**Before the**

**[Federal Communications Commission]{.smallcaps}**

**Washington, D.C.**

In the Matter of )

)

The Development of Operational, )

Technical and Spectrum Requirements )

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

Public Safety Agency Communication )

Requirements Through the Year 2010 )

)

Establishment of Rules and Requirements )

For Priority Access Service )

**THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**AND**

**THIRD REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: September 18, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000**

By the Commission:

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

[Paragraph No.]{.smallcaps}

I. INTRODUCTION

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

III\. BACKGROUND

IV\. THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A. Band Plan

1\. General Use Channels

2\. Interoperability Channels

3\. Location of Reserve Spectrum

B. Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On-scene Communications

V. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER

A. Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the *Third Notice*

1\. State License

2\. 700 MHz Band Reserve

B. Protection of the GNSS from Second Harmonic Interference

1\. Base/mobile Pairing ("Band Flipping")

2\. Emission Limits

C. Interoperability Below 512 MHz

1\. Interoperability Channels in the 150-174 & 450-512 MHz (Existing
Public Safety Bands).

2\. Interoperability Channels in the 138-144 MHz Band (NTIA/DOD
Reallocation)

3\. Interoperability in 156-162 MHz Band (VHF Maritime Band)

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

VII\. ORDERING CLAUSES

APPENDIX A Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for

*Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*

APPENDIX B Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for *Third Report and
Order*

APPENDIX C List of Parties for *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*

APPENDIX D List of Commenters for *Third Report and Order*

APPENDIX E Summary of Y2K Comments to *Third Notice*

APPENDIX F Final Rules

APPENDIX G 700 MHz Band ---- Segmentation & Channelization Tables

APPENDIX H Interoperability Frequencies in the Inland VPCs

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Twenty-four megahertz of spectrum is allocated for public safety
    services at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz (hereinafter \"the 700 MHz
    band\").[^1] On August 6, 1998, we adopted a *First Report and Order
    and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making* that established a band
    plan and service rules for this spectrum.[^2] Seventeen parties
    filed petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification
    (\"Petition(s)\") of decisions contained in the *First Report and
    Order*.[^3] We addressed two of these Petitions in May 1999.[^4] On
    July 21, 2000, we adopted a *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*
    that addressed petitions for reconsideration of the *First Report
    and Order* concerning: (1) digital modulation requirement; (2)
    certain technical requirements---namely, transmitter power and
    antenna height, automatic power control, emission limits, frequency
    stability, wideband channel efficiency standards, and receiver
    standards; (3) protection criteria established between television
    and land mobile operations; (4) eligibility for licensing and
    alliances under Section 2.103(b) of our Rules,[^5] and (5)
    administrative issues regarding regional planning, national
    planning, and frequency coordination.[^6] In the *Second MO&O*,[^7]
    we also deferred resolution of the reconsideration requests
    concerning digital standards in the 700 MHz band to the *Fourth
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in the captioned proceeding.[^8]

2.  The instant *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order* (\"*Third MO&O*\")
    addresses the remaining issues raised in the petitions for
    reconsideration of the *First Report and Order*; by presenting our
    decisions in response to those various portions of the petitions
    that address the: (1) band plan for the 700 MHz band,[^9] and (2)
    low power narrowband devices for on-scene communication.[^10]

3.  In the *Third Report and Order* portion of this combined item, we
    address designation and licensing issues for the spectrum that we
    reserved in the *First Report and Order* to be "subject to the
    *Third Notice.*"[^11] In addition, we adopt technical criteria for
    700 MHz band operations to protect satellite-based global navigation
    systems from harmful interference. We also establish measures to
    promote interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz.
    Our actions today are additional steps toward the development of a
    flexible regulatory framework to meet vital current and future
    public safety communications needs.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4.  [Band Plan]{.underline} We revise the band plan adopted in the
    *First Report and Order* to reposition the location of the
    narrowband and wideband channel groups for the general use,
    interoperability, and reserve spectrum. Upon review of the
    reconsideration requests, this new plan represents an improved
    layout and will promote better assignment and operational
    possibilities for the public safety community. We also authorize 48
    narrowband channels for low power use for on-scene communication.

5.  [State License]{.underline} Rather than adopting 8.8 MHz for state
    planning and approval, we adopt a modified version of our proposal
    and will grant a single, geographic license directly to the states
    for up to a total of 2.4 megahertz for their needs. [^12] We believe
    a state license complements the regional planning committees
    (RPCs),[^13] streamlines administrative procedures,[^14] and
    enhances spectrum efficiency.[^15] Under this decision, each state
    (including U.S. territories, districts, and possessions) has the
    option to receive a statewide authorization to use this radio
    spectrum statewide for public safety services. This geographic
    license gives states a new tool for managing and planning the radio
    communication needs of state agencies.[^16] The Governor of each
    state or his/her designee will have until December 31, 2001 (over
    one year from the effective date of this *Third Report and Order*)
    to apply for a state license. We believe that providing states this
    amount of time to apply for this spectrum allows every state at
    least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the funds
    necessary to plan, prepare, and implement the use of the spectrum.
    What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied
    for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be
    administered by the RPCs. As with other geographical-area based
    licenses, *e.g.,* PCS, no further FCC authorization will be required
    to construct and operate transmitter sites within the state (unless
    the site raises specific environmental, aviation safety, "quiet
    zone," or international issues).

6.  [Reserve]{.underline} First, we reserve 128 narrowband channels
    pending the resolution of the *Fourth Notice* in this
    proceeding.[^17] Next, we relocate the remaining 5.4 megahertz of
    the 700 MHz band (108 wideband channels) between narrowband and
    wideband segments and reserve this spectrum for future developments
    in broadband technologies.[^18]

7.  In sum, as a the result of our actions today, we designate the 24
    megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band as follows:

700 MHz Public Safety Band---Spectrum & Channels

+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| Designated Purpose | Amount of Spectrum  | Narrowband\  | Wideband\ |
|                    |                     | (6.25 kHz)   | (50 kHz)  |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| [General           | 12.5 MHz            | 7.7 MHz      | 4.8 MHz   |
| Use]{.smallcaps}   |                     |              |           |
|                    | (52.1 %)            | (1232 ch     | (96       |
|                    |                     | annels)[^19] | channels) |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| [Interoperab       | 2.6 MHz             | 0.8 MHz      | 1.8 MHz   |
| ility]{.smallcaps} |                     |              |           |
|                    | (10.8 %)            | (1           | (36       |
|                    |                     | 28 channels) | channels) |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| [State             | 2.4 MHz\            | 2.4 MHz\     | \- 0 -    |
| Li                 | (10.0 %)            | (384         |           |
| cense]{.smallcaps} |                     | channels)    |           |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| [Low               | 0.3 MHz\            | 0.3 MHz\     | \- 0 -    |
| Power]{.smallcaps} | (1.3 %)             | (48          |           |
|                    |                     | channels)    |           |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| [Re                | 6.2 MHz\            | 0.8 MHz\     | 5.4 MHz\  |
| serve]{.smallcaps} | (25.8 %)            | (128         | ( 108     |
|                    |                     | channels)    | channels) |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+
| T O T A L          | 24 MHz\             | 12 MHz\      | 12 MHz\   |
|                    | (100 %)             | (1920        | (240      |
|                    |                     | channels)    | channels) |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------+

8.  [GNSS Protection Criteria]{.underline} We adopt technical solutions
    to protect certain global navigation satellite systems (GNSS),
    particularly the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems
    (GLONASS) and Global Positioning System (GPS).[^20] These limits are
    in accordance with international requirements.

9.  [Interoperability Below 512 MHz]{.underline} We adopt our proposal
    to designate channels in existing public safety bands for mutual aid
    purposes (five channels in the 150‑174 MHz band and four channel
    pairs in the 450‑512 MHz band). We also terminate the *Third Notice*
    inquiry as to the FCC's future licensing of spectrum in the
    138--144 MHz band for interoperability purposes. The inquiry is now
    moot because Congress reclaimed this spectrum for exclusive federal
    use in the "National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000."[^21] We
    also adopt our proposal to designate two channel pairs in the VHF
    156‑162 MHz band for interoperability communication in thirty-three
    Economic Areas (EAs), where these channels are allocated for public
    safety entities.[^22]

# BACKGROUND

10. In 1993, Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to
    ensure that public safety communications needs are met through the
    year 2010.[^23] Pursuant to that directive, the Commission is­sued a
    report to Congress identifying a need to gather addi­tional
    information on the present and future communications requirements of
    public safety agencies.[^24] In 1995, the Commission, together with
    the National Tele­communications and Information Administration
    (NTIA), established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee
    (PSWAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act,[^25] to
    provide advice and recom­mendations regarding the communications
    needs of public safety agencies through the year 2010. Shortly
    thereafter, the Commission commenced this rulemaking proceeding to
    evaluate and plan for present and future public safety
    communications requirements.[^26]

11. On August 14, 1996, the Commission acknowledged that a portion of
    the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60‑69 when digital
    television (DTV) is fully deployed \"could be used to meet public
    safety needs.\"[^27] In the *DTV Sixth Report and Order*, the
    Commission stated that it would initiate a separate proceeding to
    address the issue of allocating TV channels 60-69, and would give
    serious consideration to allocating 24 megahertz of that spectrum
    for public safety use.[^28] In September 1996, the *PSWAC Final
    Report* was submitted to the Commission as part of the record in
    this proceeding. The *PSWAC Final Report* found that the spectrum
    then allocated to public safety was insufficient to support the
    current and projected voice and data needs of the public safety
    community, did not provide adequate capacity for obtaining
    interoperability, and was inadequate to meet future needs, based on
    projected population growth and demographic changes. The *PSWAC
    Final Report* concluded that in order to meet these needs,
    25 megahertz of new public safety spectrum allocations would be
    needed within five years.[^29] The *PSWAC Final Report* further
    stated that data communication and wireless video needs were also
    expected to grow rapidly, and additional spectrum was required to
    support new capabilities and technologies, including high speed data
    and video.[^30]

12. Subsequently, in the 1997 Budget Act, Congress directed the
    Commission to reallocate 24 megahertz of the spectrum recovered from
    TV channels 60‑69 as a result of DTV implementation for public
    safety services.[^31] Shortly thereafter, the Commission initiated a
    rulemaking proceeding in ET Docket No. 97-157 which led to the
    adoption of a *Report and Order* reallocating 24 megahertz of
    spectrum located in the 700 MHz band for public safety
    services.[^32]

13. This new allocation is the largest ever made for public safety
    communications and constitutes a significant public benefit derived
    from the conversion of television broadcasting in the United States
    from analog technology to state-of-the-art digital technology.[^33]
    In the *Second Notice*, the Commission sought comment on a wide
    variety of public safety communications issues, including, but not
    limited to, future public safety spectrum needs, projected
    operational and technological requirements for interoperability
    (between and among public safety entities on a local and regional
    basis), and technical parameters needed to ensure efficient and
    effective communications.[^34]

14. In the *First Report and Order*, we established a band plan and
    adopted service rules for the 700 MHz band. We designated 12.6
    megahertz of the spectrum for general use to be managed by regional
    planning committees (RPCs). In addition, we designated 2.6 MHz of
    spectrum in the 700 MHz band for interoperability purposes (the
    ability of different governmental agencies to communicate across
    jurisdictions and with each other). We also adopted technical
    specifications to enhance spectrum efficiency and minimize harmful
    interference in the 700 MHz band. The *First Report and Order* also
    designated 8.8 megahertz of 700 MHz band spectrum as reserved
    subject to the *Third Notice*.[^35]

15. In the *Third Notice,* we continued our inquiry into present and
    future public safety communications needs. We sought comment on a
    broad range of options to promote the efficient and effective use of
    the 700 MHz band spectrum that we reserved in the *First Report and
    Order*. We also asked how to license the 2.6 megahertz of spectrum
    in the 700 MHz band that we designated for nationwide
    interoperability in the *First Report and Order*. Additionally, we
    discussed protection requirements for 700 MHz band operations in
    connection with Global Navigation Satellite Systems.[^36] We also
    offered proposals to facilitate use of nationwide interoperability
    in public safety bands below 512 MHz.

# THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

## Band Plan

16. In the *First Report and Order*, we designated the 24 MHz of
    spectrum in the 700 MHz band to be divided as shown below:[^37]

Frequency (MHz)

  ----- --------- -------- ----- --------- ------ ----- -------- -- ----- --------- ---- -------- --------- ------ ----- ---
  764                      770                    776               794                  800                       806   

        TV                       TV                                       TV                      TV                     
        Channel                  Channel                                  Channel                 Channel                
        63                       64                                       68                      69                     

        **NB**    **WB**                                **NB**                           **NB**   **WB**                 
  ----- --------- -------- ----- --------- ------ ----- -------- -- ----- --------- ---- -------- --------- ------ ----- ---

> 3 MHz 6 MHz 3 MHz 3 MHz 6 MHz 3 MHz
>
> **NB** = narrowband channels
>
> **WB** = wideband channels
>
> ***First Report and Order* (1998) ----700 MHz Public Safety Band
> Spectrum & Channels**

+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Designated    | Amount of     | Narrowband        | Wideband        |
| Purpose       | Spectrum      |                   |                 |
|               |               | (6.25 kHz)        | (50 kHz)        |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| General Use   | 12.6 MHz      | 7.8 MHz           | 4.8 MHz         |
|               |               |                   |                 |
|               | (52.5 %)      | (1248 channels)   | (96 channels)   |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Nationwide    | 2.6 MHz       | 0.8 MHz           | 1.8 MHz         |
|               |               |                   |                 |
| Int           | (10.8 %)      | (128 channels)    | (36 channels)   |
| eroperability |               |                   |                 |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Reserved      | 8.8 MHz       | 3.4 MHz           | 5.4 MHz         |
|               |               |                   |                 |
|               | (36.7 %)      | (544 channels)    | (108 channels)  |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL         | 24 MHz        | 12 MHz            | 12 MHz          |
|               |               |                   |                 |
|               | (100 %)       | (1920 channels)   | (240 channels)  |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------+-----------------+

17. The band plan designates 764-776 MHz (TV Channels 63 and 64) for
    base-to-mobile communications and 794-806 MHz (TV Channels 68
    and 69) for mobile-to-base communications.[^38] The band plan also
    accommodates all of the traditional operational modes (voice, data,
    image/[hsd]{.smallcaps}, and video) and is flexible enough to allow
    deployment of future technologies. We divided the band into separate
    segments for narrowband and wideband communications for both General
    Use and Nationwide Interoperability. To promote efficient spectrum
    usage, the band plan incorporates a channelization approach that is
    based on the smallest practical channel sizes for narrowband and
    wideband public safety communications).[^39] To promote flexibility,
    we included a \"building block\" approach that allows licensees to
    combine narrowband or wideband channels to accommodate different
    technologies. Specifically, we permit the combination of up to four
    narrowband 6.25 kHz channels (up to 25 kHz) and up to three wideband
    50 kHz channels (up to 150 kHz) to create larger bandwidths when
    needed to accommodate different technologies, such as 12.5 kHz or 25
    kHz voice and data channels, or communications requiring higher data
    speeds.[^40]

### General Use Channels

18. [*Band segments* (*narrowband and wideband*)]{.underline}. APCO
    notes that we largely adopted the channel plan proposed by NPSTC
    (which APCO helped to develop).[^41] APCO contends, however, that
    the adopted plan lacks necessary flexibility to meet the varying
    needs of each region for narrowband or wideband channels.[^42] APCO
    requests, therefore, that we provide each RPC with additional
    flexibility to: (1) aggregate narrowband channels to create
    additional wideband channels and; (2) split wideband channels to
    produce additional narrowband channels.[^43] APCO states that in
    either case, we should permit RPCs to modify the adopted band
    segments only as a last resort and that unassigned narrowband
    channels could not be aggregated unless and until all existing
    wideband channels were exhausted (and *vice versa* as to splitting
    unused wideband channels).[^44]

19. The adopted band plan reflects the best current evaluation of the
    relative spectrum requirements for narrowband and wideband
    operations[^45] whereas APCO's suggested rule change would permit
    each of the fifty-five RPCs to adopt irregular narrowband/wideband
    segments. We continue to believe that it makes sense to separate
    narrowband segments from wideband segments to ensure the placement
    of compatible communications types together in band segments.
    Ensuring compatibility removes an element of uncertainty as to the
    potential for adjacent channel interference, leading to less
    complicated frequency coordination requirements and more efficient
    use of the spectrum.[^46] Nonetheless, we appreciate APCO's point
    that the need for narrowband or wideband channels will vary
    throughout the nation. We note in this connection that the existing
    waiver process[^47] is available for individual applicants that
    demonstrate that all other alternatives have been thoroughly
    exhausted.[^48] Moreover, as discussed below in Section A.3.
    (Location of Reserve Spectrum), we are adopting NPSTC's suggestion
    to relocate the reserve channels between the narrowband and wideband
    segments.[^49] This action will provide future flexibility to adjust
    the dividing line between narrowband and wideband segments.

20. *[Aggregation of narrowband channels]{.underline}*. Ericsson seeks
    reconsideration of our decision to limit the maximum aggregation of
    channels to four channels in the narrowband channel plan. Ericsson
    contends that limiting aggregation to four 6.25 kHz channel
    "building blocks" restricts the efficient accommodation of emerging
    technologies that have operating bandwidths between 25 kHz and 50
    kHz. Thus, Ericsson proposes that we modify the narrowband channel
    plan to permit the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz
    channels.[^50]

21. We do not find this recommendation persuasive. The composite plan
    that we adopted in the *First Report and Order*, provides a careful
    balance of general use, interoperability, wideband, and narrowband
    channels based on all of the band plans submitted in response to the
    *Second Notice*.[^51] We also adopted corresponding rules regarding
    channel pairing, the segments of the band to be used for narrowband
    and wideband applications, minimum and maximum channel sizes, and
    spectrum usage efficiency standards. Ericsson's proposal would allow
    data applications to use more than the 25 kHz of bandwidth for
    narrowband channels. We believe this to be unwise because permitting
    the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz channels, the equivalent of
    a wide band channel (50 kHz), could prematurely deplete the
    availability of channels needed for narrowband voice and data
    operations.[^52] Moreover, allowing wideband channels within a
    narrowband segment[^53] creates the same interference potential
    discussed above.[^54]

22. Most importantly, Ericsson's proposal also raises concerns related
    to spectrum efficiency because it could essentially defeat the
    efficiency safeguards of the adopted band plan.[^55] As noted in the
    *First Report and Order*, public safety entities are generally
    insulated from market forces in regard to the acquisition of
    licenses for radio spectrum and the provision of public safety
    communications.[^56] Instead, each jurisdiction typically provides
    public safety communications to better protect the safety of life
    and property ---- with spectrum utilization based more on budgetary
    limitations than on considerations of the most efficient and
    effective technologies.[^57] Thus, the technical structure of
    standard channelization is appropriate to ensure that the 700 MHz
    public safety band spectrum is used efficiently in the absence of
    the market forces that discipline other services. Moreover, from a
    regional and national perspective, the record reflects that not
    enough spectrum is available to meet the long-term needs of the
    public safety community.[^58] Thus, the adopted band plan
    incorporates a channelization approach that is based on the smallest
    practical channel sizes for narrowband and wideband public safety
    communications along with the \"building block\" approach to provide
    significant flexibility. Ericsson's proposal, however, would disturb
    this careful balance between efficiency and flexibility by allowing
    voice and data operations within the narrowband segment to use
    bandwidths of up to 50 kHz (*i.e.*, wideband).

