether the interests of public safety radio
    and commercial licensees in the 700 MHz would be served by
    establishing interference standards for receivers operating on
    public safety frequencies.[^229] We requested comments on the impact
    of CMRS on the 700 MHz public safety band.[^230] We also sought
    comment on whether public safety operations in the 700 MHz band
    might be less susceptible to interference than public safety
    operations in the 800 MHz band due to the various differences in
    channelization plans and the use of guard channels in the 700 MHz
    band.[^231]

94. *Discussion*. As noted above, we have charged the NCC with
    recommending the parameters (*e.g.,* sensitivity, selectivity,
    dynamic range, and durability characteristics) to include possible
    receiver standards for Interoperability channels. The NCC has
    included this matter in its second year work plan. In fact, in its
    comments, the NCC states that it is working with TIA TR-8 committee
    to develop appropriate receiver performance standards.[^232]
    Accordingly, we will not consider adoption of specific receiver
    standards at this time, pending receipt of NCC's report on this
    issue. Upon receiving the NCC report, we shall consider the issue of
    adopting receiver performance standards, including the issue of our
    statutory authority to adopt such standards.

# Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making

95. *Background.* As noted in the *Fourth Report and Order*, while we
    received comments regarding migration to a 6.25 kHz standard on the
    700 MHz band General Use channels, we declined to adopt final rules
    on this issue until after we sought specific comment thereon. In
    this *Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we seek comment on the
    proposals presented by certain commenters regarding implementing a
    6.25 kHz standard for the General Use channels. By way of
    background, the commenters, who raised this issue in the *Fourth
    Notice*, are generally divided into two groups. The first group,
    which includes Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and NATF, is against any
    migration on the General Use channels at all. They urge adoption of
    the concept of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz. The second group,
    which includes APCO, IACP, Motorola, FLEWUG, PSWN, and the Project
    25 Steering Committee, set forth a migration path consisting of five
    stages and spanning a total of twenty-one years. What follows is a
    summary of the major contentions of each group's position.

96. Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and NATF recommend adoption of a 6.25 kHz
    efficiency standard, *i.e.,* one voice path per 6.25 kHz of occupied
    bandwidth, for voice operations on the General Use channels.[^233]
    Com-Net Ericsson, for example, asserts that compliant technologies
    are available today, and further technological advances are
    anticipated between now and when 700 MHz-band public safety
    equipment becomes available.[^234] Nokia and NATF recommend that in
    2005, we evaluate equipment deployed in the 700 MHz band and the
    progress of the technical development and, based on this
    information, consider a formal migration path to 6.25 kHz
    interoperability.[^235] Nokia contends that equipment utilizing 6.25
    kHz efficiency is already fully developed and available for general
    use from a wide array of manufacturers, including leading U.S
    manufacturers.[^236] Nokia also believes that adopting this
    efficiency standard will encourage equipment manufacturers to devote
    their research and development resources to 6.25 kHz conventional
    technology, thus, accelerating realization of a 6.25 kHz standard
    for the Interoperability channels.[^237] It further believes that
    adopting a 6.25 kHz efficiency standard for General Use now will
    encourage needed competition in the supply of equipment for this
    band.[^238]

97. Under the five-step, twenty-one year plan put forth by APCO and
    IACP,[^239] Step one is immediate adoption of Project 25 Phase I as
    the Interoperability standard. Step two requires that as of December
    31, 2006, or within six months following Commission notice that at
    least fifteen of the Top twenty metropolitan areas have been cleared
    of relevant television stations, whichever is later, all newly
    type-accepted radios for use in the band must have the capability to
    provide one voice channel per 6.25 kHz and must still meet the
    Project 25 Phase I standard for the Interoperability channels.
    Within ten years after the date established in Step two, all General
    Use operations must be at 6.25 kHz in the Top fifty metropolitan
    areas for Step three. Step four requires that all General Use
    operations must be at 6.25 kHz by fifteen years after the date
    established in Step two. Finally, as of the date established in Step
    two, the Commission must re-examine technological and marketplace
    developments and determine whether it is possible to develop a
    migration path for the subsequent transition.

98. *Discussion*. We seek comment on the proper approach for achieving a
    6.25 kHz standard for the General Use channels. As noted above,
    however,[^240] we have concluded that, in order to facilitate the
    prompt use of the 700 MHz Band spectrum, we will not require new
    systems to use 6.25 kHz technology before December 31, 2005. We have
    also concluded that any 12.5 kHz-based systems constructed and
    placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005, will be able to
    continue to purchase and deploy 12.5 kHz equipment for system
    expansion or maintenance, and that such 12.5 kHz systems will not be
    required to cease operations and convert to 6.25kHz technology prior
    to December 31, 2015, at the earliest.[^241] While nothing in the
    Commission's Rules would prohibit the use of 6.25 kHz technology
    now, we are concerned that mandating the use of 6.25 kHz technology
    would only serve to delay the use of the 700 MHz Band spectrum.
    Commenters should address the advantages and disadvantages
    associated with various approaches that are consistent with the
    "safe harbor" we have adopted today. We note our concern that the
    five-step, twenty-one year plan is too long of a migration path
    considering the demand for public safety spectrum. We nonetheless
    note that there are several factors that could impact the length of
    the migration, for example, the duration of broadcaster's transition
    from analog to digital television. Thus, we ask commenters to
    identify such factors and the potential impact that they would have
    on the duration of a migration period and to discuss what would be
    an appropriate length for migration and the reasoning therefor.

99. In this vein, we seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
    different migration paths for rural and urban markets, given their
    different needs. In establishing a migration path for the broadcast
    auxiliary service (BAS) band, we adopted a two-phase plan based on
    the special needs of various localities, from large cities to rural
    areas.[^242] Given the differing needs of public safety entities in
    rural and urban areas, as well as possible differences in timing
    when the 700 MHz public safety spectrum may be available to those
    entities, it may be appropriate to establish multiple migration
    paths for different types of entities. We encourage commenters that
    would urge the Commission to adopt multiple migration paths to offer
    specific proposals.