23. Ericsson's proposal would also result in irregular channelization
    (intra-and inter-regional) whereas, as noted in the *First Report
    and Order*, standardizing channelization on a national basis
    provides for reasonably rapid development of a cost-based equipment
    market for the 700 MHz band. Standardizing channelization on a
    national basis also removes a major element of uncertainty as to the
    potential for interference due to irregular, overlapping channels
    (intra-or inter-region), leading to less complicated frequency
    coordination requirements and more efficient use of the
    spectrum.[^59] Specifically, allowing nonstandard channels would
    create difficulties when overlapping channels are assigned to
    different types of users in nearby service areas. Interference and
    compatibility difficulties are currently issues in the refarmed
    bands below 512 MHz, where new channels were established in between
    existing channels.[^60] Similar difficulties would arise in the 700
    MHz band, *e.g.*, government and NGO users assigned on overlapping
    channels, if we allowed each RPC to assign nonstandard, overlapping
    channels. Moreover, the 700 MHz public safety band is newly
    allocated so, unlike the refarmed bands, we have an exceptional
    opportunity to adopt a channelization plan that promotes efficient
    use, balanced with significant flexibility and a minimum of
    overlapping channel assignments. We believe the adopted band plan,
    with some minor modifications adopted today, provides the
    appropriate balance based on the broad range of commenters. Finally,
    we note that the existing waiver process is available for truly
    unique and unusual circumstances.[^61]

24. *[Set-aside for wideband HSD channels]{.underline}* In his Petition,
    Powell requests that before allowing the RPCs to begin their
    planning process, we meet with members of the manufacturing, system
    integration and public safety communities to discuss a wideband
    channel plan that would permit development of a national public
    safety high speed data (HSD) network and still allow the RPCs
    maximum flexibility to implement regional channel plans.[^62] Powell
    states that the wideband plan and channel bandwidths action adopted
    in the *First Report and Order* will \"severely hinder\" any effort
    to establish a nationwide interoperability data network. Powell
    states that the need for an integrated wireless HSD network cannot
    be overstated and there is insufficient public safety spectrum, even
    including this new 24 MHz, to allow law enforcement agencies, much
    less other public safety users, to implement HSD systems.[^63]
    Powell requests reconsideration of the wideband channel plan where
    nearly half of the available HSD spectrum is designated for wideband
    "General Use."[^64]

25. We have considered Powell\'s request and concern regarding the
    public safety community\'s needs for HSD systems. As Powell
    indicates in his Petition,[^65] in response to the *Second Notice*,
    the Commission received several suggestions for wideband channel
    plans. These proposals were discussed in the *First Report and
    Order* along with the rationale for our decision, based upon the
    record at that time, to designate the 12 megahertz of wideband
    spectrum as follows---- 4.8 MHz to General Use, 1.8 MHz for
    Interoperability, and retain 5.4 MHz in Reserve.[^66] We concur with
    Powell's expectation that HSD will be a highly desired product by
    the public safety community at large. After consideration of
    Powell's request, however, we affirm our original wideband general
    use decision which provided a balance between the wide range of
    competing wideband needs. Accordingly, we will retain 4.8 MHz for
    General Use. We believe the planning process of the RPCs will be
    sufficient to address Powell's concerns. We believe that any
    modification of the plan at this time could be premature depending
    upon the technical progress made in the not-too-distant future.
    Therefore, while we decline to modify our wideband plan at this
    time, we leave this issue open for further analysis and
    recommendations by the public safety community, RPCs, and the NCC as
    the technology progresses. In this connection, we note our decision
    in today's *Third Report and Order* reserving 5.4 megahertz of
    spectrum for future needs such as the Law Enforcement HSD
    network.[^67]

### Interoperability Channels 

26. We established narrowband and wideband channels in the *First Report
    and Order* and set the standard channel bandwidth for narrowband
    channels at 6.25 kHz. We designated all of these channels as for
    general use, nationwide interoperability, or reserved subject to the
    *Third Notice*[^68] and, specifically, we designated 2.6 MHz of
    spectrum for interoperability purposes.[^69] This 2.6 MHz of
    spectrum included 128 narrowband channels for a total of 0.8 MHz of
    spectrum. We located thirty-two of the 128 channels in each of the
    four TV channels: two contiguous interoperability channels, skip two
    channels, two contiguous interoperability channels, skip six
    channels, two contiguous interoperability channels, skip sixty-six
    channels. This pattern is repeated five times. After the fifth
    repeat, eighty-four channels are skipped before arriving at the
    final two interoperability channels, for a total of thirty-two
    channels.[^70] Additionally, we paired the 128 channels (four times
    thirty-two) to make sixty-four channel pairs. We received requests
    from APCO and NPSTC to reconsider our decisions regarding the
    narrowband interoperability channeling plan.

27. *[Narrowband interoperability channel size]{.underline}* APCO
    reiterates its initial proposal for a 12.5 kHz channeling plan based
    on the Project 25 Phase I (12.5 kHz) standards. APCO again requests
    that we revise the band plan to change the channelization for the
    narrowband interoperability channels from 6.25 kHz to 12.5 kHz. It
    states that a band plan with 12.5 kHz channelization would
    accommodate a wider range of equipment options and enhance
    competition and interoperability.[^71] APCO further states that
    operation on 6.25 kHz channels, as opposed to 12.5 kHz, requires
    linear amplifiers and frequency stability techniques that are years
    from being widely available in the marketplace.

28. We have reviewed APCO's request and, while making no decision
    regarding Project 25 Phase I standards at this time, we decline to
    adopt a 12.5 kHz channeling plan.[^72] We find no benefit to
    adopting a 12.5 kHz channeling plan because the 6.25 kHz channeling
    plan can accommodate the Project 25 Phase I (12.5 kHz) digital
    standard for interoperability, as recommended by the NCC,[^73] by
    combining 6.25 kHz channel pairs. Thus, we find no advantage in
    amending the narrowband interoperability channel plan to 12.5 kHz
    channel spacing, particularly given that such action could require a
    return to a 6.25 kHz spacing plan at a later date depending on our
    decisions related to the interoperability digital standards.[^74] We
    will make those decisions based on the record developed in response
    to our *Fourth Notice*.[^75] However, regardless of the outcome of
    the *Fourth Notice*, we continue to believe that a 6.25 kHz
    channeling plan for the 700 MHz band provides the most flexibility
    for future technologies and a consistency of channel widths between
    the general use and the interoperability channels. Therefore, we are
    retaining the 6.25 kHz narrowband channel plan as adopted in the
    *First Report and Order*.

29. *[Location of narrowband interoperability channels]{.underline}*
    NPSTC asks that we reconsider the narrowband interoperability plan
    to the extent that we change the spacing between interoperability
    channels. NPSTC asks that they be spaced 250 kHz apart.[^76] NPSTC
    recommends that the interoperability channels should be in a
    sequence such as: Channel 19/20, 59/60, 99/100, 139/140, 179/180,
    219/220, *etc*. NPSTC requests this reconsideration of the band plan
    to permit system operation through a common antenna system where 250
    kHz spacing represents the closest efficient use of transmitter
    combiners.[^77]

30. We have considered the NPSTC request to change the spacing between
    the interoperability channels. We agree with NPSTC that this
    modification will permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners
    for common antennas and lower costs for public safety entities.
    Accordingly, we will relocate the narrowband interoperability
    channel sets in a more efficient pattern based on 250 kHz
    separations.[^78] NPSTC\'s suggested pattern, however, would reduce
    the number of narrowband interoperability channels from 64 to 48
    (6.25 kHz) channel pairs. Therefore, we will modify the narrowband
    interoperability plan giving consideration of 250 kHz separations
    but maintaining the equivalent number of channels (64 pairs) for
    narrowband interoperability.

31. *[Location of wideband interoperability channels]{.underline}* NPSTC
    states that the wideband plan generally spaces the wideband
    interoperability channel groups apart from each other --- thereby
    facilitating common antenna systems. However, two of the 150 kHz
    wideband interoperability groups in each wideband segment are
    immediately adjacent to each other.[^79] NPSTC recommends changing
    this channel spacing plan for wideband channels to permit base
    stations to operate on a common antenna system.[^80]

32. The wideband interoperability channel groups were generally spaced
    between 1200-1350 kHz apart, except for the two adjacent blocks
    noted by NPSTC.[^81] Similar to the narrowband interoperability
    channels situation, we are also persuaded that modifying the
    wideband interoperability channeling plan will permit the use of
    efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas and lower costs
    for public safety entities using wideband technologies. Upon
    reconsideration, we amend the wideband interoperability plan to form
    the two groups of 150 kHz wideband channel groups, in a regular
    pattern spaced 450 kHz apart, based on efficient wideband combiner
    technology.

### Location of Reserve Spectrum

33. NPSTC requests modification of the band plan to place the reserve
    spectrum between the narrowband and wideband channel segments as
    originally suggested in both their band plan proposal and Motorola's
    proposed band plan filed in response to the *Second Notice*.[^82]
    NPSTC states that both plans recommended that we locate the reserve
    spectrum (channels not initially assigned) between the narrowband
    and the wideband channel segments so that the dividing line between
    those band segments could be adjusted to meet local and regional
    needs.[^83] NPSTC notes that we located the reserve spectrum at
    mid-band locations distributed throughout the narrowband and
    wideband segments. NPSTC contends that in some metropolitan areas
    there will be a greater need for wideband channels than is allocated
    in our wideband plan.[^84]

34. After consideration of NPSTC's request for reconsideration, we
    conclude that grouping the reserve spectrum into four segments of
    1.35 MHz each located between the narrowband and wideband segments
    offers improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that
    are unforeseen at this time. We, therefore, concur with NPSTC's
    petition and amend the placement of the wideband reserve spectrum.

## Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On-scene Communications

35. STI requests that we amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to modify the
    narrowband general use channel plan to designate twelve 6.25 kHz
    pairs specifically for nationwide use in a low power, analog
    modulation, person-to-person communications and personnel
    accountability reporting (PAR) system for on-scene, firefighting
    use.[^85] STI notes that firefighters, and other public safety
    personnel working in environmentally hazardous settings, wear
    protective gear and self--contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that
    makes ordinary voice communications extremely difficult, even at
    close range.[^86] To overcome this problem, on-scene/PAR systems
    such as STI's[^87] have SCBA masks with low power radios that
    provide hands-free, voice activated, firefighter-to-firefighter
    communication. Furthermore, STI notes that existing personnel alert
    safety systems (PASS) are ineffective when firefighters do not
    attach the separate PASS device to their gear and remember to
    activate it upon entry onto the fireground.[^88] By comparison, STI
    avers that its multifunction system provides for improved
    communications and personnel alert safety and accountability
    reporting systems,[^89] which STI believes should prevent some
    firefighter deaths and injuries.[^90] STI claims that its
    on-scene/PAR system could be available for use within one year if we
    amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to designate (a) twelve channel
    pairs specifically for this use without going through the RPC
    process, and (b) Section 90.535 of our Rules to permit the use of
    only analog modulation in the on-scene/PAR system. STI contends that
    digital modulation is inferior to analog for use in the on-scene/PAR
    system for three reasons: (1) the SCBA mask radio would not operate
    as well with marginal signal strength (as signal strength goes down,
    digital reception drops altogether whereas analog continues to work
    with degraded performance); (2) digital equipment is more sensitive
    to ambient heat; and (3) digital radios tend to weigh more.[^91]

36. APCO and AASHTO responded to STI's Petition and both support it.
    APCO also asks us to set aside a larger amount of spectrum than STI
    requested to accommodate additional low power public safety
    operations such as: police surveillance and tactical operations,
    urban search and rescue, and remote control of robotic devices.[^92]

37. We conclude that there is merit to providing for low power public
    safety communication systems such as the on-scene/PAR system.[^93]
    We are not convinced, however, that we should allocate 700 MHz
    spectrum exclusively for this one particular public safety low power
    application as requested by STI. We agree with APCO that there may
    be other low power applications that could operate in the 700 MHz
    band.[^94] In instances where there is the potential for multiple
    low power applications, absent a compelling showing, we favor a
    sharing approach rather than making exclusive assignments for each
    specific application. In general, we believe low power operations
    can co-exist on the same frequencies with minimal potential for
    interference because of the low power restriction.[^95] For these
    reasons, we will allocate twenty-four (6.25 kHz) channel pairs for
    low power mobile operations only. [^96] The maximum effective
    radiated power (ERP) on these channels is limited to 2 watts.

38. As noted above, we believe that a low power sharing approach is
    appropriate here. However, to minimize further the potential for
    interference we are adopting some additional restrictions. We are
    designating the twenty-four pairs as low power channels nationwide.
    Further, since we believe most low power operations will operate
    in-region the vast majority of the time, we will require applicants
    for eighteen of the pairs (Channels 1-8 and 949-958)[^97] to go
    through the regional planning process. The RPCs will be responsible
    for determining the most appropriate low power application(s) on
    these channels and the frequency coordinators will be responsible
    for providing appropriate interference protection.[^98] We have not
    specified all twenty-four pairs for RPC oversight because we believe
    there may be public safety organizations who have low power needs
    and cross regional borders routinely, such as search and rescue
    organizations. Therefore, we will license the remaining six low
    power pairs (Channels 9-12 and 959-960) on a nationwide, itinerant
    basis.[^99] These six channels should provide for the communications
    needs of entities that routinely need to travel to different parts
    of the country and, because they are nationwide, we are exempting
    applications for the low power itinerant channels from the frequency
    coordination requirement. Finally, we clarify that a Commission
    license will be required for operation on any of the low power
    channels.

39. STI asks that we permit the use of analog modulation as the primary
    mode of modulation on its on-scene/PAR system and that the
    interoperability channel operating requirement not apply. In the
    *First Report and Order,* we adopted rules requiring all portable
    and mobile units to be capable of operating on all the narrowband
    interoperability channels and that when such equipment is operating
    on the interoperability channels, it be designed to use digital
    modulation as the primary mode.[^100] The purpose of the digital
    modulation requirement was to make more efficient use of the
    spectrum. The reason for the interoperability requirement was to
    ensure that public safety entities could talk to one another. These
    requirements were cornerstones of the rules governing the public
    safety 700 MHz band. Thus, we are concerned about the potential
    negative impact of granting the exemption requested by STI. In this
    case, however, we believe a limited exemption of these two
    requirements may be in order but only for equipment that operates
    only on the designated low power channels. Low power systems by
    design make efficient use of the spectrum because they increase
    frequency reuse.[^101] Further, low power systems such as the
    on-scene/PAR system are usually not designed to communicate with
    public safety entities outside "the system." Finally, granting a
    limited exemption will provide additional flexibility to design
    specialized, self-contained communications systems intended to
    enhance safety. Therefore, we will exempt equipment that is designed
    to operate only on the 700 MHz low power channels (capable of
    transmitting only on these designated low power channels) from the
    requirement of having to be capable of operating on all
    interoperability channels[^102] and the primary digital modulation
    requirement.[^103] For these same reasons, we will also exempt such
    low power equipment from the trunking requirement.[^104] Finally, we
    caution that 700 MHz band radios without these capabilities are
    inappropriate for meeting the multitude of daily public safety
    communication requirements. Nonetheless, so long as these
    operational limitations/circumstances are understood, we agree that
    there is merit to providing for low power public safety
    communication systems.

# THIRD REPORT AND ORDER

## Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the *Third Notice* 

40. In the *First Report and Order,* we designated 12.6 megahertz of
    spectrum for general use, to be managed by regional planning
    committees (RPCs),[^105] and 2.6 megahertz of spectrum for
    interoperability. We reserved the remaining 8.8 megahertz of
    spectrum "subject to the *Third Notice*."[^106] In the *Third MO&O*,
    we decided to designate 0.3 megahertz of spectrum for low power
    operations.[^107] Of this 0.3 megahertz of spectrum, we allotted 0.2
    megahertz from the reserve spectrum and 0.1 megahertz from the
    general use spectrum. Additionally, 0.8 megahertz (128 narrowband
    channels) was set-aside pending the resolution of the
    interoperability guard band issue discussed in the *Fourth Notice*
    in this proceeding.[^108] Consequently the amount of the spectrum
    currently under consideration "subject to the *Third Notice*" is 7.8
    megahertz -- 2.4 megahertz for narrowband operations (voice and
    data) and 5.4 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/HSD and
    slow motion video).[^109]

41. In the *Third Notice,* we sought comment on three alternatives to
    govern the use and licensing of the reserve spectrum.[^110] First,
    we sought comment on whether we should allow RPCs to administer the
    reserve spectrum, in addition to administering the 12.6 megahertz,
    we designated for General Use in the *First Report and Order.*[^111]
    We also invited commenters to suggest modifications or refinements
    to the RPC process to improve the management of the reserve
    spectrum.[^112]

42. Second, we sought comment on whether we should grant a single
    license to each state for the entire reserve spectrum and require
    the states -- rather than RPCs -- to manage all use of this spectrum
    by state, local, and Federal public safety providers.[^113] We
    specifically invited states to comment on this issue.[^114] We
    requested comments on whether states should have to adhere to the
    same planning process as the RPCs.[^115] Additionally, we asked
    whether state licensing would facilitate the construction of
    regional or statewide systems[^116] and whether to permit states to
    use and share the spectrum with local political subdivisions, as
    well as Federal and other public safety providers. [^117] We also
    sought comment on the appropriate amount of spectrum to assign to
    states.[^118]

43. Finally, we also invited commenters to suggest other flexible
    licensing approaches to promote the development of a comprehensively
    planned public-safety communication system in the 700 MHz band as
    well as alternative uses of the 8.8 Megahertz that would promote
    innovative ways to serve the public safety community.[^119] We
    specifically asked commenters to address the Commission's legal
    authority to adopt alternative licensing approaches.[^120] We also
    sought comment on whether to continue reserving all or part of the
    reserve spectrum for future technological advances.[^121]

44. Commenters generally focused on two issues: (1) state planning
    "versus" regional planning; and (2) whether states should receive
    some spectrum for their statewide use. As to the first issue,
    commenters generally favor using the RPC method for administration
    of the reserve spectrum.[^122] APCO and other commenters assert that
    state administered spectrum would be an unfunded Federal mandate
    requiring states to establish a "sub-licensing" program.[^123] A few
    commenters claim that a block of spectrum that is state-administered
    would not effectively, efficiently or responsively meet the radio
    communication needs of local public safety service providers.[^124]
    While opposing state administered spectrum, APCO and others
    recommend that we require RPCs to set-aside a portion of the
    spectrum for statewide systems.[^125] California and Florida
    recommend that RPCs manage the reserve spectrum but they further
    recommend that we require RPCs to set-aside a portion of the
    spectrum for statewide and multi-jurisdictional radio systems.[^126]
    Arizona objects to a state planning, instead of regional planning,
    approach to spectrum management, and it prefers that the RPC manage
    the spectrum planning, but it has no objection to the licensing of
    spectrum directly to the state as a blanket license for its internal
    use.[^127]

45. As to the second issue, many commenters support licensing some
    spectrum directly to the states.[^128] Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et
    al.*, representing various public safety groups,[^129] support
    licensing each state to administer the 8.8 megahertz of reserve
    spectrum as delineated in the *Third Notice*.[^130] Of the comments
    received by the states, only California opposes giving states a
    direct license of at least a portion on the reserve spectrum.[^131]
    Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona, support
    direct licensing to the state of at least a portion of the reserve
    spectrum and see no advantage to management of such state spectrum
    by the RPCs.[^132] New York (*i.e.,* NYSTEC) suggests allocating a
    portion of the reserve spectrum for statewide use.[^133]
    Pennsylvania strongly urges assigning at least some portion of the
    reserved spectrum directly to the states. Virginia supports state
    licensing rather than using RPCs, and it supports state
    administration of the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.[^134]

46. One commenter, FLEWUG, opposes both RPCs and state-based licensing,
    and contends that neither process is appropriate or sufficient for
    licensing the reserve spectrum.[^135] It suggests that an expanded
    NCC becomes the controlling authority for administering and
    licensing the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.[^136] FLEWUG avers
    that it is premature to make any further determination as to the use
    of the reserve spectrum and suggests we defer any decision regarding
    this spectrum at this time.[^137] It recommends we refer this
    matter, *i.e.*, the use of the reserve spectrum, to the NCC for
    further examination.[^138]

47. Upon review of the extensive record in this proceeding and based on
    the Commission's considerable experience in licensing public safety
    entities, we believe a two-fold approach is best for the
    7.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.[^139] We conclude that the 700
    MHz plan should be augmented by designating the narrowband segment
    (2.4 megahertz, or ten percent of the spectrum) as an optional
    geographic state license, while holding the wideband segment (5.4
    megahertz, or twenty-two percent of the spectrum) in reserve for
    future expansion.[^140] We believe this decision complements the
    current 700 MHz plan, whereby RPCs administer 12.5 megahertz, or
    fifty-two percent of the spectrum -- 7.7 megahertz for narrowband
    operations (voice and data) and 4.8 megahertz for wideband
    technologies (image/HSD and slow motion video). This decision
    responds to the majority view that a certain portion of the spectrum
    needs to be set-aside for statewide systems, either licensed
    directly to the states or administered through the RPCs.[^141] We
    further believe, for the public safety radio service where market
    incentives do not apply, that it is prudent to hold some spectrum in
    reserve to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at
    this time. This decision is in line with those parties, which filed
    either Petitions for Reconsideration to the *First Report and Order*
    or comments to the *Third Notice*, that suggest that our 700 MHz
    plan either lacks flexibility or needs further study.[^142]

### State License

48. As discussed above, we conclude that each state should have an
    option to receive a statewide license for up to 2.4 megahertz of 700
    MHz band public safety spectrum. The Commission has long encouraged
    public safety agencies to develop wide-area multi-agency trunked
    public safety radio systems and the 700 MHz band public safety
    allocation offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the development
    of these systems.[^143] Under this approach, states will have
    limitless possibilities to apply their unique expertise and
    knowledge to best use the radio spectrum to meet the public safety
    needs of their citizens. Specifically, state licensees will have
    significant flexibility in terms of the technologies,
    programs/systems to deploy ---- so long as the spectrum is used for
    public safety services as required by Section 337 of the
    Communications Act.

49. Licensing up to 2.4 megahertz of the reserve spectrum to each state
    is consistent with a majority of the commenters ---- those
    supporting state licensing for either all or a portion of the
    spectrum as well as those parties requesting that RPCs set aside
    spectrum for state-wide use.[^144] The PSWAC Transition Subcommittee
    (TRSC)[^145] also reported solid support for state wide and area
    wide system licensing and operation ---- so long as such licenses
    are for state operations and based on state and local governments
    having joint planning, ownership, and operation of such
    systems.[^146] TRSC described a sampling of these systems then under
    development by the States of Colorado, Michigan, Louisiana, and Iowa
    and surrounding states.[^147] TRSC emphasized that "\[i\]t is
    important not to confuse state licenses for \[state agency\]
    operations \[with state licenses\] for operations with other than
    state agencies on a shared basis."[^148] Specifically, TRSC
    contrasted the solid support for state wide and area wide system
    licensing with any block license approach that would create spectrum
    management roles for states. TRSC averred that the state planning
    approach would raise complex issues including: (1) whether states
    want to be spectrum managers; and (2) the extent to which such a
    role would affect the "balance of power" between the state and local
    governments within their boundaries.[^149] Accordingly, we conclude
    that states with bold visions for expansive statewide/regional
    coverage should have the option to receive a direct State License as
    a new tool for addressing their communication requirements.

50. [State License complements the RPC process]{.underline}. The State
    License approach complements the RPC process by ensuring that each
    state receives a significant amount of spectrum for statewide use,
    because the RPC process, by definition, may not focus on the
    statewide needs of every state.[^150] In this regard, we note that
    several commenters want the FCC to make significant changes to the
    process to correct alleged deficiencies (in the RPC process adopted
    in the *First R&O*),[^151] or assume oversight of RPCs.[^152]
    California notes that because wide-area systems reduce the
    availability of not only the channels assigned to the system but
    also the adjacent channels which might present interference
    situations, states are at a distinct disadvantage in arguing within
    the regional planning structure for spectrum.[^153] PSWN notes that
    states, due to their status as the largest users of spectrum, may
    find it difficult to objectively weigh its spectrum needs against
    those of local governments, counties and cities.[^154] PSWAC noted
    that while the regional planning for the 800 MHz band has been
    reasonably successful overall, the process may have frustrated state
    government's inherent interest in planning public safety
    communication solutions on a statewide basis by fragmenting the
    management of the 800 MHz RPC spectrum.[^155]

51. Although some commenters favor an approach whereby the RPCs
    set-aside spectrum for statewide or regional systems, we believe it
    would be administratively burdensome, complicate coordination, and
    possibly increase the potential for interference. While favoring the
    RPC process, California asks us to require RPCs to assign channels
    for state use only pursuant to a specific channelization
    pattern.[^156] Florida sees no advantages to RPC management of any
    portion of the spectrum that we might allocate for statewide
    use.[^157] We agree with these views and find that a uniform channel
    plan facilitates the development of state systems whereas allowing
    each of the fifty-five RPCs to adopt irregular channel plans would
    complicate the inter-regional coordination and increase the
    potential for interference. We disagree with APCO's assertion that
    RPCs should have the responsibility to designate which frequencies
    to set-aside in consultation with RPCs from neighboring regions to
    maximize re-use of the spectrum.[^158] Co-channel and adjacent
    channel assignments need to be judiciously spaced (*i.e.,* frequency
    re-use) to avoid interference regardless of whether the assignments
    are used by neighboring states or other public safety entities
    (*e.g.,* city or county governments). In fact, we believe
    designating consistent frequencies to states would promote frequency
    re-use because each state would have a vested interest in designing
    optimal frequency plans for both parties. It also simplifies
    border-area coordination to a state-to-state discussion rather than
    multiple state-to-regional, *i.e.,* numerous counties and other
    local jurisdictions, discussions. Consequently, we will designate
    certain spectrum for State Licenses rather than requiring RPCs to
    set-aside spectrum.

52. [State License -- 2.4 megahertz of spectrum]{.underline}. We
    conclude that designating 2.4 megahertz for state licensing is in
    line with the spectrum needs identified by those commenters who
    suggested designating specific amounts of spectrum for state use.
    While the commenters sought amounts ranging from APCO's suggestion
    of 1.25-2.0 megahertz as the minimum for the RPCs to set-aside[^159]
    to Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.* and Virginia's request for all
    8.8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum, most commenters sought
    between 2.5 to 3.75 megahertz of spectrum. NYSTEC suggests *at
    least* 2.5 megahertz of spectrum should be designated for statewide
    systems.[^160] California requests 2.8 megahertz of spectrum for
    state systems and another 3.1 for multi-jurisdictional radio
    systems.[^161] Florida requests 3.75 megahertz of spectrum.[^162]
    Arizona has no objection to licensing all 8.8 megahertz of the
    reserve spectrum to the State, as a blanket license for its internal
    use.[^163] Based on the comments, we believe 2.4 megahertz strikes
    the right balance between providing states sufficient spectrum to
    fully explore and implement state-wide public safety systems and
    providing states with an amount of spectrum that would either lie
    fallow or be used in an inefficient manner. [^164]

53. While we acknowledge that each state has varying communications
    requirements, our decision to designate 2.4 megahertz of spectrum is
    consistent with the record before us. Adopting the same amount of
    spectrum for all states, regardless of size, is reasonable because
    the needs of smaller states for frequencies to satisfy
    communications requirements of high-density population areas will be
    similar to needs of larger states to cover fewer urban centers
    spaced over expansive geographic areas. Moreover, as discussed
    above, designating consistent spectrum for state use offers distinct
    benefits such as improved coordination. Consequently, we will adopt
    the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum for all states.[^165] As noted
    above, we are providing states the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum
    nationwide to "open the door" for states to consider cooperative
    arrangements with their neighbors for new, reliable 700 MHz band
    radio networks to address interstate public safety concerns such as
    natural disasters, forest fires, search and rescue missions, and
    highway emergencies or maintenance. Designating the same 2.4
    megahertz of spectrum nationwide provides additional opportunity for
    the development of interoperability capabilities as well as the
    potential acceleration of the introduction of new equipment designed
    to take advantage of this spectrum.[^166] Designating the same 2.4
    megahertz should also improve interstate frequency coordination,
    thereby decreasing the potential for interference at state borders.

54. [State License is a geographical area license]{.underline}. For
    commercial mobile radio services, the Commission has concluded that
    licensing based on pre-defined service areas poses significant
    advantages, over site-based licensing, because of the greater
    operational flexibility it affords licensees, its inherent ability
    to simplify system expansion, and its easing of the administrative
    burden on the Commission.[^167] While APCO states that statewide
    systems are not incompatible with regional planning and cites that
    numerous statewide systems have been approved within the 800 MHz
    band, we believe a geographic license offers some distinct
    advantages.[^168] PSWAC noted that the implementation of wide-area
    systems by the public safety community has been hindered, in part,
    by the Commission's site-by-site licensing process for public safety
    radio.[^169] Frequency-by-frequency, site-by-site, planning is a
    costly and time-consuming process for states that are seeking to
    assemble spectrum building blocks at the local level and aggregate
    into a statewide structure.

55. We conclude that a geographical license for states is a logical
    outgrowth of the RPC process and we believe it would provide a valid
    approach to the varying communications needs of all sectors of the
    public safety community -- federal, state, and local.[^170]
    Generally, when spectrum is used for private internal services,
    including public safety, it is not necessary to develop geographic
    area licensing \[to ensure that service is widely available to the
    general public\].[^171] However, site-by-site licensing is designed
    primarily to license dispatch radio systems on a
    transmitter-by-transmitter basis in local areas \[markets\] and the
    Commission has recognized that this licensing process is very
    cumbersome for radio systems comprised of several hundred
    sites.[^172] It also deprives licensees that need to cover a wide
    geographic area of flexibility to move transmitter sites throughout
    a defined service area without obtaining our prior approval.[^173]

56. In determining what type of geographic area license is most
    appropriate for particular wireless services, we have considered
    such factors as the nature of the service (*e.g.*, technological
    constraints), the presence of natural markets, cost of build-out,
    and the range of services that can be offered in the most rapid and
    efficient manner. This determination has led to the use of a variety
    of different license areas (*e.g.*, Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
    Economic Areas). In this case, the geopolitical boundaries of each
    state form an appropriate and convenient geographical licensing area
    for public safety radio spectrum. Noting that spectrum propagation
    does not honor state boundaries, APCO cites the northeast where
    regions are organized around multi-state metropolitan areas as a
    drawback to state licensing.[^174] We reject this argument, because,
    as Pennsylvania points out, radio signals do not respect the
    artificial boundaries of the RPCs.[^175] Indeed, the northeast,
    where RPCs are metropolitan based rather than state-based, have
    provided some of our most complicated and vexing problems to be
    solved. Consequently, we conclude that an optional state-based
    geographic license is desirable and offers some distinct advantages
    over RPCs for managing spectrum designated for state operations.

57. [State License promotes efficient spectrum use and allows economies
    of scale]{.underline}. Experience with geographic area licensing in
    the commercial wireless sector demonstrates that geographic area
    licenses often encourage the rapid development and deployment of
    innovative service, facilitate interoperability and operational
    standards while allowing economies of scale that encourage the
    development of low cost equipment.[^176] APCO contends that,
    although a few large states may well have the capability to
    administer the reserve spectrum, most state governments are
    ill-equipped and unwilling to manage radio spectrum, nor are they
    able to fund such activities in most cases.[^177] Pennsylvania
    disagrees and notes that the states have the technical and policy
    expertise to construct wide-area systems and to manage the use of
    spectrum licensed to the state.[^178] We concur, and cite the many
    state systems currently being built or planned as evidence of the
    expertise and resources being expended by the states.[^179] We
    believe that providing each state with up to 2.4 megahertz of
    spectrum will give each state greater latitude to implement spectrum
    saving technologies in public safety communications by allowing
    states to plan and develop shared, wide-area systems under a
    substantially streamlined FCC licensing process.[^180] We further
    note that shared, wide-area systems, *i.e.,* large trunked systems,
    can provide service to many governmental entities in a given
    geographical area, which provides greater spectrum efficiency than
    systems incorporating many smaller non-trunked systems or systems
    trunked on fewer channels.[^181]

58. We also believe that our decision may give state public safety
    agencies greater access to cutting-edge technology that will not
    only allow them to achieve greater efficiencies in the performance
    of their duties, but also will reduce danger to public safety
    personnel.[^182] As noted in the *Third Notice,* the development of
    state-wide systems that include state agencies of various sizes may
    allow states to more easily deploy state-of-the art systems, due to
    the economics of scale and scope. Pennsylvania further notes that
    these wide-area, state systems can provide economies of scale and
    other benefits to state agencies and local public-safety agencies
    within the state.[^183] States deploying such systems decrease the
    cost that any one agency needs to bear for infrastructure and lowers
    the per-user cost for the whole system.[^184] Thus, a statewide
    system could serve as the backbone for delivering new technologies
    in a cost-effective way to localities throughout the state. Rather
    than bypassing local communications needs, the statewide system is a
    way to ensure that jurisdictions in the state are not divided into
    communications \"haves" and "have-nots.\"

59. The State License approach that we are adopting is also in line with
    PSWAC's recommendations to (1) encourage more sharing and joint use
    of spectrum resources in light of the considerable success some
    states and regions are experiencing in pooling spectral resources,
    and (2) consider block allocations for public safety use and adopt
    flexible licensing policies that encourage the use of the most
    spectrally-efficient technology to meet user defined needs.[^185]

#### Licensing and Operational Requirements

60. Based on the channel plan and other decisions set forth above, we
    will allow any state[^186] that chooses to take advantage of
    spectrum that we have designated for state use to file an
    application for up to 2.4 megahertz of this spectrum no later than
    December 31, 2001.[^187] We believe that providing states this
    amount of time to apply for this spectrum allows every state at
    least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the funds
    necessary to plan, prepare, and implement the use of the
    spectrum.[^188] What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state
    has not applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use
    and be administered by the relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of
    states that encompass multiple RPCs).

61. Upon receipt and processing of a state's application, we will issue
    a license directly to the governor of each state, or its
    designee.[^189] The Communications Act imposes no time limit on
    licenses issued by the Commission, other than those for broadcast
    services, which are limited to an eight-year license term.[^190]
    Section 90.149 of our Rules[^191] provides for ten--year license
    terms in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services.[^192] In the
    context of 700 MHz band geographic--area licenses, we are concerned
    that the continued existence of incumbent broadcasters in the state
    license spectrum may retard a licensee's development and use of the
    spectrum.[^193] Thus, we are modifying the license term for the
    state license to accommodate licensees' need for additional time to
    develop and use this spectrum, in light of its continued use by
    broadcasters until 2006 at the earliest. Subject to the conditions
    set forth below, the initial license term for these licenses will be
    fifteen years.[^194] States can subsequently renew these licenses
    for additional ten-year periods. Renewal will not be automatic, but
    state licensees will have a renewal expectancy subject to the
    conditions set forth below.

62. *[Conditions of Grant]{.underline}* We believe it is necessary to
    establish construction and operation requirements to ensure
    efficient use of the spectrum including the provision of service to
    rural, remote, and insular areas. We believe setting our initial
    construction/operation benchmark at five years is consistent with
    our experience and Rules for public safety/government
    entities.[^195] Because incumbent broadcasters are not required to
    complete relocation to other portions of the spectrum until December
    31, 2006, we will calculate the five--year benchmark using January
    1, 2007 as the starting date.[^196]

63. Accordingly, each state license will be granted subject to the
    condition that the state certifies on or before each applicable
    benchmark date (see below) that it is:

> • providing or prepared to provide "substantial service"[^197] to
> one-third of their population or territory[^198] by January 1, 2012,
> *i.e.*, within five years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are
> required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum;"
>
> • providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to two-thirds
> of their population or territory by January 1, 2017, *i.e.*, within
> ten years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to
> relocate to other portions of the spectrum.
>
> • We will deem a state "prepared to provide substantial service" if
> the licensee certifies that radio system has been approved and funded
> for implementation by the deadline date.
>
> • If a licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the license
> is modified automatically to the frequencies and geographic areas
> where the state certifies that it is providing substantial service.
>
> • Any recovered spectrum will revert to General Use. [^199]
>
> • We clarify, however, that spectrum licensed to a state under a state
> license remains unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until
> the Commission's database reflects the parameters of the modified
> state license.

64. We conclude that these construction and operation requirements
    constitute effective safeguards and performance requirements for the
    efficient use of this spectrum. However, we reserve the right to
    review these requirements in the future if we determine that a
    reassessment is warranted to ensure that the radio spectrum is used
    efficiently.