# Procedural matters 

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

100. Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
     with respect to the *Fourth Report and Order* and an Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the *Fifth*
     Notice. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,[^243] the
     Commission has prepared the analysis of the possible impact on
     small entities of the rules and proposed rules set forth in this
     document. 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 *Fifth Notice*, but they must have a
     separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
     IRFA. The Commission\'s Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
     Information Center, will send a copy of this *Fourth Report and
     Order* and *Fifth Notice*, including the FRFA and IRFA, to the
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
     accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

## Ex Parte Rules \-- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

101. The *Fifth Notice* is a permit-but-disclose 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.[^244]

## Paperwork Reduction Act

102. This Report and Order contains either a proposed or modified
     information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce
     paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
     Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on
     the information collections contained in this *Report and Order,*
     as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
     104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as
     other comments on this *Report and Order*; OMB comments are due 60
     days from date of publication of this *Report and Order* in the
     Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
     collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
     of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
     information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
     Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
     utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
     minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
     respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques
     or other forms of information technology. Written comments by the
     public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are
     due within 60 days. Written comments must be submitted by the
     Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or
     modified information collections on or before 60 days after date of
     publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments
     with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
     collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley,
     Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street,
     S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov
     and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th
     Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
     Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

## Comments

103. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s
     rules,[^245] interested parties may file comments on or before 30
     days from date of publication in the Federal Register and reply
     comments on or before 45 days from date of publication in the
     Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
     Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
     http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by filing paper
     copies.[^246]

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

105. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making
     number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must
     submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rule
     making number. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s
     Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
     Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-A325,
     Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
     available for public inspection during regular business hours in
     the FCC Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission,
     Room TW-A306, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

106. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
     comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch
     diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Microsoft Word
     or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a
     cover letter and should be submitted in \"read only\" mode. The
     diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter\'s name,
     proceeding (including the lead docket number, type of pleading
     (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the
     electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the
     following phrase \"Disk Copy - Not an Original.\" Each diskette
     should contain only party\'s pleading, preferably in a single
     electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies
     to the Commission\'s copy contractor, International Transcription
     Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20037.

107. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette
     and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
     contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or
     via e-mail to mcontee \@fcc.gov. This *Fifth Notice* can also be
     downloaded at http:// www.fcc.gov/wtb/orders/fcc0110.doc.

108. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Michael
     Connelly 202/418-0132, mconnell@fcc.gov, Wireless
     Telecommunications Bureau.

# Ordering clauses 

109. Authority for the issuance of this *Fourth Report and Order* and
     *Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule* *Making* is contained in Sections
     4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e),
     332(a), and 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g),
     303(r), 307(e), 332(a), 332(c).

110. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules,
     47 C.F.R. Part 90 IS AMENDED as specified in Appendix C.

111. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this *Fourth Report and Order* will be
     effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register.

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Parties Submitting Comments and Reply Comments in WT Docket 96-86**

The following list contains the names of parties filing comments and
reply comments with regard to the recommendations made by the NCC, as
put forth in the *Fourth Notice*.

Comments

AirNet Communications Corporation (AirNet)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

Baltimore County, Maryland (Baltimore County)

David Buchanan (Buchanan)

City of College Station, Texas (College Station)

City of Mesa, Arizona (Mesa)

Com-Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. (Com-Net Ericsson)

County of Orange, California (Orange County)

Dataradio Corporation (Dataradio)

E.F. Johnson Company (E.F. Johnson)

Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)

Joint Commenters (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Forestry Conservation Communications
Association, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International
Municipal Signal Association, and the National Association of State
Foresters)

Ronald J. Gillory, Sr. (Gillory)

Illinois State Police

Institute for Technology Development, Inc. (ITD)

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

Kenwood Communications Corporation (Kenwood)

Major Cities Police Chief's Association

Major County Sheriffs' Association

Motorola Inc. (Motorola)

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)

New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)

Nokia, Inc. (Nokia)

North American TETRA Forum (TETRA)

Project 25 Steering Committee

Project 25 Technology Interest Group

Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC)

Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)

State of California (California)

State of Florida (Florida)

State of Ohio (Ohio)

**Reply Comments**

APCO

City of Houston Fire Department

City of Houston Police Department

City of Houston, Texas (Houston)

Com-Net Ericsson

Dataradio

FLEWUG

IACP

Motorola

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Mississippi
Chapter

Gary W. Neal

Nokia

Project 25 Steering Committee

Project 25 Technology Interest Group

PSWN

California

**APPENDIX B -- REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSES**

**I.** **[Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}** (for
*Fourth Report and Order)*

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^247] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the *Fourth
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fourth Notice)*[^248] of this
proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the IRFA.
The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
RFA.[^249]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the *Fourth Report and Order*:**

Our objective is to promote the early and efficient use of public safety
spectrum in the frequencies at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz (the 700 MHz
band). Specifically, this action will: promote spectrum efficiency
through allowing secondary trunking on the Interoperability channels;
assist in delineating the roles of Regional Planning Committees (RPCs)
and establishment of State Interoperability Executive Committees
(SIECs); promote efficient administration of the Interoperability
channels by state or local entities; designate calling channels; permit
encryption on the Interoperability channels; and establish digital voice
standards and efficiency standards for the Interoperability channels,
and digital data standards and channel reservation for the
Interoperability channels.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA:**

No comments were submitted in response to the IRFA. Some comments,
however, raised issues that may be of particular concern to small
entities, including Interoperability standards, migration, and
administration. Other issues include equipment display characteristics.
The Commission carefully considered all comments in reaching the
decision set forth herein, and each decision consider any impact on
small entities.

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

113. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
     feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
     affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^250] The RFA generally
     defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
     "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
     jurisdiction."[^251] In addition, the term "small business" has the
     same meaning as "small business concern" under the Small Business
     Act.[^252] A small business concern is one which : (1) is
     independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
     of operations; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
     established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^253] A
     small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise
     which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in
     its field.[^254] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately
     275,801 small organizations.[^255] \"Small governmental
     jurisdiction\" generally means \"governments of cities, counties,
     towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
     with a population of less than 50,000.\"[^256] As of 1992, there
     were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
     States.[^257] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
     towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have populations of
     fewer than 50,000.[^258] The Census Bureau estimates that this
     ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
     Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600
     (ninety-one percent) are small entities.

     *Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees.* As a general matter, Public
     Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government,
     forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical
     services.[^259] Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety
     services is governed by 47 U.S.C. § 337. Non-Federal governmental
     entities as well as private businesses are licensees for these
     services. All governmental entities with populations of less than
     50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.[^260]

     *Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers*. We anticipate that
     at least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our
     decisions in this proceeding. According to the SBA\'s regulations,
     a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment
     manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify
     as a small business concern.[^261] Census Bureau data indicate that
     there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television
     broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these
     firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be
     classified as small entities.[^262] We do not have information that
     indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers
     associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. However,
     Motorola and Ericsson, two of the six manufacturers, are major,
     nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and, thus, we conclude
     that these manufacturers would *not* qualify as small businesses.