65. *[Conforming Amendment to Section 90.179]{.underline}* Under Section
    90.179[^200] of our Rules, a licensee may share its system with
    other entities that are eligible to hold a license for the same
    spectrum.[^201] A station is shared when persons not licensed for
    the station control it for their own purposes pursuant to the
    licensee\'s permission.[^202] In the *Third Notice*, we noted that
    if we decided to license individual states, we would need to revise
    Section 90.179 to allow state licensees to authorize appropriate
    public safety agencies within the state and its political
    subdivisions to use the spectrum for their own purposes pursuant to
    the state licensee\'s authorization.

66. The state, as licensee, will be responsible for assuring that the
    authorized facility is used only by persons and for purposes
    consistent with Section 90.179.[^203] For example, if the state, as
    licensee, shares a land station on a non-profit, cost sharing basis,
    it must do so pursuant to a written agreement between the state and
    each participant that is kept as part of the station records.[^204]
    This amendment is necessary to provide state licensees with the same
    operational flexibility that Section 90.179 now provides all other
    PLMR licensees. By comparison, we decline to adopt a "State
    Licensing" approach under which states -- rather than regional
    planning committees (RPCs) -- would manage state, local, and Federal
    use of all or most of the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.

#### Technical Requirements

67. State applicants and licensee will be subject to the general limits
    that govern geographic area licenses including antenna structures
    and air navigation, international coordination, environmental
    requirements, and quiet zones.[^205] In addition, we will mirror our
    decision in the *Commercial 700 MHz R&O* and adopt a field
    strength[^206] of 40 dBu/m[^207] to control harmful interference
    between state systems in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. As
    we stated in that decision, we believe the field strength approach
    provides established, objective criteria for controlling in-band
    interference, and gives licensees the ability to construct and
    operate facilities in boundary areas so long as the limit is
    met.[^208] We further believe that use of the field strength
    procedure will satisfy the requirement in Section 337(d)(1) that the
    Commission establish "interference limits at the boundaries of the
    spectrum block and service area."[^209] Similarly to our decision in
    the *Commercial 700 MHz R&O*, we will permit adjoining states to
    agree to alternate field strengths at their common border.[^210]

### 700 MHz Band Reserve

68. We are reserving the remaining 5.4 megahertz of wideband spectrum
    for future (mid--term) needs and future developments in broadband
    technologies. We recognize that there was opposition to our
    retaining any of the public safety 700 MHz band as reserve spectrum.
    We believe, however, that whenever a large amount of spectrum[^211]
    is made available in a new band for public safety, it is good
    spectrum management policy to keep some spectrum in reserve for
    unforeseen needs.[^212] In this case, public safety regional plans
    for the 700 MHz band have not been finalized and, in most cases, not
    even started. As discussed earlier, some parties asked for further
    study --- NPSTC's Petition for Reconsideration requested locating a
    "reserve band" between the narrowband and wideband channels to
    accommodate future needs;[^213] Powell's Petition for
    Reconsideration also requested that we defer the planning of the
    wideband channels until further discussions could commence on the
    development of a national HSD network;[^214] and FLEWUG requests
    that all 8.8 megahertz be held in reserve pending further
    consideration by the NCC.[^215] Thus, we conclude that holding some
    wideband spectrum in reserve is a prudent course of action at this
    time. Keeping a relatively small reserve (twenty-two percent of the
    700 MHz band) gives the Commission flexibility to "fine tune" the
    band plan in the future with the benefit of experience that can only
    be gained after radio systems are deployed in this new band.

69. Specifically, in the *Third MO&O*, we regrouped the reserve spectrum
    into four (2 pair) segments of 1.35 megahertz each that are located
    between the narrowband and wideband segments.[^216] This regrouping
    offers improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that
    are unforeseen at this time because the 5.4 megahertz of reserve
    spectrum is located between narrowband and wideband segments so we
    can accommodate future needs for narrowband, wideband or broadband
    that may be identified through the planning process or by advances
    in technology without impacting existing plans or licensees. Keeping
    a reserve that is grouped in two pairs of 1.35 megahertz each also
    recognizes trends towards broadband technologies. For example, the
    108 wideband channels that we are reserving could accommodate needs
    such as exclusive high speed data,[^217] additional interoperability
    spectrum,[^218] or hybrid commercial/private mobile system.[^219]
    Therefore, we will retain 5.4 megahertz of spectrum as a public
    safety reserve. Once the 700 MHz band planning process is complete,
    we will review the status of a spectrum reserve. Also, we would
    welcome any future suggestions the NCC may have regarding this
    issue.

## Protection of the GNSS[^220] from Second Harmonic Interference

70. In the *Third Notice*, we proposed technical solutions to protect
    the GNSS global navigation satellite systems, particularly the
    GLONASS.[^221] We were concerned that second harmonic
    emissions[^222] from public safety mobiles operating in the
    794‑806 MHz band (TV channels 68 and 69) may cause harmful
    interference to aeronautical users of GLONASS receivers.[^223] To
    protect this system and to ensure that equipment operating in these
    bands would not cause radio interference to the GNSS, NTIA advocated
    applying out-of-band emission limits for GNSS to all spurious
    emissions, including second harmonic emissions, and being limited
    to: (1) wideband emissions, -70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically
    radiated power (EIRP); and (2) narrowband emissions, -80 dBW/700 Hz.
    We proposed to apply the emission limits requested by NTIA only to
    the second harmonics to the GLONASS band. However, we requested
    comment concerning the validity of the assumptions that underlie
    NTIA\'s requested standard, such as the assumed separation distance
    of 30 meters between public safety mobile operations and GLONASS
    receivers.[^224] In addition, we sought comment on the impact of
    these proposed limits on the design of equipment for public safety
    use in the 700 MHz band.[^225] We further noted that NTIA\'s
    standard is only necessary to protect GNSS operations in the
    1559-1605 MHz band.[^226] Therefore, we proposed to apply the
    traditional FCC standard (*i.e.,* generally 43 + 10 log P) outside
    the radionavigation satellite service (RNSS) frequency band.[^227]

### Base/mobile Pairing ("Band Flipping")

71. In the *First Report and Order*, we noted that manufacturers could
    design future public safety equipment to operate in both the 700 MHz
    and 800 MHz bands.[^228] In that context, we decided to designate
    the higher 794-806 MHz band for mobile-to-base communications, due
    in part to its proximity to the adjacent 806-824 MHz band that is
    designated for mobiles and/or portables as well.[^229] FLEWUG has
    requested that we amend the band plan for 794-806 MHz to allow only
    fixed, base-to-mobile communications.[^230] In this way, the
    possibility of transmitters operating from multiple and unknown
    locations is reduced and the problem is confined to fixed stations
    only.[^231] FLEWUG also states that its recommendation reduces the
    impact of the problem with respect to the equipment modifications
    required to adhere to the emission limit criteria because slight
    increases in weight or size in base stations would be manageable
    while similar changes to handheld devices would be much more
    apparent and potentially a hindrance to public safety
    operations.[^232] FLEWUG argues that the designation of 794-806 MHz
    for mobile-to-base communications, rather than for base-to-mobile
    communications, may exacerbate interference with the GNSS band at
    1559-1605 MHz.[^233]

72. Several commenters oppose FLEWUG's request because they believe that
    such redesignation of the band plan would do little to avoid
    interference with GNSS, and that the traditional emission limits
    (*i.e*., 43 + log P) should be sufficient.[^234] Florida, APCO,
    Arizona and Motorola oppose FLEWUG's request because the present
    band plan offers direct interoperability with existing mobile
    systems in the adjacent 806-824 MHz band.[^235] They also assert
    that FLEWUG's request would effectively eliminate the ability for
    mobiles and/or portables to engage in "talk-around" communications
    between the 700 and 800 MHz bands.[^236] Arizona disagrees with
    FLEWUG and NTIA's recommendation to flip the band plan, noting that
    it would result in 700 MHz base stations only a few kHz from other
    700 MHz base station receivers on primary sites.[^237] Motorola
    states that the potential interference relationship between 700 MHz
    public safety systems and GNSS is actually quite limited because
    only a small portion of the public safety mobile allocation (*i.e.,*
    779.5-802.5 MHz) has direct second harmonic relations with
    frequencies assigned to GLONASS.[^238] It would therefore be unwise
    to overlook the benefits of allowing mobile transmitters in the
    794-806 MHz band.[^239]

73. Motorola alleges that reversing the base and mobile allocations
    would require the establishment of a guard band of at least one
    megahertz between the upper edge of the 794-806 MHz base band and
    the lower edge of the existing 806-824 MHz mobile band.[^240]
    Motorola also notes that establishing such a guard band would
    further reduce the ability of the 700 MHz allocation to meet the
    immediate needs of public safety. Additionally, Motorola states that
    reversing the plan would complicate the design of dual-band mobile
    receivers by requiring manufacturers to further increase receiver
    bandwidth in order to accommodate talk-around in the 764-776 MHz
    band, which would further add to the cost of public safety
    equipment.[^241]

74. After considering all the views, we decline to flip the band plan as
    suggested by FLEWUG and NTIA. Prohibiting use of the mobile
    transmitters in the 794-806 MHz base station allocation, as proposed
    by FLEWUG, would affect the ability of public safety users to
    communicate unit-to-unit in talk-around mode. Unit-to-unit
    operations are fundamental to public safety operations and critical
    to interoperability. As noted by Motorola, reversing the base and
    mobile allocations may also necessitate the establishment of a 1 MHz
    guard band at the 806 MHz band edge, further reducing the ability of
    the 700 MHz allocation to meet the immediate needs of public safety.
    Moreover, the proposed band plan offers direct interoperability with
    existing mobile systems in the adjacent 806-824 MHz band. Flipping
    the band plan would result in the location of 700 MHz base stations
    with a separation of only a few kHz from other 700 MHz base station
    receivers on primary sites. We believe that the adopted mobile
    transmit/receive plan is optimal for public safety users because it
    provides manufacturers the opportunity to easily broaden the
    bandwidth of mobile radios to provide interoperability between 700
    MHz and 800 MHz band radios. By contrast, reversing the plan would
    complicate the design of dual-band mobile receivers by requiring
    manufacturers to further increase receiver bandwidth in order to
    accommodate talk-around in the 764-776 MHz band and would further
    add to the cost of public safety equipment.

### Emission Limits

75. We are faced with dual Congressional obligations on this issue.
    First, we must \"protect the integrity of the \[GPS\] frequency
    spectrum against interference and disruption.\"[^242] Additionally,
    we are also charged with making spectrum available for public safety
    use in the 746-806 MHz band. Mindful of these obligations, we
    proposed to adopt the emission limits presented by NTIA but sought
    comment to create a thorough understanding of the need and
    ramifications of this standard on use of the 700 MHz band for public
    safety. Specifically, we must balance the needs of competing
    requirements of the spectrum. We have considered the comments and
    conclude that the limits proposed by NTIA provide the appropriate
    balance between these two obligations. Further, we note the
    similarity between the issues we confront here and those in the
    *Commercial 700 MHz R&*O and believe that in the interest of
    consistency, we should follow the lead previously established with
    regard to the treatment of GNSS/GPS. Regarding these same issues, we
    expressed our concern about critical safety-of-life applications of
    GPS, particularly those systems that will use GPS for aeronautical
    radionavigation, and our desire to ensure that adopted rules do not
    adversely affect these operations.[^243] NTIA, which represents the
    positions of the Federal Government on spectrum management matters,
    has suggested specific emission limits for equipment operating in
    this band that it believes will sufficiently protect aeronautical
    radionavigation operations. We agree with NTIA that the proposed
    emission limits will "ensure that fixed and mobile equipment will
    not cause radio frequency interference to the GNSS when those
    systems are used for precision approach and landing" and we adopt
    NTIA's recommendations.[^244] Outside of the 1559-1610 MHz
    radionavigation satellite service (RNSS) band, our traditional
    standard (*i.e*. generally 43 + 10 log P) will apply.[^245]

76. Accordingly, using the rules established in the *Commercial 700 MHz
    R&*O as a guide, we adopt the following limits: for operations in
    the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands, emissions in the band
    1559-1610 MHz shall be limited to --70 dBW/MHz equivalent
    isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband signals, and --80
    dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth.[^246]
    For the purpose of equipment authorization, a transmitter shall be
    tested with an antenna that is representative of the type that will
    be used with the equipment in normal operation.

77. In making this determination, we note that the issue at hand is not
    only the protection of GPS and GLONASS from interference but also
    the future international GNSS.[^247] As to the adequacy of our
    proposed protection scheme, commenters argued that our proposed
    standards were either too restrictive or too lenient to protect GNSS
    operations. Some commenters believe that imposition of the NTIA
    standards would seriously inhibit the use of these channels by
    public safety entities.[^248] They also believe that the concerns of
    those supporting stricter standards are overstated. Although many of
    these commenters endorse the establishment of a special committee of
    technical experts to further study the issue,[^249] we believe the
    record we sought to expand by way of the *Third Notice* has
    alleviated any need for such a committee. However, we repeat our
    view that we might consider longer-term solutions at a future
    date.[^250] Conversely, other commenters adamantly argued that the
    NTIA limits would devastate GLONASS, result in harmful interference
    to the GPS frequency band and end the continuous viability of GPS
    and GLONASS.[^251] Still other commenters, such as FLEWUG, generally
    view NTIA\'s proposed emission standards, -70 dBW/MHz for wideband
    emissions and -80 dBW/700 Hz for narrowband emissions, as the most
    realistic.[^252]

78. The current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
    standards define GNSS as containing components of both GPS and
    GLONASS in its final configuration. Many commenters assert that
    protection for GLONASS is of minimal importance since GPS is the
    dominant standard in the United States and because only the public
    safety wideband channels have a direct, though limited, second
    harmonic relationship with GLONASS.[^253] We do not agree with this
    view. As a member of ICAO and the International Maritime
    Organization (IMO), the United States has made international
    commitments to provide protection from interference to GLONASS in
    its final configuration. These commitments are, in effect, treaty
    obligations that we must coordinate into a common policy when
    confronted with interference issues such as the one before us here.
    Additionally, even though GLONASS has not yet fully develop to
    achieve extensive practical use, we direct attention to the fact
    that the use of the 1559-1610 MHz RNSS band is evolving.[^254] We,
    therefore, are adopting rules that provide for the future
    development of GNSS systems.

79. With regard to aviation concerns, foreign flights are likely to use
    combined GPS and GLONASS receivers since GNSS consists of both GPS
    and GLONASS components. We believe that requiring foreign aircraft
    to use GPS exclusively creates an undue burden and is inconsistent
    with the treaty obligations of the United States. NTIA notes that
    GNSS is an international system affecting aviation and marine
    entities and the United States has international agreements and
    treaty obligations involving various components of GNSS.[^255]
    Specifically, we must balance the needs of competing requirements of
    the spectrum. In this case, we must balance the needs of users of
    GNSS and future users of the 700 MHz band. Contrary to the
    contentions of many commenters, we cannot discount the effect that
    emissions may have on GLONASS simply because it is not the favored
    system used in this country. Rather, the treaty obligations of the
    United States leave us with little discretion and we must focus on
    the effect to GNSS generally because of its dual components, GPS and
    GLONASS. We conclude that our proposed emission limits will be
    sufficient to protect critical GNSS operations, *i.e.,* GPS,
    GLONASS, and the future components of GNSS.

80. Further, we agree with NTIA that the proposed out of band emission
    limits will ensure that fixed and mobile equipment will not cause
    radio frequency interference to the GNSS when those systems are used
    for precision approach and landing. With regard to the separation
    criteria of 30 meters, as we noted in the *Third Notice*, the limits
    proposed by NTIA, including its assumption of a separation distance
    of 30 meters from the GPS or GLONASS receiver for spurious or
    harmonic signals are consistent with the levels recommended by the
    FAA.[^256] The field data collection of PSWN and comments of FLEWUG
    support our conclusion that this assumed separation distance is
    appropriate for public safety operations.[^257]

81. The proposed --70 dBW/MHz wideband emission limit is consistent with
    the United States' position in the ITU-R study group activities. Our
    decision in this proceeding is also consistent with the decisions
    adopted on this matter internationally.[^258] Should future actions
    internationally result in conflicts between the decision we adopt
    here and international positions, we could then consider those
    differences as part of a separate, future proceeding, if
    appropriate. To this end, we would encourage continued industry
    dialogue so that if a consensus based on future data is reached, we
    can then entertain modifications. Absent more actual data, our
    decision is based on the recommendations to date.

## Interoperability Below 512 MHz

82. In the *Third Notice*, we tentatively concluded that locating
    interoperability channels in the 700 MHz[^259] and 800 MHz[^260]
    bands alone would not provide a comprehensive solution to nationwide
    interoperability.[^261] Citing the *PSWAC Final Report*, we noted
    that federal, state and local public safety agencies use a total of
    ten radio bands, that range from 30 MHz to over 800 MHz.[^262] To
    date, the ability to operate in these bands with a single,
    commercial grade radio is complicated because their individual radio
    systems operate in different frequency bands. Consequently,
    communications between public safety agencies is limited. This
    inability to communicate hinders cooperation and coordination among
    public safety agencies on a day-to-day basis.[^263]

83. To address these obstacles, we proposed to establish nationwide
    interoperability channels below 512 MHz, thereby providing for the
    development and use of shared interoperability systems and the
    building of gateways between technically incompatible federal,
    state, and local public safety systems.[^264] Accordingly, we made
    proposals and invited comment on interoperability channels in (1)
    the existing 150-174 MHz and 450-512 MHz public safety bands, (2)
    the 138-144 MHz band, and (3) the VHF maritime band at 156-162 MHz.
    We also sought comment on requiring every public safety mobile radio
    to have the capacity to transmit and receive on at least one
    nationwide interoperability channel in the band in which it is
    operating. Additionally, we requested comment on whether it is
    necessary to establish a nationwide interoperability band below 512
    MHz.[^265]

84. Commenters agreed with our conclusion that separate interoperability
    channels are needed in the Public Safety Pool below 512 MHz.[^266]
    Specifically, commenters supported our proposal in the *Third
    Notice* to designate specific VHF and UHF channels for
    interoperability.[^267] Moreover, several comments stated that our
    *Third Notice* proposals did not adequately address the need for
    interoperability channels below 512 MHz[^268] and some commenters
    also complained about the relatively severe operational limitations
    that would apply to some of the specific channels that we set forth
    in the *Third Notice*.[^269] While in the *Third Notice* we sought
    comment on the need for a separate interoperability band below 512
    MHz and several commenters continued to promote this solution, no
    other spectrum identified is readily available.[^270] We believe the
    Rules adopted today represent a practical step toward a
    comprehensive solution to the issue of interoperability below 512
    MHz. As described in detail below, we adopt specific channels within
    the existing public safety bands (150-174 MHz and 450-512 MHz)
    resulting from the *Refarming* proceeding for nationwide
    interoperability. We also designate the three VHF channel pairs
    set-aside for public safety in the VHF maritime band (156-162 MHz),
    which are located generally in the Midwest region of the country,
    for interoperability use. For convenience, the following table sets
    forth the specific channels below 512 MHz that we are designating
    exclusively for interoperability purposes.