     *Television Stations*. This proceeding will affect full service TV
     station licensees (Channels 60-69), TV translator facilities, and
     low power TV (LPTV) stations. The SBA defines a TV broadcasting
     station that has no more than \$10.5 million in annual receipts as
     a small business.[^263] TV broadcasting stations consist of
     establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by
     TV to the public, except cable and other pay TV services.[^264]
     Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,
     and other TV stations.[^265] Also included are establishments
     primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped TV
     program materials.[^266] Separate establishments primarily engaged
     in producing taped TV program materials are classified under
     another SIC number.[^267]

     There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992.[^268]
     That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the
     approximately 1,551 operating TV broadcasting stations in the
     Nation as of February 28, 1997.[^269] For 1992[^270] the number of
     TV stations that produced less than \$10.0 million in revenue was
     1,155 establishments, or approximately 77 percent of the 1,509
     establishments.[^271] There are currently 95 full service analog TV
     stations, either operating or with approved construction permits on
     channels 60‑69.[^272] In the *DTV Proceeding*, we adopted a DTV
     Table that provides only 15 allotments for DTV stations on
     channels 60‑69 in the continental United States.[^273] There are
     seven DTV allotments in channels 60‑69 outside the continental
     United States.[^274] Thus, the rules will affect approximately 117
     TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered
     small businesses.[^275] These estimates may overstate the number of
     small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do
     not include or aggregate revenues from non-TV affiliated companies.
     We recognize that the rules may also impact minority-owned and
     women-owned stations, some of which may be small entities. In 1995,
     minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0 percent) of 1,221
     commercial TV stations in the United States.[^276] According to the
     U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27
     (1.9 percent) of 1,342 commercial and non-commercial TV stations in
     the United States.[^277]

     There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV
     stations.[^278] Approximately 1,309 low power TV and TV translator
     stations are on channels 60‑69[^279] which could be affected by
     policies in this proceeding. The Commission does not collect
     financial information of any broadcast facility and the Department
     of Commerce does not collect financial information on these
     broadcast facilities. We will assume for present purposes, however,
     that most of these broadcast facilities, including LPTV stations,
     could be classified as small businesses. As indicated earlier,
     approximately 77 percent of TV stations are designated under this
     analysis as potentially small businesses. Given this, LPTV and TV
     translator stations would not likely have revenues that exceed the
     SBA maximum to be designated as small businesses.

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

The *Fourth Report and* Order adopts rules that will entail reporting,
recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation, including the
requirement that a state notify the Commission regarding the state's
intentions regarding administration of the Interoperability channels.
The Commission believes, however, that these requirements are the
minimum needed. For example, the *Fourth Report and Order* requires
that, while public safety entities are not required to enter into a
formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with a state regarding use of
Interoperability channels, applicants must secure approval from the
state. To minimize any Federally-imposed paperwork burden, we have left
the procedure for such an agreement up to the state. Because we are
requiring monitoring of the Interoperability channels, there is the
possibility that additional resources may be required. This type of
monitoring may be routine for some, while others may require additional
resources. In any event, we believe the impact will not be substantial.

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

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

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

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

Under the regional planning process, frequency coordination is
competitive. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private
organization recommends to the Commission the most appropriate
frequencies for private land mobile radio service applicants.[^280]
Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by
eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of
the applications and resolving potential interference problems at the
source. We continue to believe that the encouragement of competition
among coordinators promotes cost-based pricing of coordination services
and provides incentives for enhancing service quality. Therefore, we
will continue to allow any of the certified public safety coordinators
to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band.

Recognizing the budgetary constraints that public safety entities face
as a matter of course, we have adopted rules that encourage broad-based
efforts, such as projects on the state and regional level, to coordinate
and consolidate operations that are critical to meeting the needs of
public safety with cost effective, spectrally-efficient radio systems.
For example, we have adopted permissive trunking on certain public
safety channels in the 700 MHz band. Trunked systems provide service to
many governmental entities in a specific geographic area and offer a
higher degree of efficiency than some smaller, non-trunked systems. A
difficulty in establishing these types of shared systems is that they
require individual agencies to surrender some autonomy in return for the
efficiencies and better coverage of a larger system. In addition, the
funding required to develop the infrastructure necessary to support some
of the newer technologies is often too great to permit small public
safety agencies to participate in new, sophisticated, spectrum
efficient, wireless radio systems. These same agencies, however, might
be able to participate in a county-wide or state-wide system. For these,
and other, reasons, we encourage the use of shared systems in the public
safety community.[^281]

**[Report to Congress]{.underline}**: The Commission will send a copy of
the *Fourth Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be
sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
In addition, the commission will send a copy of the *Fourth Report and
Order*, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. In addition, the *Fourth Report and
Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

**II. [Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ]{.underline}**(for
*Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*)

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^282] the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in this *Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (Fifth Notice)*. Written public comments are requested regarding
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Fifth Notice* provided in
paragraph 103. The Commission will send a copy of the *Fifth Notice*,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.[^283] In addition, the *Fifth Notice* and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^284]

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

In the *Fifth Notice*, we continue our evaluation of rules applicable to
the use of public safety spectrum in the frequencies at 764-776 MHz and
794-806 MHz (the 700 MHz band). Specifically, the *Fifth Notice* seeks
comment on a "migration path" to a more spectrum-efficient technology
standard for public safety general use frequencies in the 700 MHz band.
We seek comment on only the issue of what path the Commission should
adopt. Adopting such a path should provide for the prompt entry of
public safety entities onto the 700 MHz band when that band is cleared
of its present occupants.

B. Legal Basis:

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

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^285] The RFA defines the
term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small business concern" under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^286] A small business concern is
one that: (1) is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration.[^287] Nationwide, as
of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^288]
"Small governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."[^289] As of
1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
States.[^290] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns;
of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than
50,000.[^291] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (ninety-one
percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted.

*Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees*. As a general matter, Public Safety
Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry
conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.[^292]
Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by
47 U.S.C. § 337. Non-Federal governmental entities, as well as private
businesses, are licensees for these services. As indicated above, all
governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within
the definition of a small entity.[^293] Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition of small businesses directed specifically
toward public service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of
small business is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small business
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^294]
According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms
from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or
more employees.[^295] Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were
public safety licensees, nearly all would be small businesses under the
SBA\'s definition, if independently owned and operated.

*Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers*. We anticipate that at
least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our
decisions in this proceeding. According to the Small Business
Administration's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and
communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small business concern.[^296] Census Bureau
data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and
television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of
these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be
classified as small entities.[^297] We do not have information that
indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated
with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. Motorola and Ericsson,
however, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and thus,
we conclude that they would not qualify as small businesses.

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

The *Fifth Notice* does not propose a rule that will entail reporting,
recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation.

**E. Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Economic Impact on Small
Entities:**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C.
§603. In this proceeding, we have several options for migrating from
12.5 kHz technology to 6.25 kHz technology. We seek to determine the
most efficient, cost effective, and quickest migration path for the
public safety community.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed
Rules:

None.

**APPENDIX C**

FINAL RULES

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

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

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

2\. Section 90.179 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.

\*\*\*\*\*

> \(j\) On the Interoperability Channels in the 700 MHz Public Safety
> Band ([See]{.underline} 90.531(b)(1)), hand-held and vehicular units
> operated by any licensee holding a license in the 700 Public Safety
> Band or by any licensee for any public safety frequency pursuant to
> Part 90 of the Commission's rules may communicate with or through land
> stations without further authorization and without a sharing
> agreement.

3\. Section 90.421 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

§ 90.421 Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under the control of
the licensee.

\*\*\*\*\*

> \(a\) *Public Safety Pool* \*\*\*
>
> \(2\) \*\*\*
>
> \(3\) On the Interoperability Channels in the 700 MHz Public Safety
> Band ([See]{.underline} § 90.531(b)(1)), hand-held and vehicular
> transmitters may be operated by any licensee holding a license in the
> 700 MHz Public Safety Band or by any licensee holding a license for
> any other public safety frequency pursuant to Part 90 of the
> Commission's rules. Therefore, individual licenses are not required
> for hand-held and vehicular transmitters in the 700 MHz Band.

4\. A new Section 90.525 is added to read as follows:

§ 90.525 Administration of Interoperability channels.

\(a\) States are responsible for administration of the Interoperability
channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands. Base and
control stations must be licensed individually. A public safety entity
meeting the requirements of § 90.523 may operate mobile or portable
units on the Interoperability channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806
MHz frequency bands without a specific authorization from the Commission
provided it holds a Part 90 license. All persons operating mobile or
portable units under this authority are responsible for compliance with
Part 90 of these Rules and other applicable federal laws.

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

5\. Section 90.531 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) through (iii) in
subsection (b)(1), modifying paragraph (b)(2), adding a new paragraph
(b)(7) and amending paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 90.531 Band plan.

\* \* \* \* \*

(b)(1) \* \* \*

> \(i\) *Narrowband data Interoperability channels*. The following
> channel pairs are reserved nationwide for the express purpose of data
> transmission only: 279/1239, 280/1240, 921/1881, and 922/1882.
>
> \(ii\) *Narrowband calling Interoperability channels.* The following
> channel pairs are dedicated nationwide for the express purpose of
> *Interoperability* calling only: 39/999, 40/1000, 681/1641, and
> 682/1642. They may not be used primarily for routine, day-to-day
> communications. Encryption is prohibited on the designated calling
> channels.
>
> \(iii\) *Narrowband trunking Interoperability channels*. The following
> interoperability channel pairs may be combined with the appropriate
> adjacent secondary trunking channel pairs and used in the trunked mode
> on a secondary basis to conventional interoperability operations:
> 23/983, 24/984, 63/1023, 64/1024, 103/1063, 104/1064, 143/1103,
> 144/1104, 183/1143, 184/1144, 223/1183, 224/1184, 263/1223, 264/1124,
> 303/1263 and 304/1264. For every ten general use channels trunked at a
> station, entities may obtain a license to operate in the trunked mode
> on two of the above contiguous Interoperability channel pairs. The
> maximum number of Interoperability channel pairs that can be trunked
> at any one location is eight.
>
> \(2\) *Narrowband reserve channels*. The following narrowband channels
> are undesignated and reserved: 37, 38, 77, 78, 117, 118, 157, 158,
> 197, 198, 221, 222, 237, 238, 277, 278, 317, 318, 643, 644, 659, 660,
> 683, 684, 699, 700, 723, 724, 739, 740, 763, 764, 779, 780, 803, 804,
> 819, 820, 843, 844, 859, 860, 883, 884, 899, 900, 923, 924, 939, 940,
> 997, 998, 1037, 1038, 1077, 1078, 1117, 1118, 1157, 1158, 1181, 1182,
> 1197, 1198, 1237, 1238, 1277, 1278, 1603, 1604, 1619, 1620, 1643,
> 1644, 1659, 1660, 1683, 1684, 1699, 1700, 1723, 1724, 1739, 1740,
> 1763, 1764, 1779, 1780, 1803, 1804, 1819,1820, 1843, 1844, 1859, 1860,
> 1883, 1884, 1899, 1900.

\* \* \* \* \*

(7) *Secondary Trunking Channels.* The following channels pairs are
    reserved for secondary trunking operations: 21/981, 22/982, 61/1021,
    62/1022, 101/1061, 102/1062, 141/1101, 142/1102, 181/1141, 182/1142,
    221/1181, 222/1182, 261/1221, 262/1222, 301/1261 and 302/1262. They
    may be used only in combination with the appropriate adjacent
    Interoperability channel pairs specified in (b)(1)(iii) of this
    section in trunked systems.

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(d\) *Combining channels.* Except as noted below, at the discretion
> of the appropriate regional planning committee, contiguous channels
> may be used in combination in order to accommodate requirements for
> larger bandwidth emissions, in accordance with this paragraph.
> Interoperability channels may not be combined with channels in another
> group except for channels for Secondary Trunking Channels.

6\. Section 90.531(b)(2) is amended by deleting reference to the
following channel numbers: 21, 22, 37, 38, 61, 62, 77, 78, 101, 102,
141, 142, 181, 182, 221, 222, 261, 262, 277, 278, 301, 302, 317, 318,
981, 982,997, 998,1021, 1022, 1037, 1038, 1061, 1062, 1101, 1102,1141,
1142, 1181, 1182, 1221, 1222, 1237, 1238, 1261, 1262, 1277, and 1278.

7\. Section 90.537 is amended to read as follows:

§ 90.537 Trunking requirement.

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

\(b\) *Interoperability channels*. (i) Trunking is permitted only on
Interoperability channels specified in § 90.531(b)(1)(iii). The
following requirements apply to Interoperability channels where trunking
is employed: (i) trunked use must be strictly on a secondary,
non-interference basis to conventional operations; and (ii) the licensee
must monitor and immediately release the channels when those channels
are needed for interoperability purposes.

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

§ 90.547 Interoperability channel capability requirement.

Except as noted below, mobile and portable transmitters operating in the
764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be capable of operating
on all of the designated nationwide narrowband Interoperability channels
pursuant to the standards specified in this part.

\(a\) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only
on the Low Power Channels specified in Sections 90.531 (b)(3) and (4)
are exempt from this Interoperability channel requirement.

\(b\) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only
on the narrowband data Interoperability channels specified in Section
90.531 (b)(1)(i) are exempt from this Interoperability channel
requirement.

\(c\) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only
in the voice mode do not have to operate on the narrowband data
Interoperability channels specified in Section 90.531 (b)(1)(i).

9.  A new Section 90.548 is added to read as follows:

§ 90.548 Interoperability Technical Standards

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

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

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

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

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

10. A new Section 90.553 is added to read as follows:

§ 90.553 Encryption

(a) Encryption is permitted on all but the two nationwide
    Interoperability calling channels. Radios employing encryption must
    have a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible control
    that permits the radio user to disable encryption.

(b) If Encryption is employed then the following encryption protocol
    must be used: TIA/EIA IS AAAA-A Project 25 DES.

(c) Copies of the standards listed in this Section that are incorporated
    by reference can be purchased from TIA/EIA, 2500 Wilson Boulevard,
    Arlington, VA, 22201, or Global Engineering Documents, 155 Inverness
    Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.

[^1]: The Commission has defined "interoperability" as "an essential
    communications link within public safety and public service wireless
    communications systems which permits units from two or more
    different entities to interact with one another and to exchange
    information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve
    predictable results." Development of Operational, Technical and
    Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
    Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT
    Docket No. 96-86, *First Report and Order and Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 189-90 ¶ 76 (1998) (referred
    to herein as \"*First Report and Order*\" or \"*Third Notice*\" as
    applicable).