**Table of Public Safety Interoperability Channels Below 512 MHz**[^271]

+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| CHANNEL (MHz)          | LABEL      | NOTES                          |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 151.1375 base/mobile   | VTAC 1     | not available in PR/VI         |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 154.4525 base/mobile   | VTAC 2     | not available in PR/VI         |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 155.7525 base/mobile   | VCALL      |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 158.7375 base/mobile   | VTAC 3     |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 159.4725 base/mobile   | VTAC 4     |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 157.250 mobile         | RTAC 1     | VPC Ch. 25 (25 kHz pair)       |
|                        |            |                                |
| 161.850 base/mobile    | RTAC 1a    | Available in all 33 EAs        |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 157.225 mobile         | RTAC 2     | VPC Ch. 84 (25 kHz pair)       |
|                        |            |                                |
| 161.825 base/mobile    | RTAC 2a    | Available in 22 EAs            |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 157.275 mobile         | RTAC 3     | VPC Ch. 85 (25 kHz pair)       |
|                        |            |                                |
| 161.875 base/mobile    | RTAC 3a    | Available in 11 EAs            |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 453.2125 base/mobile   | UCALLa     |                                |
|                        |            |                                |
| 458.2125 mobile        | UCALL      |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 453.4625 base/mobile   | UTAC 1a    |                                |
|                        |            |                                |
| 458.4625 mobile        | UTAC 1     |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 453.7125 base/mobile   | UTAC 2a    |                                |
|                        |            |                                |
| 458.7125 mobile        | UTAC 2     |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+
| 453.8625 base/mobile   | UTAC 3a    |                                |
|                        |            |                                |
| 458.8625 mobile        | UTAC 3     |                                |
+------------------------+------------+--------------------------------+

### Interoperability Channels in the 150-174 & 450-512 MHz (Existing Public Safety Bands).

85. In the *Third Notice*, we proposed to designate ten channels in the
    existing public safety bands below 512 MHz for nationwide
    interoperability. Several commenters supported this proposal, but
    voiced concerns about adjacent channel assignments and bandwidth
    problems.[^272] NPSTC and Arizona noted that other VHF and UHF
    spectrum could be reallocated nationwide, including the wideband
    paired channels in the 150-160 and 450-460 MHz bands (Improved
    Mobile Telephone Service which is now obsolete due to cellular and
    PCS).[^273] APCO, Motorola and others note that the specific UHF
    channels identified in *the Third Notice* are 6.25 kHz wide channels
    which is inconsistent with the PSWAC recommendation of 12.5 kHz for
    interoperability channels.[^274]

86. Upon review of the comments, we adopt five VHF channels (five
    frequencies) and four UHF channel pairs (eight frequencies) for
    interoperability purposes  one calling channel and four tactical
    channels in the existing VHF public safety band at 150-174 MHz, and
    one calling and three tactical channel pairs in the existing UHF
    public safety band at 450-512 MHz.[^275] Although some commenters
    indicated that we should look elsewhere (*e.g.*, Part 22, Improved
    Mobile Telephone Service) for interoperability channels, the record
    before us is insufficient to justify reallocating spectrum already
    allocated to other services. Moreover, we believe that designating
    channels in the existing public safety bands for interoperability is
    a practical and necessary step in addressing the lack of
    interoperability considering that a substantial number of federal,
    state, and local public safety agencies operate in these bands.
    While we acknowledge the difficulties associated with adjacent
    channel operations, which are discussed below, the advent of 12.5
    kHz "offset" channels resulting from the *Refarming* proceeding
    presents a significant opportunity to designate channels for
    nationwide interoperability purposes that we should not overlook. We
    realize our decisions may adversely impact existing licensees,
    however we believe that the benefits of providing for
    interoperability in these bands outweigh any adverse impact. We
    believe our action facilitates additional interoperability
    capability with minimal impact to existing licensees. Moreover, we
    received no comments opposing our proposal to designate
    interoperability channels in the public safety bands below 512 MHz.

87. As an initial matter, we adopt the five VHF channels 151.1375,
    154.4525, 155.7525, 158.7375, and 159.4725 MHz as set forth in the
    *Third Notice.* These channels were recommended by the frequency
    coordinators and generally supported by commenters.[^276]
    Nevertheless, their use as interoperability channels presents
    serious operational challenges. As noted by several commenters, VHF
    channels are spaced 7.5 kHz apart but operations are permitted up to
    12.5 kHz, and this overlap increases the potential for adjacent
    channel interference. Generally, this adjacent channel interference
    is minimized through prudent sharing of these channels during
    frequency coordination, *e.g.*, attempting to keep adjacent-channel
    VHF transmitters separated by ten miles. However, such coordination
    is not possible on nationwide interoperability channels, which by
    definition cannot be restricted geographically or operationally.
    Thus, adjacent channel interference will be a serious operational
    challenge for VHF interoperability channels. Nonetheless, the need
    for additional interoperability capability in the VHF band outweighs
    these operational challenges -- some VHF interoperability capability
    is better than no VHF interoperability capability. Since this is a
    characteristic of the VHF band and no alternate channels were
    suggested in comments, we conclude that these channels represent a
    viable choice based on industry views.

88. For the UHF band, we adopt four channel pairs for interoperability
    purposes: 453/458.2125, 453/458.4625, 453/458.7125, and 453/458.8625
    MHz. In the *Third Notice*, we proposed two UHF channel pairs (four
    frequencies) and sought comments on another channel pair for
    nationwide interoperability purposes.[^277] Although several
    commenters supported designating UHF channels for interoperability,
    they also noted that the specific channels identified in the *Third
    Notice* for interoperability are 6.25 kHz wide channels which would
    be inconsistent with the PSWAC recommendation of 12.5 kHz for
    interoperability channels.[^278] We agree.[^279] Relying on our
    experience with the five channel pairs designated at 800 MHz for
    interoperability, we believe four channel pairs are an appropriate
    number to facilitate interoperability in the UHF band. [^280] Based
    on a search of our database the channels we adopt today represent
    the least encumbered 12.5 kHz UHF channels.[^281] Currently, there
    is a freeze on the licensing of new high power stations on the 12.5
    kHz "offset" channels in the 450--470 MHz band[^282] but the freeze
    on the filing of these applications in the 450-460 MHz band is to be
    lifted on January 29, 2001.[^283]

89. Because our decision affects not only those licensed on the
    interoperability frequencies but also those on nearby channels
    operating with 12.5 kHz or 25 kHz equipment, we will provide a
    transition period through January 1, 2005 for implementation.[^284]
    Current licensees may continue to operate on these interoperability
    channels indefinitely; however, after January 1, 2005, existing
    users that continue to operate on these channels will do so on a
    secondary basis to interoperability uses.[^285] Prior to January 1,
    2005, interoperability use will be permitted only on a secondary
    basis to existing users; that is, interoperability transmissions can
    be made only when the channel is clear and on a non-interference
    basis. This transition period, we believe, will provide existing
    licensees with sufficient time and notice to become aware of any
    potential effects on their particular operations by future
    interoperability use. It also provides any critical public safety
    operations with ample time to identify their options and determine
    the best course of action. We also note that some public safety
    operations may be such that they could be suspended during emergency
    situations. Specifically, an existing licensee could assign
    noncritical traffic to the interoperability channel and instruct its
    employees to use other VHF channels whenever the interoperability
    channel is needed for interoperability communication. Or, an
    existing licensee may anticipate that it would be a part of any
    interoperability event within its jurisdiction (licensed area), in
    which case it would use the interoperability channel only for
    interoperability communication for the duration of the
    interoperability event or need. We believe the adoption of
    interoperability channels in these critical public safety bands --
    where the majority of public safety radio systems operate today --
    will make significant interoperability improvements.

90. Under our Rules, an entity must have a license to operate a base or
    control station on these interoperability channels.[^286] Mobile
    operation, however, is permitted on these channels without an
    individual license (*i.e.*, a blanket licensing approach).[^287]
    Public safety licensees who are eligible to hold a Part 90 license,
    or who are otherwise licensed under Part 90 of our Rules, can
    operate mobile units on these interoperability channels without an
    individual license. Additionally, as suggested in comments, we also
    will require, as of January 1, 2005, every newly certified public
    safety mobile radio unit to have the capacity to transmit and
    receive on at least one nationwide interoperability channel (*i.e*.,
    the calling channel) in the band in which it is operating.[^288] For
    licensing and administration of these interoperability channels, we
    will rely on the four public safety frequency coordinators.[^289] We
    envision that the four coordinators would jointly develop an
    interoperability plan regarding the management and nationwide use of
    these interoperability channels. This plan could be developed in
    concert with the group(s) tasked with administering the
    interoperability channels in the 700 MHz band. Additionally, we
    would expect the frequency coordinators to work with existing
    licensees experiencing harmful interference to critical public
    safety operations to find suitable replacement channels.[^290]
    Finally, until general interoperability provisions can be made with
    Canada and Mexico, interoperability operations within the Canadian
    and Mexican border areas will need to be coordinated on an
    individual basis with these countries in the usual manner.

### Interoperability Channels in the 138-144 MHz Band (NTIA/DOD Reallocation)

91. We also noted in the *Third Notice* that NTIA identified three
    megahertz of 138-144 MHz band to reallocate and auction as new
    telecommunications services by 2008 as required by the Balanced
    Budget Act of 1997.[^291] In response to the suggestion of the
    *PSWAC Final Report*, we sought comment on the feasibility of using
    the 138-144 MHz band currently used by the U.S. Department of
    Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a separate
    interoperability band.[^292] However, in the "National Defense
    Authorization Act of FY 2000," Congress reclaimed this spectrum for
    exclusive federal use, thus rendering the issue moot.[^293]

### Interoperability in 156-162 MHz Band (VHF Maritime Band)

92. In the *Maritime Third Report and Order,*[^294] we designated
    exclusively for public safety users two 25 kHz channel pairs (either
    Channels 25 and 84, or Channels 25 and 85) in the VHF 156-162 MHz
    maritime band in each of the thirty-three inland VHF Public Coast
    areas (VPCs).[^295] We set aside Channel 25 (157.250/161.850 MHz)
    for public safety in each of these areas. However, because of
    incumbent licensees (whose operations were grandfathered and
    continue to be protected), no other single channel was available in
    all thirty-three areas.[^296] Therefore, we set aside Channel 84
    (157.225/161.825 MHz) in twenty-two of the areas and Channel 85
    (157.275/161.875 MHz) in the other eleven areas.[^297] We then
    stated in the *Maritime Third Report and Order* that the ultimate
    use for these reserved frequencies, and the procedures for licensing
    this spectrum, would be decided as part of the public safety
    proceeding.[^298]

93. In the *Third Notice*, we proposed to designate these channels for
    interoperability operations in each of the thirty-three VPCs.[^299]
    We also proposed to require public safety licensees to use these
    channels in accordance with the rules, standards and procedures
    formerly found in section 90.283 of our rules and be subject to
    coordination of these stations with Canada and Mexico in the same
    manner as public coast stations.[^300] Commenters support the
    proposal, but note that while the reallocation will provide
    significant relief to some areas of the country, it will provide
    only limited relief to the basic interoperability needs facing
    public safety radio systems.[^301] They further state that the
    proposal has extreme geographic restrictions and does not meet one
    of the primary requirements for interoperability spectrum described
    in the PSWAC Report. NPSTC therefore believes these individual areas
    may benefit more by licensing these channels for operational rather
    than interoperability use.[^302]

94. We adopt the proposal to designate these frequencies for
    interoperability in the thirty-three inland EAs.[^303] We agree that
    this action is not a comprehensive, nationwide solution to the
    interoperability needs facing the public safety community,[^304] it
    nonetheless helps to alleviate some of the need for interoperability
    capabilities. The channel pairs (channels 25, 84, and 85) will
    consist of 25 kHz channel pairs and will be available exclusively
    for assignment to public safety entities but only in the
    thirty-three EAs listed in our Rules. We are designating these
    channels as primarily for interoperability purposes, which means
    that interoperability communication has primary status over
    noninteroperability communication, which is permissible when the
    channels are not needed for interoperability use.

95. Applicants will apply for channel pairs (depending on which
    permissible EA is involved) in accordance with all relevant
    technical provisions under Part 90 of our Rules. We also sought
    comments on the appropriate power limit for these channels.[^305]
    One of our concerns is that VHF public safety channels are usually
    allowed to have maximum effective radiated power of 500 watts under
    Part 90 of our Rules. Pursuant to former Section 90.283 of our
    Rules, however, the public coast channels as well as those that
    shared these channels under Part 90 were limited to a transmitter
    power of 50 watts.[^306] No comments addressed this point. Ideally,
    we would prefer to allow the public safety stations to use the same
    facilities and standards that we adopted for the 700 MHz band and
    other Part 90 land mobile systems. The public coast stations, which
    utilize these channels, however, are limited to a transmitter output
    of 50 watts.[^307] Consequently, we will limit the public safety
    users to a transmitter output power of 50 watts. This limitation
    will ensure proper protection to grandfathered stations as well as
    public coast stations in adjoining regions.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

96. To better understand the nature of the Y2K problem and the potential
    risks it posed to public safety communications networks, we sought
    comment in the *Third Notice* on how best to ascertain the extent,
    reach, and effectiveness of Y2K compliance initiatives undertaken by
    public safety entities. We requested information on at least three
    possible means to accomplish this goal and made no specific
    proposals. Nine comments and three reply comments addressing Y2K
    matters were filed in response to the *Third Notice*. In October
    1999, in conjunction with the Network Reliability and
    Interoperability Council (\"NRIC\"), the Commission and NRIC
    released its Y2K Communications Sector Report Supplements for
    Broadcast, Cable, Satellite, and Emergency Communications. We
    incorporated the information provided in response to our request for
    information in the *Third Notice* into this supplement. Accordingly,
    we are incorporating the supplement into the record of WT Docket No.
    96-86 and including a summary of the Y2K comments filed in response
    to the *Third Notice* as Appendix E.

97. *Ex Parte Presentations*. The captioned proceeding is a
    permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. *Ex
    parte* presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as
    provided in Commission Rules.[^308]

98. *Paperwork Reduction Analysis*. This *Third Report and Order*
    contains modified information collections, respectively. As part of
    its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission
    invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on revision to the
    information collections contained in the *Third Report and Order.*
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
    104-13, public comments on the information collections contained in
    the *Third Report and Order* are due thirty days after publication
    of the summary of the *Third Report and Order* in the Federal
    Register.

99. Comments on the modified information collections contained in the
    *Third Report and Order* should address: (a) whether the 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. These comments should be submitted to Judy Boley,
    Federal Communications Commission, Room 1‑C804, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
    Furthermore, a copy of any such comments should be submitted to
    Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20503.

    **Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis**

100. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, s*ee* 5 U.S.C. §
     604, the Commission has prepared a Third Supplemental Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of the rule
     changes contained in the *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order* on
     small entities. The Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis is set forth in Appendix A. As required by the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act, s*ee* 5 U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has prepared
     a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of
     the rule changes contained in the *Third Report and Order* on small
     entities. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in
     Appendix B. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
     Information Center, will send a copy of this *Third MO&O and Third
     Report and Order*, including the Third Supplemental Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Final Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
     Small Business Administration.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

101. Authority for issuance of this *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order
     and Third Report and Order* is contained in Sections 4(i), 302,
     303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.

102. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r),
     332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
     U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337 that Part 90 of the
     Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 90, IS AMENDED as set forth in
     Appendix F, effective thirty days after publication of this *Third
     Memorandum Opinion and Order* and *Third Report and Order* in the
     Federal Register.

103. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order,*
     including the Supplemental Final and Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration. For further information, contact Peter J. Daronco,
     Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private
     Wireless Division, Policy and Rules Branch at (202) 418-0680.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**[Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis]{.smallcaps}**

**(*Third Memorandum Opinion and Order)***

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (\"RFA\"),[^309] an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (\"IRFA\") was incorporated in
Appendix A of the *Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ("*Second
Notice*") issued in this proceeding.[^310] The Commission sought written
public comments on the proposals in the *Second Notice*, including
comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed in direct response to the
IRFA. Subsequently, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (\"FRFA\")
was incorporated in Appendix A of the *First Report and Order* issued in
this proceeding.[^311] A Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (\"First SFRFA\") was incorporated in Appendix A of the
*Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration* (\"*First MO&O*\")
issued in this proceeding.[^312] A Second Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (\"Second SFRFA\") was incorporated in Appendix A
of the *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* (\"*Second MO&O*\") issued
in this proceeding.[^313] The Third Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (\"Third SFRFA\") contained in this *Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order* (\"*Third MO&O*\") supplements the
information contained in the FRFA, First SFRFA, and Second SFRFA and is
limited to matters raised on reconsideration or clarification with
regard to the *First Report and Order* and addressed in this *Third
MO&O.* This Third SFRFA conforms to the RFA.[^314]

**I. Need for, and Objectives of, the *Third MO&O***

1.  In this *Third MO&O*, we address the multiple Petitions for
    Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed in connection with the
    *First Report and Order* in this docket that established a band plan
    and adopted service rules in the newly-reallocated public safety
    spectrum at 764‑776 MHz and 794‑806 MHz (\"the 700 MHz band\"). This
    *Third MO&O* presents our decisions in response to those various
    portions of the petitions that address the:

> a\. band plan for the 700 MHz band, and
>
> b\. low power narrowband devices for on-scene communication.

104. In the *Third MO&O*, we revise the band plan adopted in the *First
     Report and Order* to reposition the location of the narrowband and
     wideband channel groups for the general use, interoperability, and
     reserve spectrum. We also modify the adopted narrowband general use
     channel plan by designating forty-eight narrowband channels for low
     power use for on-scene communication. These clarifications are
     needed in order to promote efficient spectrum usage and
     flexibility.

**II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the FRFA.**

105. No comments were filed in direct response to the FRFA.

**III. Description and Estimate of Numbers of Small Entities Affected by
Rule Amendment**

106. 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.[^315] The RFA generally
     defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
     terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
     governmental jurisdiction.\"[^316] In addition, the term \"small
     business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
     concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^317] A small business
     concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)
     is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
     additional criteria established by the Small Business
     Administration ("SBA").[^318] A small organization is generally
     \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
     operated and is not dominant in its field.\"[^319] Nationwide, as
     of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
     organizations.[^320] \"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.\"[^321] As of 1992, there were approximately
     85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.[^322] This number
     includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or
     ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^323]
     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.

107. *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.[^324] Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety
     services is governed by 47 U.S.C. § 337; there are approximately
     127,540 licensees within these services. 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.[^325] The rule
     changes adopted in this *Third MO&O* could affect public safety
     entities who wished to utilize frequencies in the low power pool
     for uses such as on-scene firefighting communications and various
     other short-range communications systems which would be developed
     for 700 MHz band equipment.