[^2]: *See* Public Safety National Coordination Committee's
    Recommendations to the Federal Communication Commission for
    Technical and Operational Standards for Use of the 764-776 MHz and
    794-806 MHz Public Safety Band Pending Development of Final Rules
    (Feb. 25, 2000) (NCC Report). The NCC Report included detailed
    technical information. A copy of the NCC Report can be obtained via
    the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html, or
    from International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th
    Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, TTY (202)
    293-8810, or faxing ITS at (202) 857-3805.

[^3]: 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).

[^4]: Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements
    for meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Fourth
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 15 FCC Rcd 16899 (2000) (*Fourth
    Notice*).

[^5]: For example, we deferred resolution of a reconsideration request
    concerning "guard channels" for the 700 MHz band interoperability
    spectrum. *See Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16900 ¶ 1 (referring to
    Com-Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems Inc.'s (Com-Net Ericsson)
    petition for reconsideration of issues related to guard channels
    around the Interoperability channels).

[^6]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 189-90 ¶ 75.

[^7]: ^?^ *See First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 162-64 ¶¶ 13-16.

[^8]: *See id.* at 176.

[^9]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 196 ¶ 90.

[^10]: *See id.,* 14 FCC Rcd at 197 ¶ 92. *See also* Federal Advisory
    Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).

[^11]: *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 197 ¶ 92.

[^12]: *Id*. *See also Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*,
    14 FCC Rcd 8059 (1999) (clarified that NCC may, but is not required
    to, become American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited,
    and the NCC may make use of the work of existing ANSI-accredited
    Standards Developers), and *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd 16844 (2000) (*Second MO&O*) (clarified technical standards
    regarding automatic power control and frequency stability).

[^13]: For a discussion of the NCC's activities from its inception, see
    NCC Report at 1-4.

[^14]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 233-234.

[^15]: *Id*.

[^16]: NCC Report at Appendix E at 1.

[^17]: *Id*.

[^18]: *Id*.

[^19]: *Id*. at Appendix E at 1, 4.

[^20]: *Id.* at Appendix E at 1.

[^21]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16909 ¶ 21.

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *See* NCC Report at Appendix E at 1, New York State Technology
    Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC) Comments at 10. State-level entities
    may include the Governor of the state or commonwealth or his or her
    designee (including a state agency).

[^24]: See 47 U.S.C. § 151 (one of the reasons Congress created the
    Commission was to promote safety of life and property through the
    use of wire and radio communication).

[^25]: Joint Commenters (American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Forestry Conservation
    Communications Association, International Association of Fire
    Chiefs, Inc., International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies, International Municipal Signal Association, and the
    National Association of State Foresters) Comments at 8; National
    Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Comments at 4;
    NYSTEC Comments at 9-10; Orange County, California (Orange County)
    Comments at 2; David Buchanan (Buchanan) Comments at 3; State of
    California (California) Comments at 8; State of Florida (Florida)
    Comments at 3; State of Ohio (Ohio) Comments at 2.

[^26]: Orange County Comments at 2; NPSTC Comments at 4; NYSTEC Comments
    at 9-10; Buchanan Comments at 3.

[^27]: *See* Mesa Comments at 3.

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16909 ¶ 23.

[^30]: *See infra* para. 21-24 for a discussion of MOUs and sharing
    agreements.

[^31]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16910 ¶ 23.

[^32]: American Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
    Inc. (APCO) Comments at 14; Illinois State Police Comments at 3;
    Joint Commenters Comments at 8-9; NPSTC Comments at 4; Public Safety
    Wireless Network (PSWN) Comments at 5-6; California Comments at 8;
    Florida Comments at 3.

[^33]: *See supra* paras. 10-11.

[^34]: NCC Report at 12 ¶ 36.

[^35]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 30.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: The licenses referred to here are for base and control stations.

[^39]: City of College Station, Texas (College Station) Comments at 1;
    Mesa Comments at 4; Illinois State Police Comments at 4; Joint
    Commenters Comments at 9-10; Orange County Comments at 2; PSWN
    Comments at 4-5; Buchanan Comments at 3; Florida Comments at 4.

[^40]: College Station Comments at 1.

[^41]: Illinois State Police Comments at 4.

[^42]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922-23 ¶¶ 61-63. We note that
    the NCC's recommendation pertains to the public safety 700 MHz band
    as a whole. However, we address the issue only with regards to the
    interoperability channels.

[^43]: NCC Report at 23-24 ¶ 74, Appendix K (Letter from Marilyn Ward,
    Chair, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, to
    Kathleen Wallman, Chairperson, NCC, dated Apr. 22, 1999).

[^44]: APCO Comments at 16; College Station Comments at 2; Orange County
    Comments at 18; Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group
    (FLEWUG) Comments at 10; Illinois State Police Comments at 7;
    International Association of Chief of Police (IACP) Reply Comments
    at 2; Joint Commenters Comments at 16; NCC Comments at 19-20; NPSTC
    Comments at 8; PSWN Comments at 11; California Comments at 18;
    Florida Comments at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.

[^45]: Joint Commenters Comments at 16. *But see* *Ex Parte Letter*
    filed in the captioned proceeding on December 4, 2000, by Forestry
    Conservation Communications Assn. ("FCCA," one of the Joint
    Commenters) clarifying FCCA's view that a pre-coordination database
    should be in the Commission's Rules.

[^46]: NCC Report at 13 ¶ 37.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *Id*. at Appendix E at 5-6. *See infra,* ¶¶ 65-68 (discussion of
    calling channels), ¶¶ 36-45 (discussion of secondary trunking), and
    ¶¶ 60-64 (discussion of access priority).

[^49]: NCC Report at 13 ¶ 41.

[^50]: *Id.* at 13 ¶ 37, Appendix E at 7.

[^51]: *Id.* at 13 ¶ 37.

[^52]: *Id*.

[^53]: *See supra,* ¶ 9.

[^54]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16912 ¶ 32.

[^55]: NCC Report at 22 ¶ 72, Appendix J.

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b) (1999). Use of the terms "government" and
    "non-government" are pursuant to the language in the *First Report
    and Order*, which notes, "In the United States, radio spectrum may
    be allocated exclusively or for shared use to either government
    (Federal government) or non-government (state/local governments and
    civilians)." *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 185 ¶ 67.

[^58]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922 ¶ 60, *citing Second MO&O*,
    15 FCC Rcd at 16865-68 ¶¶ 46-53.

[^59]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922 ¶ 60.

[^60]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b)(4). In the *Second MO&O*, we noted
    that the interoperability and reserve spectrum were subject to
    further Commission action in the captioned proceeding; accordingly,
    our conclusion on the validity of Federal use of the 700 MHz band
    through sharing agreements was operative only as to the general use
    spectrum. *See Second MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16867-68 ¶ 50. We clarify
    that our conclusion in the *Second MO&O* is now operative as to all
    700 MHz band spectrum.

[^62]: NCC Report at 12 ¶ 35, Appendix E at 2.

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: *Id*. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.617(a); Development
    and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of
    Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use
    of the 821-824/866-869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, GEN
    Docket No. 87-112, *Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 908-09 (1987)
    (*800 MHz Band Report and Order*) (discussing "mutual aid
    channels"), as modified by *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration*, 3 FCC Rcd 5391 (1988), *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 2113 (1988).

[^65]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 27.

[^66]: *See* *800 MHz Band Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶¶ 30,
    33-34; *see generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.20, 90.603, 90.617,
    90.619(a)(2).

[^67]: *See* *800 MHz Band Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶¶ 30,
    33-34.

[^68]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 28.

[^69]: *Id.*; 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.179 (Shared use of radio stations); 90.421
    (Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under the control of the
    licensee).

[^70]: Joint Commenters Comments at 9; Mesa Comments at 4.

[^71]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16910 ¶ 26.

[^72]: *Id*., 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 26.

[^73]: Illinois State Police Comments at 3; FLEWUG Comments at 5; APCO
    Comments at 14 (APCO suggests requiring licensing of end users where
    a user is not otherwise a 700 MHz band licensee. In the alternative,
    however, APCO suggests requiring all users to enter into a MOU with
    the SIEC or RPC.).

[^74]: Illinois State Police Comments at 3.

[^75]: FLEWUG Comments at 5; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 3.

[^76]: FLEWUG Comments at 5.

[^77]: FLEWUG Reply Comments at 3.

[^78]: PSWN Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^79]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 27.

[^80]: Florida Comments at 3.

[^81]: NCC Comments at 9.

[^82]: *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 9; California Comments at
    9-10.

[^83]: FLEWUG Comments at 5.

[^84]: Sixty-four 6.25 kHz channels are designated for interoperability;
    used as 12.5 kHz channels there are 32 channels.

[^85]: NCC Report at 7 ¶ 17.

[^86]: *Id*. at 7 ¶ 18.

[^87]: *See* Florida Comments at 1.

[^88]: *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 7.

[^89]: *See* NCC Report at 7 ¶ 18.

[^90]: Emergencies tend to be local in nature and are often difficult to
    predict. Thus, in many instances, an extensive trunking
    capability---built at considerable public cost---would lie dormant.
    *See Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16904 ¶ 8, n.26.

[^91]: NCC Report at 10 ¶ 27.

[^92]: *Id*. at 7 ¶ 20.

[^93]: *Id.* at 8 ¶ 21.

[^94]: *Id.*

[^95]: *Id*.

[^96]: *Id*.

[^97]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶ 13.

[^98]: *Id* at 16908 ¶ 17.

[^99]: Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements
    for meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    19844 (2000) (referred to hereinafter as "*Third MO&O"* or *"Third
    R&O"* as applicable*)*, Appendix G.

[^100]: Joint Commenters Comments at 8.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: *See* Ohio Comments at 2, "The why's, when's and how's of
    de-trunking should be clearly defined in \[a\] Memorandum of
    Understanding and Sharing Agreement." Florida Comments at 2,
    "\[w\]hile disputes could arise in some cases, we believe the
    Commission's proposal to limit permissive trunking to only ten
    channel sets, and on a strict secondary basis, will be sufficient to
    prevent any significant long-term problems." *But see* Baltimore
    County, Maryland, Comments at 1, "It is out contention that until
    such time that there is an authority appointed over the users of the
    system, there is not a guaranteed methodology that will eliminate
    the channels necessary in a timely manner."

[^103]: California Comments at 6-7.

[^104]: *Id*. at 7, *citing Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶13.

[^105]: California Comments at 7.

[^106]: *See* Mesa Comments at 1-2; Orange County Comments at 1-2.

[^107]: Mesa Comments at 1-2.

[^108]: Buchanan Comments at 2.

[^109]: Nokia Comments at 18, "To ensure that secondary trunking does
    not interfere with interoperability, a simple and foolproof method
    of ensuring that these channels are released when required for
    emergency purposes must be utilized." Nokia then asserts that its
    TETRA-compliant system is just such a method. Kenwood Corporation
    Comments at 3-4, " . . . a simple and reliable method of assuring
    release of the channels for \[interoperability\] use on a timely
    basis is necessary."

[^110]: APCO Comments at 11-13; E.F. Johnson Comments at 1; Joint
    Commenters Comments at 8; Kenwood Comments at 4; NPSTC Comments at
    3-4; NYSTEC Comments at 7-8; Nokia Comments at 18; PSWN Comments at
    3-4

[^111]: *See Third MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 19851-19860 ¶¶ 16-39.

[^112]: The eight channels represent 25% of the Interoperability
    channels.

[^113]: Although not specifically listed, the mobile side of the pair is
    included. *See* Appendix C, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.531(b)(1)(iii),
    90.531(b)(7).

[^114]: NCC Report at 11 ¶ 32.

[^115]: Com-Net Ericsson initially had sought a plan that would allow
    for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz, to make 25 kHz. Interestingly, in
    its Comments to the *Fourth Notice,* Com-Net Ericsson abandons this
    position, and asks that we not consider any interoperability
    spectrum with a potential channel bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz.
    Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 11-12.

[^116]: NCC Report at Appendix C at 2-3.

[^117]: *Id*. at Appendix C at 2.

[^118]: *Id.* at 11 ¶ 32.

[^119]: *See Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16920-21 ¶¶ 57-58 (discussing
    receiver standards and interference issues).

[^120]: NCC Comments, Attachment 1.

[^121]: NCC Comments at 8.

[^122]: *See Third Memorandum MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 19851-19860 ¶¶ 16-39.

[^123]: Joint Commenters Comments at 8.

[^124]: APCO Comments at 13.

[^125]: Mesa Comments at 2-3.

[^126]: *See* Kenwood Comments at 4-5; NYSTEC Comments at 9; California
    Comments at 7-8; Florida Comments at 2.

[^127]: Florida Comments at 2.

[^128]: FLEWUG Comments at 3.

[^129]: E.F. Johnson Comments at 1-2.

[^130]: Nokia Comments at 19.

[^131]: Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 11-12.

[^132]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 42.

[^133]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16912-13 ¶ 33.

[^134]: Florida Comments at 4.

[^135]: Joint Commenters Comments at 10.

[^136]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.203. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.

[^137]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 43, Appendix D at 4.

[^138]: In this case, simplex operation is mobile to mobile
    communications on one-half of the channel pair. The communications
    do not go through an infrastructure. Simplex operation is often the
    dominant mode of communications between multiple public safety
    agencies at the scene of an accident. *Id.*

[^139]: *Id*.

[^140]: *Id.* at Appendix D at 1-2.

[^141]: Joint Commenters Comments at 10; Florida Comments at 4.

[^142]: Florida Comments at 4-5.

[^143]: Kenwood Comments at 7.

[^144]: *Id.* at 8.

[^145]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 44.