108. *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.[^326] 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.[^327]

109. *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.[^328] TV broadcasting stations consist of
     establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by
     TV to the public, except cable and other pay TV services.[^329]
     Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,
     and other TV stations.[^330] Also included are establishments
     primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped TV
     program materials.[^331] Separate establishments primarily engaged
     in producing taped TV program materials are classified under
     another SIC number.[^332] There were 1,509 TV stations operating in
     the Nation in 1992.[^333] 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.[^334] For
     1992[^335] 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.[^336] There
     are currently 95 full service analog TV stations, either operating
     or with approved construction permits on channels 60‑69.[^337]

110. In the *DTV Proceeding*, we adopted a Digital Television ("DTV")
     Table which provides only 15 allotments for digital television
     stations on channels 60‑69 in the continental United States.[^338]
     There are seven DTV allotments in channels 60‑69 outside the
     continental United States.[^339] Thus, the rules will affect
     approximately 117 TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations
     may be considered small businesses.[^340] 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.[^341] 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.[^342]

111. There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV
     stations.[^343] Approximately 1,309 low power TV and TV translator
     stations are on channels 60‑69[^344] which could be affected by
     policies in this proceeding. The Commission does not collect
     financial information on 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.

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

112. The only compliance requirement that is newly imposed by this Third
     MO&O is that we now require applicants for channels which where
     once reserved and are now available for low power licensing to go
     through the regional planning committee (RPC) process, including
     frequency coordination. RPCs will be responsible for determining
     the most appropriate low power application(s) on these channels and
     the frequency coordinators will be responsible for providing
     appropriate interference protection.

**V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

113. 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.[^345]

114. *Channel plans* We appropriately decided to modify the narrowband
     and wideband interoperability channeling plans to permit the use of
     efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas. This revision
     lowers costs for public safety entities. Thus, these rule changes
     will benefit all public safety entities, including small entities.
     On the other hand, denying these petitions was not a viable
     alternative because maintaining the channel plan adopted in the
     *First Report and Order* would have increased costs for public
     safety entities, including small entities, by precluding the use of
     combiners. Additionally, our decision grouping the reserve spectrum
     into four segments of 1.35 MHz each located between the narrowband
     and wideband segments offers improved flexibility to accommodate
     future requirements that are unforeseen at this time. These rule
     changes will have future benefits for all public safety entities,
     including small entities.

115. *Low Power Channels* Our decision allocating channels nationwide
     for low power mobile operations offers improved flexibility for the
     public safety community to meet specialized, on-scene communication
     requirements. Thus, these rule changes will benefit all public
     safety entities, including small entities. Moreover, designating
     the twenty-four pairs as low power channels nationwide will lower
     costs for equipment manufacturers and public safety users,
     including small entities, as will our decision to exempt these low
     power devices from the interoperability capability, digital
     modulation, and trunking requirements.[^346] The regional planning
     and frequency coordination process that we apply to the "regional"
     channels and the licensing process that we apply to all of these
     channels are necessary to minimize interference. We minimized
     burdens by exempting the nationwide, itinerant channels from
     regional planning and frequency coordination. This exemption
     benefits all public safety entities including small entities,
     resulting in reduced costs and improved operational flexibility to
     meet on-scene communication requirements. We also note that about
     half of the new low power channels were previously general use
     channels and thus already subject to regional planning, frequency
     coordination, and licensing under the *First Report and Order*.
     Other alternatives were not changing the rule and/or requiring
     regional planning and frequency coordination for all of the low
     power channels. Our decision reflects a balance between the need to
     minimize interference and the need for operational
     flexibility.[^347]

116. By establishing this low power designation, we ease the economic
     burden, of funding communications systems in the new 700 MHz band,
     on public safety agencies, including small entities, that forego
     purchasing more expensive high power equipment when less expensive
     low-power equipment meets their short distance communications
     needs. We also ease the burden on equipment manufacturers,
     including small entities, because this low power designation
     provides flexibility to produce high-power equipment, low-power
     equipment, or both. Moreover, exempting this low power equipment
     from the interoperability capability requirement will quicken the
     type certification process for manufacturers of this low power
     equipment.

**Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of the *Third
Report and Order,* including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to SBREFA.[^348] A copy of
the *Third Report and Order* including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^349] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
*Third Report and Order,* including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

**APPENDIX B**

**[Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.smallcaps}**

**(*Third Report and Order*)**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^350] Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively referred to as "IRFAs")
were incorporated in the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* ("*Public
Safety Notice*")*,* the *Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
("*Second Notice*") and the *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
(*Third Notice*) in Docket 96-86.[^351] The Commission sought written
public comments on the proposals in the *Public Safety Notice, Second
Notice*, and *Third Notice*, including comments on the IRFAs. No
comments on the IRFAs were received. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis ("FRFA") conforms to the RFA.[^352]

I.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the *Third Report and Order***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  In the *Third Report and Order* portion of this combined item, we
    address technical, designation and licensing issues for the spectrum
    that we reserved in the *First Report and Order* to be "subject to
    the *Third Notice.*"[^353] In addition, we adopt technical criteria
    for 700 MHz band operations to protect satellite-based global
    navigation systems ("GNSS") from harmful interference and establish
    measures to promote interoperability on public safety channels below
    512 MHz. These are crucial developmental steps towards the flexible
    regulatory framework needed to meet vital current and future public
    safety communications needs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the IRFAs.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
117. Based on the comments submitted generally by small entities, the
     Commission found that the rules we proposed to adopt in this
     proceeding may have a significant impact on a substantial number of
     small businesses. Therefore, the IRFAs solicited comments on
     alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact
     on small entities consistent with the objectives of this
     proceeding. No comments were submitted directly in response to the
     IRFAs; however, as described in Section V, we have taken into
     account all general comments received which addressed the impact on
     small entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
     Rules Will Apply**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
118. The RFA generally defines the term \"small entity\" as having the
     same meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small
     organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^354] In
     addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
     term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^355]
     A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
     and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation;
     and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
     SBA.[^356] A small organization is generally \"any not-for-profit
     enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
     dominant in its field.\"[^357] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were
     approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^358] \"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.\"[^359]
     As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in
     the United States.[^360] This number includes 38,978 counties,
     cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have
     populations of fewer than 50,000.[^361] 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.

119. *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.[^362] Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety
     services is governed by 47 U.S.C. § 337; there are approximately
     127,540 licensees within these services. 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.[^363] The rule
     changes adopted in this *Third MO&O* could affect public safety
     entities who wished to utilize frequencies in the low power pool
     for uses such as on-scene firefighting communications and various
     other short-range communications systems which would be developed
     for 700 MHz band equipment.

120. *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.[^364] 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.[^365]

121. *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.[^366] TV broadcasting stations consist of
     establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by
     TV to the public, except cable and other pay TV services.[^367]
     Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational,
     and other TV stations.[^368] Also included are establishments
     primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped TV
     program materials.[^369] Separate establishments primarily engaged
     in producing taped TV program materials are classified under
     another SIC number.[^370]

122. There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992.[^371]
     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.[^372] For 1992[^373] 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.[^374] There are currently 95 full service analog TV
     stations, either operating or with approved construction permits on
     channels 60‑69.[^375] In the *DTV Proceeding*, we adopted a Digital
     Television ("DTV") Table which provides only 15 allotments for DTV
     stations on channels 60‑69 in the continental United States.[^376]
     There are seven DTV allotments in channels 60‑69 outside the
     continental United States.[^377] Thus, the rules will affect
     approximately 117 TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations
     may be considered small businesses.[^378] 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.[^379] 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.[^380]

123. There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV
     stations.[^381] Approximately 1,309 low power TV and TV translator
     stations are on channels 60‑69[^382] 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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
124. This *Third Report and Order* adopts some rules that will entail
     additional compliance requirements. These three additional
     requirements may have an effect on small entities. First, we adopt
     additional technical criteria for 700 MHz band operations. These
     new requirements are enacted in order to protect satellite-based
     global navigation systems from harmful interference.[^383] Although
     this requirement may result in increases in manufacturing costs,
     including for small manufacturing entities, and may result in
     higher equipment costs, including for small entities, this
     modification is essential due to safety concerns related to GNSS
     operations. Second, we establish measures to promote
     interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz. After
     January 1, 2005, applications for equipment certification will only
     be granted for mobile and portable transmitters operating on public
     safety frequencies in the 150-174 MHz and/or 450-470 MHz bands that
     are capable of operating on at least one nationwide public safety
     interoperability channel designated in the band(s) in which the
     equipment operates. Although this requirement may result in
     increases in manufacturing costs, including for small manufacturing
     entities, and may result in higher equipment costs, including for
     small entities, this modification is essential to improve
     interoperability capabilities in existing public safety bands for
     public safety entities, including small entities, that operate in
     these bands. Lastly, we also require applicants for
     interoperability channels designated in the 156-162 MHz band (in
     thirty-three inland VHF public coast areas (VPC)) to complete the
     frequency coordination process. This process requires applicants to
     pay fees to frequency coordinators. These fees are generally based
     on the number of sites, frequencies, and complexity of the
     coordination process. The adoption of these rules is crucial in
     order to minimize the potential for interference among the varied
     users of these channels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
125. 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.[^384]

126. *State License* We designate 2.4 MHz of the 700 MHz band for
     licensing directly to each state. The rules we adopt will preclude
     all non-state entities from being licensed for the designated state
     license frequencies. Most commenters agreed that licensing states
     for this amount of spectrum (for state agency use) is
     reasonable.[^385] We also include provisions to ensure that this
     spectrum will become available for "general use" if a given state
     either (1) declines to apply for a state license or (2) fails to
     provide or be prepared to provide "substantial service" by certain
     benchmark dates. Additionally, we amend Section 90.179 to allow
     states to share the use of the 2.4 MHz of spectrum with local and
     other public safety entities, which removes an impediment to small
     entities accessing this spectrum under sharing agreements with
     states. We considered a variety of alternative approaches for the
     use and licensing of the reserve spectrum. We declined to adopt an
     alternative "State Licensing" approach under which states -- rather
     than regional planning committees -- would manage state, local, and
     Federal use of all or most of the 8.8 MHz of spectrum reserved
     subject to the *Third Notice.* While there were no comments
     specifically responding to the IRFAs, we considered numerous
     comments that raised the concern that licensing states for the
     entire amount would designate the spectrum in a manner deleterious
     to small entities. Accordingly, we designated an appropriate amount
     of spectrum for state use instead of designating all of the reserve
     spectrum to manage. We also believe our decision to allocate the
     same 2.4 MHz nationwide will benefit small entities because they
     will not face the possibility of interference on a variety of
     frequencies from their parent state as well as from adjoining
     states.

127. *GNSS Protection Criteria* The technical solutions we adopt to
     protect certain global navigation satellite systems ("GNSS") will
     impact all manufacturers of equipment that operates in the 700 MHz
     public safety band. This includes even small manufacturing
     entities. However, as discussed in the *Third Report and
     Order*,[^386] these limits are necessary to protect GNSS
     operations, including Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems
     and Global Positioning System in accordance with international
     requirements. Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to
     \"protect the integrity of the \[GPS\] frequency spectrum against
     interference and disruption.\"[^387] Nevertheless, we have
     attempted to minimize, to the extent possible, the effect of these
     additional technical requirements.

128. *Interoperability below 512 MHz* We establish measures to promote
     interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz by
     designating specific channels in each band for nationwide
     interoperability purposes We did this because the record
     demonstrated the need for improved interoperability capabilities
     below 512 MHz. This designation requires that existing licensees on
     these channels operate on a secondary basis to interoperability
     communication. In order to minimize the impact of these rules, we
     "grandfathered" these licensees on a secondary basis only to
     interoperability communication rather than ordering them to vacate
     the channels or use them exclusively for interoperability purposes.
     We also provide these licensees a transition period, until January
     1, 2005. We selected the "least licensed channels" in each band to
     minimize the economic impact arising from the need to designate
     interoperability channels in these existing public safety
     bands.[^388] Additionally, after January 1, 2005, applications for
     equipment certification will only be granted for mobile and
     portable transmitters operating on public safety frequencies in
     these bands that are capable of operating on at least one
     nationwide public safety interoperability channel designated in the
     band(s) in which the equipment operates. We provide a similar
     transition period for equipment manufacturers in order to minimize
     the impact of these rules. This transition period will allow small
     manufacturing entities, in particular, an opportunity to plan for
     this new requirement. The alternative of not adopting this
     interoperability capability requirement was not acceptable because
     of the need to improve public safety interoperability below 512
     MHz. Lastly, we also require applicants for interoperability
     channels designated in the 156-162 MHz band (in thirty-three inland
     VHF public coast areas (VPC)) to complete the frequency
     coordination and licensing process. We briefly considered the
     alternative of not requiring frequency coordination for these
     channels. This was unacceptable because of the potential for
     interference among the varied users of these channels.

129. As discussed in the *Third Report and Order*, we note that one
     reason for establishing measures to promote interoperability below
     512 MHz is to assist public safety entities, including small
     entities, that cannot afford to or do not want to purchase
     equipment in the new 700 MHz public safety band, wherein 2.6
     megahertz of spectrum is designated for nationwide
     interoperability.[^389] We also attempted to minimize burdens on
     public safety entities, including small entities, by not requiring
     that existing public safety licensees apply-for and be licensed to
     operate mobile and portable transmitters on the nationwide
     interoperability channels in the existing public safety bands below
     470 MHz.

**Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of the *Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order,* including the Third Supplemental Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to SBREFA.[^390] A copy of the *Third Memorandum Opinion and
Order* including the Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^391] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
*Third Memorandum Opinion and Order,* including this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

**APPENDIX C**

**[List of Parties]{.smallcaps}**

**(*Third Memorandum Opinion and Order)***

The following is a list of parties filing petitions and responsive
pleadings in response to the *First Report and Order* in The Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal,
State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through
the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *First Report and Order and Third
Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 14 FCC Rcd 152, 164--228 (1998).

**Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification were filed by:**

1\. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

Forestry Conservation Communications Association,

International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,

International Municipal Signal Association, and

National Association of State Foresters (\"AASHTO\")

2\. American National Standards Institute (\"ANSI\")

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

4\. Dataradio Group of Companies (\"Dataradio\")

5\. Ericsson, Inc. (\"Ericsson\")

6\. Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (\"FLEWUG\")

7\. King Communications U.S.A. Inc. (\"King\")

8\. Motorola, Inc. (\"Motorola\")

9\. National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (\"NPSTC\")

10\. New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (\"NYSTEC\")

11\. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (\"Pennsylvania\")

12\. John Powell (\"Powell\")

13\. Project 25 Steering Committee (\"Project 25\")

14\. Safety Tech Industries (\"STI\")

15\. State of California (\"California\")

16\. State of Florida (\"Florida\")

17\. Telecommunications Industry Association (\"TIA\")

**Oppositions and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration were filed
by:**

1\. AASHTO

2\. APCO

3\. API

4\. California

5\. Dataradio

6\. Ericsson

7\. Florida

8\. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minnesota DOT)

9\. Motorola

10\. Pennsylvania

11\. STI

12\. UTC, The Telecommunications Association (\"UTC\")

**APPENDIX C (cont\'d)**

**Comments/Reply Comments on *First Report and Order* Issues were filed
by:**

1\. APCO Canada (\"APCO Canada\")

2\. Daniels Electronics Ltd. (\"Daniels\")

3\. Simoco International Limited (\"Simoco\")

4\. Union Pacific Railroad Company (\"UPRR\")

5\. DuPage Public Safety Communications (\"DuPage\")

6\. Illinois Chapter of APCO (\"Illinois APCO\")

7\. Northwest Central Dispatch System (\"NWCDS\")

8\. City of Chicago OEC (\"Chicago\")

9\. State of Nebraska (\"Nebraska\")

10\. Elk Grove Village Fire Department (\"Elk Grove\")

**APPENDIX D**

**[List of Commenters]{.smallcaps}**

**(*Third Report and Order*)**

The following is a list of parties filing comments and reply comments in
response to the *Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in The
Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for
Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication
Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *First Report
and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 14 FCC Rcd 152,
228--246 (1998).

**Comments**

Air Travelers Association, American Airlines, The General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, Outreach, Stanford University (The GPS
Research Program), the U.S. GPS Industry Council, and United Airlines
(collectively, \"GPS Commenters\")

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(\"AASHTO\"), Forestry Conservation Communications Association
(\"FCCA\"), International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (\"IAFC\"),
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (\"IAFWA\"),
International Municipal Signal Association (\"IMSA\"), and National
Association of State Foresters (\"NASF\") (collectively, \"Joint
Commenters AASHTO, *et al*.\")

American Petroleum Institute (API)

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

Vanu G. Bose (Bose)

State of California (California)

Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)

State of Florida (Florida)

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

National League of Cities and the City and County of San Francisco
(collectively, "Cities")

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)

Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWN)

Region--20 800 MHz Public Safety Review Committee

Legislative/Regulatory Affairs Committee (Region 20)

State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation (Tennessee DOT)

Dr. Michael C. Trahos, D.O., NCE, CET (Trahos)

UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Information Technology

(Virginia Dept. of Info Technology) (Late or *Ex Parte*)

State of Wisconsin (Wisconsin)

**Reply Comments**

Airtouch Communications, Inc., Iridium LLC, Iridium U.S., L.P.,

L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P.