[^146]: *Id.* at Appendix D.

[^147]: NCC Report at 14 ¶ 44.

[^148]: *See* *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶ 13.

[^149]: NCC Report at 15 ¶ 47.

[^150]: *See* Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96-86, *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16720, 16721
    (2000).

[^151]: *See* Ohio Comments at 2, "As long as these recommendations are
    not codified and left to the local RPC for interpretation, \[Ohio\]
    supports the recommendation;" Florida Comments at 5, "We believe
    that each state should consider the priority schemes proposed by the
    NCC, but should be free to implement and manage its own priority
    schemes to the extent necessary in their particular case;"
    California Comments at 12, "The State supports the priority levels
    proposed by the NCC and opposes the use of Priority Access Service
    (PAS) levels." Kenwood Comments at 8-9, "\[an access priory scheme\]
    is . . . an administration issue, best left to the administrators of
    the \[interoperability\] channels;" See *also* PSWN Comments at 6-7;
    NPSTC Comments at 6; Illinois State Police Comments at 5; FLEWUG
    Comments at 5-6; Orange County Comments at 3-4; College Station
    Comments at 2; Mesa Comments, at 5.

[^152]: *See* commenters cited at n.151, *supra*.

[^153]: NYSTEC Comments at 11-12.

[^154]: Baltimore County, Maryland (Baltimore County) Comments at 1-2.

[^155]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16907 ¶ 37.

[^156]: NCC Report at 15 ¶ 45.

[^157]: *Id.* at 15 ¶ 47; *see also Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915
    ¶ 39.

[^158]: *See Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915 ¶ 40.

[^159]: *Id*.

[^160]: Illinois State Police Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Comments
    at 10-11; NPSTC Comments at 6; Orange County Comments at 4; PSWN
    Comments at 7; Florida Comments at 5; California Comments at 12;
    Mesa Comments at 4.

[^161]: The two nationwide calling channels are 39/999, 40/1000,
    681/1641, and 682/1642.

[^162]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915 ¶ 39.

[^163]: Florida Comments at 5, "we believe it should be left to the
    state and RPC planning levels to address the details of monitoring
    requirements (*e.g*., 24 hours, 7 days/week, and equipment
    configuration . . . . " California did not oppose monitoring, but
    asks "who will fund such coverage?" California Comments at 13.

[^164]: TETRA is a four-slot Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
    standard in which four voice channels are realized within a 25 kHz
    bandwidth.

[^165]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16917 ¶ 44.

[^166]: NCC Report at 17 ¶ 54.

[^167]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16917-18 ¶ 46.

[^168]: *Id*.

[^169]: *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd at 204 ¶ 111.

[^170]: *See* North America TETRA Forum Comments at 10-11 (supports
    adoption of standard on a short-term basis); Nokia Comments at 6;
    Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 15; Orange County Comments at 4; E.F.
    Johnson Comments at 2; Ronald J. Gillory (Gillory) Comments at 1;
    Buchanan Comments at 5; Mesa Comments at 7; Kenwood Comments at 11;
    NCC Comments at 17; Florida Comments at 5; APCO Comments at 4; IACP
    Comments at 2; Motorola Comments at 4; FLEWUG Comments at 3; PSWN
    Comments at 9**;** Project 25 Steering Committee Comments at 3.

[^171]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918 ¶ 46.

[^172]: *See* Buchanan Comments at 6.

[^173]: *See* NCC Report at 17 ¶ 54; City of Houston (Houston) Reply
    Comments at 1; Orange County Comments at 4.

[^174]: *See* APCO Comments at 4.

[^175]: *See* Joint Commenters Comments at 11-14; Baltimore County
    Comments at 3.

[^176]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 204 ¶ 110.

[^177]: *Id*, 14 FCC Rcd at 204, 210 ¶¶ 110, 128.

[^178]: *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16851 ¶ 10.

[^179]: *See Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918-19 ¶ 50. We note that
    Ericsson did not limit its request to the narrowband
    Interoperability channels, but included the narrowband General Use
    channels as well. Given our decision to seek further comment on the
    issue of a migration path for the General Use channels, we defer
    action on this portion of Ericsson's request so as not to prejudge
    the decision on that issue.

[^180]: *Id*.

[^181]: *Id.* at 16919 ¶ 52.

[^182]: *See* APCO Comments at 5; College Station Comments at 2; Houston
    Reply Comment at 1, 2; Mesa Comments at 2-3; Orange County Comments
    at 4; E.F. Johnson Comments at 2; FLEWUG Comments at 9; IACP
    Comments at 1-5; Kenwood Comments at 13; Motorola Comments at 1-2;
    NPSTC Comments at 3-5; NYSTEC Comments at 12, 13; Project 25
    Steering Committee Comments at 6-9; Project 25 Technology Interest
    Group Comments at 3-7; NCC Comments at 12; PSWN Comments at 10;
    Buchanan Comments at 6; Gillory Comments at 1; California Comments
    at 13-14; Florida Comment at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.

[^183]: Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 13-14.

[^184]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918 ¶ 47.

[^185]: *Id.* at 16918 ¶¶ 47-49.

[^186]: *Id.* at 16917-18 ¶ 46.

[^187]: *See* Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 14; Buchanan Comments at 5.

[^188]: *See* E.F. Johnson Comments at 2; Com-Net Ericsson Comments at
    14; Gillory Comments at 1.

[^189]: *See* Mesa Comments at 6; APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments
    at 4-5; Motorola Comments at 8; FLEWUG Comments at 3; PSWN Reply
    Comments at 5; Project 25 Steering Comments at 3.

[^190]: Mesa Comments at 6; APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments at 4-5;
    Kenwood Comments at 11,12; FLEWUG Comments at 7.

[^191]: NCC Comments at 17; Nokia Comments at 2.

[^192]: City of Mesa Comments at 6.

[^193]: APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments at 4-5.

[^194]: NCC Comments at 17.

[^195]: *Id.*

[^196]: *Fourth Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 16917 ¶ 46.

[^197]: We address the issue of migration to 6.25 kHz technology on the
    general use channels in the attached *Fifth Notice. See Fifth
    Notice, infra.*

[^198]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 172-173 ¶¶ 37-38.

[^199]: *See Fifth Notice, infra,* paras. 95-99.

[^200]: NCC Report, Appendix H at 2.

[^201]: The transmission modes are direct unit-to-unit without
    infrastructure; Unit-to-unit using one or more standalone
    intermediate stations in either an RF-repeat or a store-and-forward
    repeat mode; and unit-to-unit through a linked infrastructure. In
    this context unit is defined as either a fixed or mobile subscriber
    station. *Id*.

[^202]: NCC Report at 21 ¶ 64.

[^203]: *Id*., ¶ 62.

[^204]: The two interoperability channels reserved for data-only
    transmission are 279/1239, 280/1240, 921/1881, and 922/1882.

[^205]: APCO Comments at 10; California Comments at 15; Dataradio
    Comments at 1; FLEWUG Comments at 8; Joint Commenters Comments at
    14; NPSTC Comments at 7; Florida Comment at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.

[^206]: FLEWUG Comments at 8.

[^207]: Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 21.

[^208]: APCO Comments at 10.

[^209]: *Id*.

[^210]: Orange County Comments at 4; FLEWUG Comments at 9; PSWN Comments
    10; Ohio Comments at 3; Florida Comments at 6; Buchanan Comments at
    6-7.

[^211]: Ericsson Comments at 21.

[^212]: *Id.*

[^213]: *Id*. at 20 -- 21.

[^214]: Dataradio Comments at 6-7.

[^215]: APCO Reply Comments at 11.

[^216]: *Id.* at 10.

[^217]: *Id* at 11.

[^218]: *Id*.

[^219]: NCC Report, Appendix H.

[^220]: College Station Comments at 2; Mesa Comments at 1-7; Orange
    County Comments at 4-5; E.F. Johnson Comments at 2; FLEWUG Comments
    at 9; IACP Comments at 1-5; Project 25 Technology Interest Group
    Comments at 1; NCC Comments at 12; Gillory Comments at 1; California
    Comments at 15-16; Florida Comments at 6.

[^221]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16920 ¶ 56.

[^222]: *Id*.

[^223]: *Id*.

[^224]: *Id*.

[^225]: *See* Permissive Trunking section, ¶¶ 42-45.

[^226]: Project 25 Steering Committee at 6; NCC Comments at 18.

[^227]: *Fourth Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16921-22 ¶ 59.

[^228]: *Id.*

[^229]: *Id*.

[^230]: *Id.*

[^231]: *Id*.

[^232]: NCC Comments at 18.

[^233]: Ericsson Comments at 17-18, Nokia Comments at 4-5, NATF Comments
    at 5.

[^234]: Ericsson Comments at 17-18.

[^235]: Nokia Comments at 14; NATF Comments at 7.

[^236]: Nokia Comments at 12. *See* Letter, dated December 7, 2000, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary, FCC from Leo R. Fitzsimon, Director of
    Regulatory and Industry Affairs, Nokia.

[^237]: Nokia Comments at 12.

[^238]: *Id*.

[^239]: *See* APCO Comments at 7-10; IACP Comments at 3-5.

[^240]: *See Fourth Report and Order, supra,* para. 81.

[^241]: *Id.*

[^242]: Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket
    No. 95-18*, Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 12315, 12323-28 ¶¶
    22-37 (2000).

[^243]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601, *et seq.*

[^244]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.2306(a).

[^245]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419

[^246]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^247]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^248]: Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements
    for meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Fourth
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 16899 (2000) 65 Fed Reg.
    51788 (Aug. 25, 2000).

[^249]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^250]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^251]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^252]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such terms which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^253]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^254]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^255]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^256]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^257]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^258]: *Id.*

[^259]: *See* Subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1 ‑ 90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees
    that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through
    telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and facsimile
    (printed material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees
    comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies as
    well as units under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool
    licensees also include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or
    municipal entities that use radio for official purposes. There are
    also 7,325 forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from
    state departments of conservation and private forest organizations
    who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and
    ground crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway
    maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine
    communications to aid other public safety services to keep main
    roads safe for vehicular traffic. Emergency medical licensees
    (1,460) use these channels for emergency medical service
    communications related to the delivery of emergency medical
    treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include medical services, rescue
    organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief
    organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in
    isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency
    repair of public communications facilities.

[^260]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^261]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 3663.

[^262]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC 3663.

[^263]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4833 (1996).

[^264]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
    UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995) (ESA 1992 Census).

[^265]: *See* Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
    and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), at
    283, which describes TV Broadcasting Station (SIC 4833) as:

    Establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by
    television to the public, except cable and other pay television
    services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,
    educational and other television stations. Also included here are
    establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and
    which produce taped television program materials.

[^266]: ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^267]: ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9; SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and
    Video Tape Production); SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and
    Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (producers of live radio and TV
    programs)).

[^268]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22953 (1998), at
    Appendix C; ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^269]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) at
    Appendix C.

[^270]: A census for communications establishments is performed every
    five years ending with a \"2\" or \"7.\" *See* ESA 1992 Census at
    III.

[^271]: The amount of \$10 million was used to estimate the number of
    small business establishments because the relevant Census categories
    stopped at \$9,999,999 and began at \$10,000,000. No category for
    \$10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as is
    possible to calculate with the available information.

[^272]: *See Allocation Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14142.

[^273]: *See DTV Proceeding,* 12 FCC Rcd 14588.

[^274]: *See Allocation Notice* 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.5.

[^275]: We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at less
    than \$10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 117 TV stations to
    arrive at 90 stations categorized as small businesses.

[^276]: *Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United States*,
    U.S. Dep\'t of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration, The Minority Telecommunications Development Program
    (\"MTDP\") (Apr. 1996). MTDP considers minority ownership as
    ownership of more than 50 percent of a broadcast corporation\'s
    stock, voting control in a broadcast partnership, or ownership of a
    broadcasting property as an individual proprietor. The minority
    groups included in this report are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and
    Native American.

[^277]: *See* Comments of American Women in Radio and TV, Inc. in MM
    Docket No. 94-149 and MM Docket No. 91-140 at 4 n.4 (filed May 17,
    1995) (citing 1987 Economic Censuses, *Women-Owned Business*,
    WB87-1, U.S. Dep\'t of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August 1990
    (based on 1987 Census)). After the 1987 Census report, the Census
    Bureau did not provide data by particular communications services
    (four-digit SIC Code), but rather by the general two-digit SIC Code
    for communications (#48). Consequently, since 1987, the Census
    Bureau has not updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by
    women, nor does the Commission collect such data. However, we sought
    comment on whether the Annual Ownership Report Form 323 should be
    amended to include information on the gender and race of broadcast
    license owners. Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female
    Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 10 FCC Rcd 2788, 2797 (1995).

[^278]: *See Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22986 at Appendix
    C.

[^279]: *See Allocation Notice* at 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.3.

[^280]: *See* Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Services, PR Docket No. 83-737, *Report and Order*, 103 FCC 2d 1093
    (1986).

[^281]: Area-wide licenses often encourage the rapid development and
    deployment of innovative services and facilitate interoperability
    and operational standards, while allowing economies of scale that
    encourage the development of low cost equipment. *See, e.g.,*
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service, GN Docket No. 96-228, *Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814 (1997).

[^282]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^283]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^284]: *See id*.

[^285]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^286]: *Id.* § 601(b)(3).

[^287]: *Id.* § 632.

[^288]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^289]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^290]: U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, *1992 Census of
    Governments*.

[^291]: *Id.*

[^292]: *See* subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped
    persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,
    establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities,
    and emergency repair of public communications facilities.

[^293]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^294]: 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^295]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
    UC92-S-1*, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.

[^296]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

[^297]: U.S. Dep't of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.