Air Travelers Association, American Airlines, The General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, Outreach, Stanford University (The GPS
Research Program), the U.S. GPS Industry Council, and United Airlines
(collectively, \"GPS Commenters\")

American Petroleum Institute (API)

State of Arizona (Arizona)

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

State of California (California)

Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Coast
Guard(NOAA/USCG)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)

Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWN)

Region VI Northern California NPSCPAC Review and Revision Committee
(Region 6)

Dr. Michael C. Trahos, D.O., NCE, CET (Trahos)

UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)

**APPENDIX E**

**[Summary of Y2K Comments to *Third Notice*]{.smallcaps}**

1.  APCO states that some of the procedures we presented are unlikely to
    be effective and could add unnecessary burdens on public safety
    communications personnel. APCO argues that: (1) RPCs are not the
    appropriate vehicle to gather this information because most 800 MHz
    RPC members will also be part of the 700 MHz RPC process and will
    soon be engrossed in that activity, leaving little or no time for
    additional responsibilities; (2) RPCs do not have the funding to
    undertake such substantial information gathering and reporting
    activities; (3) 800 MHz RPCs will only reach a small percentage of
    public safety agencies, as the majority of state and local
    governments are not licensed in the 800 MHz band and; (4) local
    government personnel involved in Y2K compliance will be in
    information technology departments generally separate from agencies
    with radio communications responsibility.[^392] FLEWUG agrees with
    APCO, stating that trying to collect information through the
    existing 800 MHz RPCs will only yield information on systems
    operating at 800 MHz, and a more comprehensive approach is needed.
    FLEWUG adds that 800 MHz RPCs could operate in--region as a forum
    for identifying problems and solutions.[^393]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
130. California states that unlike our oversight on how common carriers
     provide service to their customers, we have no responsibility in
     law, regulation, or tradition on how public safety communications
     systems are operated. The Y2K problem is not an issue of how the
     radio spectrum is utilized, but rather is an issue of how public
     safety systems will be impacted operationally by software failures
     of the equipment it uses.[^394] California indicates that most of
     the equipment potentially affected is not radio equipment for which
     we might claim some peripheral responsibility, but rather is
     associated equipment such as dispatch consoles, computer-aided
     dispatch systems, logging recorders, and other devices for which we
     have claimed no historical interest.[^395]

131. FLEWUG states that it supports the need for additional information
     regarding Y2K preparedness of public safety radio systems and
     encourages us to pursue such a course of action. FLEWUG indicates
     that it perceives Y2K as having both a computer software and
     firmware problem and a security problem. Accordingly, FLEWUG states
     that contingency plans and other security measures should be put in
     place to minimize risks posed by the Y2K problem to public safety
     radio systems. FLEWUG thus urges the implementation of sufficient
     safeguards to ensure system-specific information is not revealed if
     we choose to collect information regarding the Y2K problem. FLEWUG
     also believes frequency coordinators provide convenient collection
     points for information, and collecting information through the
     frequency coordinators instead of from the licensees directly might
     be more efficient. FLEWUG asserts that if frequency coordinators
     collect such information, we should ensure they do not try to
     charge additional fees to their public safety customers or raise
     fees for coordination services because the public safety community
     should not realize fee increases due to Y2K data collection
     efforts. FLEWUG contends that another option would be for the
     Commission to survey all public safety agencies, with the survey
     structured to yield statistically significant results to ascertain
     both the current state of Y2K readiness and the progress and range
     of compliance initiatives.[^396] The information sought likely
     could be collected via, e.g., a short two-page survey, but any
     survey must be completed quickly and with a sufficient response
     rate from the community, given the imminent nature of the year 2000
     problem.[^397]

132. Florida states that within its state government, the effort to
     address the Y2K problem has been ongoing for several years. Florida
     expresses doubt that the RPCs or frequency coordinators will be
     able to provide any substantial information on Y2K compliance among
     public safety agencies.[^398]

133. IACP states that Y2K efforts are primarily a local, state, and
     federal public safety agency issue and that our primary function
     should only be to alert these agencies to potential Y2K
     communications related problems. IACP also does not believe it is
     appropriate to burden either the RPCs or the Public Safety
     coordinators with Y2K responsibilities because neither is funded or
     expertly staffed to provide this service. IACP believes that our
     most effective action would be a directive to each licensee
     detailing the Y2K problem in simple, understandable terms and
     providing a list of resources for the licensee to use.[^399] PSWN
     agrees with IACP that it is not appropriate to burden either the
     RPCs or the public safety coordinators with Y2K
     responsibilities.[^400]

134. NPSTC states that Y2K will impact many computer aided dispatch
     systems and that trunked radio systems also may be affected.
     Additionally, NPSTC believes that the Global Position System
     (\"GPS\") equipment used in automatic vehicle location and other
     high technology systems also may experience date/time problems.
     NPSTC also states that it is difficult to visualize how this
     serious problem can be addressed within the scope of this
     proceeding, particularly considering the time element involved.
     NPSTC contends that direct notices from the Commission to every
     licensee would carry more weight and reach more Public Safety
     agencies than any other means. NPSTC further states that the
     Commission\'s notices should contain specific information regarding
     recognition of the problem, how it might affect Public Safety
     equipment and systems, and Internet web sites where further
     information may be obtained.[^401] Joint Comments were filed by
     NPSTC members; AASHTO, FCCA, IAFC, IAFWA, IMSA and NASF (\"Joint
     Commenters\") to \"supplement\" NPSTC\'s comments. As for our
     suggestion that frequency coordinators could provide Y2K
     notification, NPSTC observes that the coordinators generally are in
     contact with public safety agencies only during the time of the
     coordination process. The Joint Commenters add that while there
     might be an organizational element regarding the appropriateness of
     the frequency coordinators serving as a conduit for Y2K
     information, *i.e*., the coordinators generally deal with
     communications system management personnel. However, in many
     organizations, Y2K issues are administered by a management
     information department, which might be part of a different branch
     within the public safety service or even a different branch of the
     broader governmental entity than those responsible for
     communications services.[^402]

135. Cities state that San Francisco\'s departments are currently
     engaged in efforts to seek Y2K compliance from vendors. The Cities
     recommend that we obtain detailed information on Y2K compliance
     efforts directly from individual licensees.[^403] The Cities also
     suggest that we assist licensees by requiring equipment
     manufacturers to provide more comprehensive information regarding
     their efforts to resolve potential Y2K problems with their
     products. To assist local governments and licensees in obtaining
     uniform results, The Cities state that we should also formulate
     criteria for testing procedures and set standards for defining
     \"Year 2000 compliance\" as it relates to telecommunications
     technologies.[^404] Opposition to this suggestion was expressed by
     Motorola.[^405]

136. PSWN states that there are likely to be a number of public safety
     radio systems with Y2K problems because the average age of public
     safety systems is approximately ten years. Thus, PSWN states that
     it is advisable for us to attempt to ascertain the extent of the
     problem and degree of readiness. PSWN adds that the data collection
     approaches we suggested would be overly burdensome (especially on
     frequency coordinators and RPCs) and would establish a precedent
     for coupling other issues with spectrum management. PSWN suggests
     that we issue a short, two page, statistical survey, perhaps using
     cover letters or other introductory materials from organizations
     and associations well known and regarded by the community to
     improve the likelihood of a sufficient response.[^406]

137. Motorola views the Y2K problem as an important business issue that
     can affect all parts of its business as well as its suppliers and
     customers. Accordingly, it has engaged all Motorola business units
     to identify and address Y2K issues.[^407] From a practical
     perspective, Motorola states that it is unlikely that we can,
     beginning in the middle of the first quarter of 1999, propose, hear
     comments on, and develop regulation which will address the Y2K
     problem with sufficient speed to have any actual effect before the
     year 2000 arrives. Motorola avers that market forces are
     appropriately encouraging manufacturers to address the Y2K
     readiness of their equipment, and that we are taking the
     appropriate route by fostering an awareness of the Y2K issue and by
     promoting dialog between manufacturers and users of equipment.
     Motorola urges us to continue in this role and to eschew
     suggestions of regulation in this area.[^408]

**APPENDIX F**

**[Final Rules]{.smallcaps}**

***Third Memorandum Opinion and Order***

**and**

***Third Report and Order***

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

1.  Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7The authority citation for Part 90
    continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

2.  Section 90.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b), to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.1 Basis and purpose.**

\*  \*  \*  \*  \*

(b)  *Purpose*. This part states the conditions under which radio
communications systems may be licensed and used in the Public Safety,
Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and Radiolocation Radio Services. These
rules do not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging to and
operated by the United States.

\*  \*  \*  \*  \*

3.  Section 90.7 is amended by adding definitions for Interoperability
    and State to read as follows:

**§ 90.7 Definitions**

\* \* \* \* \*

*Interoperability.* An essential communication 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.

\* \* \* \* \*

*State.* Any of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  Section 90.20 is amended by revising the numbers in the
    \"Limitations\" column for 53 of the existing entries in the table
    in paragraph (c)(3), and by adding new paragraphs (d)(80), (81),
    (82), and (83), and by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.20  Public Safety Pool.**

\*  \*  \*  \*  \*

(c)  \*  \*  \*

(3) \*  \*  \*

PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE

+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| Frequency or   | Class of       | Limitations    | C |                |
| band           | station(s)     |                | o |                |
|                |                |                | o |                |
|                |                |                | r |                |
|                |                |                | d |                |
|                |                |                | i |                |
|                |                |                | n |                |
|                |                |                | a |                |
|                |                |                | t |                |
|                |                |                | o |                |
|                |                |                | r |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 151.130        | .....do....    | 28, 81.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | H |                |
| 151.1375       |                | 27, 28, 80.    |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 151.145        | .............. | 28, 81.        | H |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | O |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 154.445        | .....do....    | 28, 81.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | F |                |
| 154.4525       |                | 27, 28, 80.    |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | F |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 155.745        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 155.7525       |                | 27, 80, 83.    |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 155.760        | .............. | 81\.           | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 158.730        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | P |                |
| 158.7375       |                | 27, 80.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 158.745        | .............. | 81\.           | P |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | Base or mobile |                | P |                |
|                |                |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 159.465        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | O |                |
| 159.4725       |                | 27, 80.        |   |                |
| []{.mark}      | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | O |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 453.200        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.20625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 453.2125       | .............. | 27, 80, 83.    | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 453.21875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.225        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 453.450        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.45625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 453.4625       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 453.46875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.475        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 453.700        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.70625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 453.7125       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 453.71875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.725        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 453.850        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.85625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 453.8625       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 453.86875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 453.875        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 458.200        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.20625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 458.2125       | .............. | 27, 80, 83.    | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 458.21875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.225        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 458.450        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.45625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 458.4625       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 458.46875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.475        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 458.700        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.70625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 458.7125       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 458.71875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.725        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             | \ |                |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                |                |                | \ |                |
|                |                |                | * |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| 458.850        | .....do....    | 81\.           | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.85625      |                | 44, 82.        |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
| 458.8625       | .............. | 27, 80.        | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
| 458.86875      | .....do....    | 44, 82.        | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
| 458.875        |                | 81\.           |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
|                |                |                |   |                |
|                | .....do....    |                | P |                |
|                | .............. |                | X |                |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+
| \*             | \*             | \*             |   | \*             |
| \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* | \*  \*  \*  \* |   | \*  \*  \*  \* |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+---+----------------+

(d)  \*  \*  \*

> \(80\) After **\[effective date\]** this frequency is available
> primarily for public safety interoperability only communications.
> Stations licensed prior to **\[effective date\]** may continue to use
> this frequency on a co--primary basis until January 1, 2005. After
> January 1, 2005, all operations will be secondary to co--channel
> interoperability communications.
>
> \(81\) After \[**effective date**\] new stations will only be licensed
> with an authorized bandwidth not to exceed 11.25 kHz. Licensees
> authorized prior to **\[effective date\]** may continue to use
> bandwidths wider than 11.25 kHz on a co--primary basis until January
> 1, 2005. After January 1, 2005, all stations operating with an
> authorized bandwidth greater than 11.25 kHz will be secondary to
> adjacent channel interoperability operations.
>
> \(82\) This frequency is reserved for assignment only in support of,
> and on a secondary basis to, nationwide interoperability use.
>
> \(83\) This interoperability frequency is dedicated for the express
> purpose of nationwide interoperability calling.

\*  \*  \*  \* \*

\(g\) *Former p*ublic correspondence *working channels in the maritime
VHF (156‑162 MHz) band allocated for public safety use in 33 inland
Economic Areas.*

\(1\) We define service areas in the marine VHF (156-162 MHz) band by
forty--two geographic areas called VHF Public Coast Service Areas
(VPCSAs). See § 80.371(c)(1)(ii) of this chapter (Public correspondence
frequencies). VPCSAs are based on, and composed of one or more of, the
U.S. Department of Commerce\'s 172 Economic Areas (EAs). See 60 Fed
Reg. 13114 (Mar. 10, 1995). You may inspect and copy maps of the EAs and
VPCSAs at the FCC Reference Center, Room CY A-257, 445 12^th^ St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20554. These maps and data are also available on the FCC
website at
[www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/).
We number public correspondence channels in the maritime VHF
(156‑162 MHz) band as channels 24 to 28 and channels 84 to 88. Each
channel number represents a channel pair. See § 80.371(c) of this
chapter.

\(2\) We allocated two contiguous 25 kHz public correspondence channels
in the maritime VHF (156‑162 MHz) band for public safety use in 33
VPCSAs that are not near major waterways. These 33 VPCSAs are located in
an inland region stretching from the western Great Plains to eastern
California and Oregon. Each of these 33 inland VPCSAs corresponds to a
single EA. Channel pairs 25, 84, and 85 are paired 25 kHz bandwidth
channels as set forth in Table A below. In each of the 33 inland
VPCSAs/EAs listed in Table B below, two of these three channel pairs are
allocated for public safety use by entities eligible for licensing under
paragraph (a) of this section.

**Table A** - List of Channel Numbers and Corresponding Center
Frequencies, and Certified Coordinators

  --------------- ---------------------- -------------------- -------------
  Channel Number  Mobile Station         Base Station         Coordinator
                  Transmit Center        Transmit Center      
                  Frequency in MHz       Frequency in MHz     

  25              157.250                161.850              PX

  84              157.225                161.825              PX

  85              157.275                161.875              PX
  --------------- ---------------------- -------------------- -------------

**Table B** - List of Channels Allocated for Public Safety Use in 33
Inland VPCSAs/EAs

  --------------- ------------------------ ----------------- --------------
  VHF Public      Name                     Economic Area     Public Safety
  Coast\                                                     Channel Pairs
  Service Area                                               

  10              Grand Forks              110               25, 84

  11              Minot                    111               25, 84

  12              Bismarck                 112               25, 84

  13              Aberdeen                 114               25, 84

  14              Rapid City               115               25, 84

  15              North Platte             121               25, 84

  16              Western Oklahoma         126               25, 85

  17              Abilene                  128               25, 85

  18              San Angelo               129               25, 85

  19              Odessa-Midland           135               25, 85

  20              Hobbs                    136               25, 85

  21              Lubbock                  137               25, 85

  22              Amarillo                 138               25, 85

  23              Santa Fe                 139               25, 84

  24              Pueblo                   140               25, 84

  25              Denver-Boulder-Greeley   141               25, 84

  26              Scottsbluff              142               25, 84

  27              Casper                   143               25, 84

  28              Billings                 144               25, 84

  29              Great Falls              145               25, 84

  30              Missoula                 146               25, 84

  31              Idaho Falls              148               25, 85

  32              Twin Falls               149               25, 85

  33              Boise City               150               25, 84

  34              Reno                     151               25, 84

  35              Salt Lake City-Ogden     152               25, 85

  36              Las Vegas                153               25, 84

  37              Flagstaff                154               25, 84

  38              Farmington               155               25, 84

  39              Albuquerque              156               25, 84

  40              El Paso                  157               25, 85

  41              Phoenix-Mesa             158               25, 84

  42              Tucson                   159               25, 84
  --------------- ------------------------ ----------------- --------------

\(3\) The channels pairs set forth in Table B above are designated
primarily for the purpose of interoperability communication.

(4 ) Channel pairs 25, 84, and 85 as listed in Table B above were
formerly allocated and assigned (under § 80.371(c) (1997) of this
chapter) as public correspondence working channels in the maritime VHF
156-162 MHz band; these channels were also shared (under former § 90.283
(1997) of this chapter) with private land radio mobile stations
including grandfathered public safety licensees). Thus, there are
grandfathered licensees nationwide (maritime and private land mobile
radio stations, including by rule waiver) operating on these channels
both inside and outside of the 33 EAs listed in Table B above.

\(5\) All applicants and licensees under this paragraph must comply with
the relevant technical sections under this part unless otherwise stated
in this paragraph (g) using the following standards and procedures:

\(i\) Provide evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with
§ 90.175. Public safety coordinators except the Special Emergency
Coordinator are certified to coordinate applications for the channels
pairs set forth in Table B above (*i.e.,* letter symbol PX under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section).

\(ii\) Station power, as measured at the output terminals of the
transmitter, must not exceed 50 Watts for base stations and 20 Watts for
mobile stations, except in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (vi). Antenna height (HAAT) must not exceed 122 meters
(400 feet) for base stations and 4.5 meters (15 feet) for mobile
stations, except in accordance with paragraph (vi). Such base and mobile
channels shall not be operated on board aircraft in flight.

\(iii\) Frequency protection must be provided to other stations in
accordance with the following guidelines for each channel and for each
area and adjacent area:

\(A\) Protect coast stations licensed prior to July 6, 1998, by the
required separations shown in Table C below.

\(B\) Protect stations described in paragraph(g)(4), by frequency
coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this part.

\(C\) Protect public safety stations granted under this paragraph (g),
by frequency coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this part.

\(D\) *Where the Public Safety designated channel is not a Public Safety
designated channel in an adjacent EA:* Applicants shall engineer base
stations such that the maximum signal strength at the boundary of the
adjacent EA does not exceed 5 dBμV/m.

\(iv\) The following table, along with the antenna height (HAAT) and
power (ERP), must be used to determine the minimum separation required
between proposed base stations and co‑channel public coast stations
licensed prior to July 6, 1998 under Part 80 of this chapter. Applicants
whose exact ERP or HAAT are not reflected in the table must use the next
highest figure shown.

**Table C -** Required Separation in Kilometers (Miles) of Base Station
From Public Coast Stations

  --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  Base Station                                                  
  Characteristics                                               

  HAAT                  ERP                                     
                        (watts)                                 

  Meters (feet)         400       300       200       100       50

  15 (50)               138 (86)  135 (84)  129 (80)  129 (80)  116 (72)

  30 (100)              154 (96)  151 (94)  145 (90)  137 (85)  130 (81)

  61 (200)              166 (103) 167 (104) 161 (100) 153 (95)  145 (90)

  122 (400)             187 (116) 177 (110) 183 (114) 169 (105) 159 (99)
  --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

\(v\) In the event of interference, the Commission may require, without
a hearing, licensees of base stations authorized under this section that
are located within 241 kilometers (150 miles) of a co‑channel public
coast, I/LT, or grandfathered public safety station licensed prior to
July 6, 1998, or an international border, to reduce power, decrease
antenna height, and/or install directional antennas. Mobile stations
must be operated only within radio range of their associated base
station.

\(vi\) Applicants seeking to be licensed for stations exceeding the
power/antenna height limits of the table in paragraph (iv) must request
a waiver of that paragraph and must submit with their application an
interference analysis, based upon an appropriate, generally‑accepted
terrain‑based propagation model, that shows that co‑channel protected
entities, described in paragraph (iii), would receive the same or
greater interference protection than the relevant criteria outlined in
paragraph (iii).

5.  Section 90.35 is amended by revising the numbers in the
    \"Limitations\" column for the existing entry \[frequency 159.480\]
    in the table in paragraph (b)(3), and by adding a new paragraph
    (c)(82) to read as follows:

**§ 90.35  Industrial/Business Pool.**

\* \*  \*  \*  \*

(b)  \*  \*  \*

(3)  \*  \*  \*

INDUSTRY/BUSINESS POOL FREQUENCY TABLE

  -------------------- --------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
  Frequency or band    Class of station(s)         Limitations          Coordinator

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

  159.480              .....do..................   8, 82.               IP

  \*  \*  \*  \*  \*   \*  \*  \*  \*  \*          \*  \*  \*  \*  \*   \*  \*  \*  \*  \*
  -------------------- --------------------------- -------------------- --------------------

(c)  \*  \*  \*

> \(82\) After \[**effective date**\] new stations will only be licensed
> with an authorized bandwidth not to exceed 11.25 kHz. Licensees
> authorized prior to **\[effective date\]** may continue to use
> bandwidths wider than 11.25 kHz on a co--primary basis until January
> 1, 2005. After January 1, 2005, all stations operating with an
> authorized bandwidth greater than 11.25 kHz will be secondary to
> adjacent channel public safety interoperability operations. (*See* §
> 90.20(c)(3)).

\* \*  \*  \* \*

6.  Section 90.175(i) amended by adding paragraphs 15 and 16 to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.175 Frequency coordination requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) \* \* \*

\(15\) Applications for a state license under § 90.529.

\(16\) Applications for narrowband low power channels listed for
itinerant use in § 90.531(b)(4).

\* \* \* \* \*

7.  Section 90.179 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.**

\*  \*  \*  \*  \*

(g)  Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, licensees authorized
to operate radio systems on Public Safety Pool frequencies designated in
§ 90.20 may share their facilities with Federal Government entities on a
non-profit, cost-shared basis. Such a sharing arrangement is subject to
the provisions of paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this section. State
governments authorized to operate radio systems under § 90.529 may share
the use of their systems (for public safety services not made
commercially available to the public) with any entity that would be
eligible for licensing under § 90.523 and Federal government entities.

\*  \*  \*  \*  \*

8.  Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.203 Certification Required**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(j\) \* \* \*

\(1\) Applications for certification received on or after January 1,
2005, for mobile and portable transmitters designed to transmit voice on
public safety frequencies in the in the 150-174 MHz band will be granted
only if the mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the
nationwide public safety interoperability calling channel in the 150-174
MHz band. (See § 90.20(c), (d) of this part.) Applications for
certification received on or after January 1, 2005, for mobile and
portable transmitters designed to transmit voice on public safety
frequencies in the in the 450-470 MHz band will be granted only if the
mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the nationwide
public safety interoperability calling channel in the 450-470 MHz band.
(See § 90.20(c), (d) of this part.)

9.  Section 90.529 is added to read as follows:

**§ 90.529 State License**

\(a\) Narrowband channels designated as state channels in § 90.531 are
licensed to each state (as defined in § 90.7) as follows:

\(1\) Each state that chooses to take advantage of the spectrum
designated as state channels must file an application for up to 2.4
megahertz of this spectrum no later than December 31, 2001. For purposes
of this section, the elected chief executive (Governor) of each state,
or his or her designee, shall be deemed the person authorized to apply
for the State License.

\(2\) What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied
for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered
by the relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of states that encompass
multiple RPCs).

\(b\) Each state license will be granted subject to the condition that
the state certifies on or before each applicable benchmark date (see
below) that it is:

\(1\) providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to
one-third of their population or territory by January 1, 2012, *i.e.*,
within five years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required
to relocate to other portions of the spectrum;

\(2\) providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to
two-thirds of their population or territory by January 1, 2017, *i.e.*,
within ten years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to
relocate to other portions of the spectrum.

\(c\) The Commission will deem a state "prepared to provide substantial
service" if the licensee certifies that a radio system has been approved
and funded for implementation by the deadline date. "Substantial
service" refers to the construction and operation of 700 MHz facilities
by public safety entities providing service which is sound, favorable ,
and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might
minimally warrant renewal.

\(d\) If a state licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the
state license is modified automatically to the frequencies and
geographic areas where the state certifies that it is providing
substantial service.

\(e\) Any recovered state license spectrum will revert to General Use.
However, spectrum licensed to a state under a state license remains
unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until the Commission's
database reflects the parameters of the modified state license.

10. Section 90.531 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
    as follows:

**§ 90.531  Band plan.**

(b)  *Narrowband segments.* There are four band segments that are
designated for use with narrowband emissions. Each of these narrowband
segments is divided into 480 channels having a channel size of 6.25 kHz
as follows:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Frequency Range                     Channel Numbers

  764 ‑ 767 MHz                       1 - 480

  773 ‑ 776 MHz                       481 - 960

  794 ‑ 797 MHz                       961 - 1440

  803 ‑ 806 MHz                       1441 - 1920
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

\(1\) *Narrowband interoperability channels*. The following narrowband
channels are designated for nationwide interoperability licensing and
use: 23, 24, 39, 40, 63, 64, 79, 80, 103, 104, 119, 120,143, 144, 159,
160, 183, 184, 199, 200, 223, 224, 239, 240, 263, 264, 279, 280, 303,
304, 319, 320, 641, 642, 657, 658, 681, 682, 697, 698, 721, 722, 737,
738, 761, 762, 777, 778, 801, 802, 817, 818, 841, 842, 857, 858, 881,
882, 897, 898, 921, 922, 937, 938, 983, 984, 999, 1000, 1023, 1024,
1039, 1040, 1063, 1064, 1079, 1080, 1103, 1104, 1119, 1120, 1143, 1144,
1159, 1160, 1183, 1184, 1199, 1200, 1223, 1224, 1239, 1240, 1263, 1264,
1279, 1280, 1601, 1602, 1617, 1618, 1641, 1642, 1657, 1658, 1681, 1682,
1697, 1698, 1721, 1722, 1737, 1738, 1761, 1762, 1777, 1778, 1801, 1802,
1817, 1818, 1841, 1842, 1857, 1858, 1881, 1882, 1897, 1898.

\(2\) *Narrowband reserve channels.* The following narrowband channels
are undesignated and reserved pending further Commission action in
WT Docket No. 96‑86 (*proceeding pending*): 21, 22, 37, 38, 61, 62, 77,
78, 101, 102, 117, 118, 141, 142, 157, 158, 181, 182, 197, 198, 221,
222, 237, 238, 261, 262, 277, 278, 301, 302, 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, 981, 982, 997, 998, 1021, 1022, 1037, 1038, 1061, 1062, 1077, 1078,
1101, 1102, 1117, 1118, 1141, 1142, 1157, 1158, 1181, 1182, 1197, 1198,
1221, 1222, 1237, 1238, 1261, 1262, 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.

\(3\) *Narrowband low power channels subject to regional planning*. The
following narrowband channels are designated for low power use for
on-scene incident response purposes using mobiles and portables subject
to Commission-approved regional planning committee regional plans.
Transmitter power must not exceed 2 watts (ERP): Channels 1-8 paired
with Channels 961-968, and Channels 949-958 paired with Channels
1909-1918.

\(4\) *Narrowband low power itinerant channels*. The following
narrowband channels are designated for low power use for on-scene
incident response purposes using mobiles and portables. These channels
are licensed nationwide for itinerant operation. Transmitter power must
not exceed 2 watts (ERP): Channels 9-12 paired with Channels 969--972
and Channels 959-960 paired with Channels 1919-1920.

\(5\) *Narrowband state channel.* The following narrowband channels are
designated for direct licensing to each state (including U.S.
territories, districts, and possessions): 25-36, 65-76, 105-116,
145-156, 185-196, 225-236, 265-276, 305-316, 645-656, 685-696, 725-736,
765-776, 805-816, 845-856, 885-896, 925-936, 985-996, 1025-1036,
10651076, 1105-1116, 1145-1156, 1185-1196, 1225-1236, 1265-1276,
1605-1616, 1645-1656, 1685-1696, 1725-1736, 1765-1776, 1805-1816,
1845-1856, 1885-1896.

(6)  *Narrowband general use channels*. All narrowband channels
established in paragraph (b), other than those listed in
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4) and (b)(5) are designated for
assignment to public safety eligibles subject to Commission-approved
regional planning committee regional plans.

\(c\) Wideband segments. There are two band segments that are designated
for use with wideband emissions. Each of these wideband segments is
divided into 120 channels having a channel size of 50 kHz as follows:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Frequency Range                     Channel Numbers

  767 ‑ 773 MHz                       1 - 120

  797 ‑ 803 MHz                       121 - 240
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

\(1\) *Wideband interoperability channels*. The following wideband
channels are designated for nationwide interoperability licensing and
use: 28-30, 37-39, 46-48, 73-75, 83-84, 91-93, 148-150, 157-159,
166-168, 193-195, 202-204, 211-213.

\(2\) W*ideband reserve channels.* The following wideband channels are
reserved: 1-27, 94-120, 121-147, 214-240.

(3)  *Wideband general use channels*. All wideband channels established
in paragraph (c), except for those listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2), are designated for assignment to public safety eligibles subject
to Commission-approved regional planning committee regional plans.

\* \* \* \* \*

11. Section 90.535 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.535 Modulation and spectrum usage efficiency requirements.**

Transmitters designed to operate in the 764--776 MHz and 794--806 MHz
frequency bands must meet the following modulation standards:

\(a\) All transmitters in the 764--776 MHz and 794--806 MHz frequency
bands must use digital modulation. Mobile and portable transmitters may
have analog modulation capability only as a secondary mode in addition
to its primary digital mode. Mobile and portable transmitters that only
operate on the low power channels designated in Sections 90.531(b)(3),
90.531(b)(4), are exempt from this digital modulation requirement.

\* \* \* \* \*

12. Section 90.537 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 90.537 Trunking requirement.**

All systems using six or more narrowband channels in the 764-776 MHz and
794-806 MHz frequency bands must be trunked systems. Nationwide
interoperability channels listed in Section 90.531(b)(1), and the
narrowband low power channels listed in Sections 90.531(b)(3),
90.531(4), are not counted as narrowband channels for the purposes of
this trunking requirement.

13. Section 90.541 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.541 Transmitting power limits**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) Transmitters operating on the narrowband low power channels listed
in Sections 90.531(b)(3), 90.531(b)(4), must not exceed 2 watts (ERP).

14. Section 90.543 is revised to add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.543 Emission limitations**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) For operations in the 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz bands, all
emissions including harmonics in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be limited
to --70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for
wideband signals, and --80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than
700 Hz bandwidth. For the purpose of equipment authorization, a
transmitter shall be tested with an antenna that is representative of
the type that will be used with the equipment in normal operation.

\(f\) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.

15. Section 90.547 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 90.547 Interoperability channel capability requirement.**

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
standards adopted by the Public Safety National Coordination Committee
and approved by the Commission. Mobile and portable transmitters that
only operate on the low power channels designated in Sections
90.531(b)(3), 90.531(b)(4), are exempt from this interoperability
channel capability requirement.

**APPENDIX G**

**[700 MHz Public Safety Band ----]{.smallcaps}**

**[Segmentation & Channelization Tables]{.smallcaps}**

-   Base Channels (former TV Channels 63 and 64)

-   Mobile Channels (former TV Channels 68 and 69)

![](media/image1.wmf){width="8.491666666666667in"
height="6.1090277777777775in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.490972222222222in"
height="6.194444444444445in"}

**APPENDIX H**

**[Interoperability frequencies in the]{.smallcaps}**

**[Inland VPCs (Nos. 10-42)]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image3.png){width="8.32986111111111in"
height="6.247222222222222in"}

[^1]: *See* Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1997) (*Reallocation Report and Order*).

[^2]:  The 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 (1998) (*recon. pending*) (referred to
    herein as \"*First Report and Order*\" or \"*Third Notice*\" as
    applicable).

[^3]: Fourteen parties filed oppositions to specific petitions and
    replies to the oppositions. A list of parties, with their acronyms,
    that filed Petitions, Oppositions, and Replies is contained in
    Appendix C.

[^4]: In May 1999 we addressed the Petitions for Reconsideration filed
    by the American National Standards Institute (\"ANSI\") and the
    Telecommunications Industry Association (\"TIA\") in this
    proceeding. *See* The 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, *Memorandum Opinion and* *Order on
    Reconsideration,* 14 FCC Rcd 8059 (1999) (\"*First MO&O*\").

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).

[^6]: The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96-86, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 00--264 (rel.
    August 1, 2000) referred to herein as \"*Second MO&*O").

[^7]: *See Second MO&O* at ¶ 1 citing Public Safety National
    Coordination Committee, Recommendations to the Federal
    Communications 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
    Recommendations). We recognized that the NCC Recommendations
    pertained to matters that are the subject of some of the Petitions
    and stated that we anticipated seeking public comment on the
    substance of the NCC Recommendations. *Id.*

[^8]: *See* The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96--86, *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, FCC 00‑271
    (rel. August 2, 2000).

[^9]: * First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 164-177 ¶¶ 17-46. *See*
    Petitions of APCO, NPSTC, Motorola, and AASHTO *et al.*

[^10]: *See* STI Petition.

[^11]: Twenty--four comments, fifteen reply comments, and numerous ex
    parte presentations were received in response to the *Third Notice*.
    A list of parties, with their acronyms, that filed comments or reply
    comments is contained in Appendix D.

[^12]: By comparison, we decline to adopt a "State Licensing" approach
    that most commenters oppose under which states -- rather than
    regional planning committees (RPCs) -- would manage state, local,
    and Federal use of all or most of the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum
    reserved subject to the *Third Notice*.

[^13]: State systems and local city/county systems could work in tandem,
    possibly on joint systems, rather than competing for the same
    spectrum resources.

[^14]: States would apply for one geographic based license directly to
    the Commission by which they could initiate planning and deployment
    of their systems. Site-based licenses for wide-area networks are
    administratively burdensome due to the license modifications needed
    during build-out.

[^15]: State agencies would give each state greater latitude to develop
    shared networks employing more efficient technologies, such as,
    trunked systems.

[^16]: Although permitted to do so, we do not require states to share
    this spectrum with non-state agencies. We do not require states to
    manage or plan spectrum use by non-state agencies (*e.g.,* local
    political subdivisions, Federal).

[^17]: See note Error: Reference source not found, *supra*.

[^18]: A table setting forth the segments and channels is contained in
    Appendix G.

[^19]: In the new composite band plan adopted herein, we redesignate 16
    of the original 1248 general use channels for low power.

[^20]: GLONASS utilizes the Radionavigation-Satellite Service
    (space-to-Earth) band of 1598--1605 MHz.

[^21]: *See* Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 1062, 113 Stat. 767 (1999).

[^22]: The channel pairs were formerly allocated in 47 C.F.R. § 80.371
    for VHF Public Coast Stations as public correspondence channels and
    were also shared under 47 C.F.R. § 90.283.

[^23]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(10)(B)(iv), as added by the Omnibus
    Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.  L. No. 103‑66, Title VI,
    § 6002, 107 Stat. 312 (1993).

[^24]: *1995 FCC Public Safety Report*, 10 FCC Rcd 5207 (1995).

[^25]: Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2 (1988).

[^26]: The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum
    Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making,* 11 FCC Rcd 12,460 (1996).

[^27]: Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service, *M*M Docket No. 87‑268, *Sixth Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 10,968, 10,980 (1996)
    (*DTV Sixth Notice*).

[^28]: Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87‑268, *Sixth Report
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14,588, 14,626 (1997) (*DTV Sixth Report &
    Order*).

[^29]: *Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to
    the Federal Communications Commission*, September 11, 1996, at 3
    (*PSWAC Final Report)*.

[^30]: *Id.* at 19-20.

[^31]: *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105--33, § 3004,
    111 Stat. 251 (1997) (1997 Budget Act), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 337.

[^32]: Reallocation of Television Channels 60‑69, the 746‑806 MHz Band,
    ET Docket No. 97--157, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    12 FCC Rcd 14,141 (1997); *Reallocation Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1998).

[^33]: *See* *DTV Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,588.

[^34]: The *Second Notice,* prompted by a Petition for Rulemaking filed
    by the National Communications System, sought comment on the
    establishment of Cellular Priority Access Service (CPAS) designed to
    meet the communications needs of public safety services in emergency
    and disaster situations. *See* 12 FCC Rcd at 17,779‑800. We address
    CPAS issues by a separate action. *See* *Second Report and Order,*
    WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 00--242 (rel. July 13, 2000).

[^35]: Our decisions today, addressing petitions for reconsideration of
    the *First Report and Order,* effectively decrease the amount of
    spectrum in reserve from 8.8 megahertz to 8.6 megahertz. *See, e.g,
    Third MO&O*, paras. 37--38, *infra.*

[^36]: Global Positioning Service (GPS) is the civilian portion of the
    United States Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), made
    available for commercial use, which utilizes the Aeronautical
    Radionavigation-Satellite (space-to-earth) band of 1559-1610 MHz on
    a primary basis and is maintained by the United States Department of
    Defense. Our discussion also includes a section on the protection
    requirements for the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation
    Satellite System (GLONASS).

[^37]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 166, 167 ¶¶ 24, 25.

[^38]: *Id.* at 168, 169 ¶¶ 28, 29.

[^39]: The minimum channel size (building block) is 6.25 kHz for
    narrowband, and 50 kHz for wide band channels.

[^40]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 173-75 ¶¶ 38, 41.

[^41]: APCO Petition at 15, 16.

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: APCO Petition at 15, 16; *see also* NYSTEC Petition at 5, 6, 9,
    10.

[^44]: APCO Petition at 15, 16. APCO adds that, due to the need to
    maintain a common nationwide channel plan for interoperability
    purposes, the interoperability channels should not be subject to
    such modifications. *Id.;* s*ee also* NYSTEC Petition at 9, 10.

[^45]: Accord APCO Petition at 15.

[^46]: *See id*., 14 FCC Rcd at 169 ¶ 31, n.76, citing Motorola
    Comments, Appendix at 4-7, NPSTC Comments Appendix A, and Florida
    Comments at 2-6.

[^47]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (Waivers). We note as an
    administrative matter that a rule waiver request is the most
    appropriate process for determining, *e.g.,* whether all narrowband
    channels are exhausted in a given geographic area and that a
    specific proposal to use a portion of a wideband channel is truly a
    "last resort."

[^48]: *Accord* NYSTEC Petition at 9, 10 (Commission should allow for
    some flexibility in the channel plan but only after all other
    alternatives have been thoroughly exhausted).

[^49]: NPSTC Petition at 4. We acknowledge that NPSTC's original plan
    (which APCO helped to develop) called for this approach.

[^50]: Ericsson Petition at 6.

[^51]: *See, e.g.,* *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 175, 176 ¶¶
    42--43.

[^52]: *Id.*, 14 FCC Rcd at 173 ¶ 38.

[^53]: The adopted band plan reflects the best current evaluation of the
    relative spectrum requirements for narrowband and wideband
    operations. *See* para. 18, *supra*.

[^54]: *See* para. 19, *supra*.

[^55]: *See, e.g.,* para. 17, *supra*.

[^56]: *See, e.g.,* *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 172 ¶ 37.

[^57]: *Id*.

[^58]: *See*, *e.g.*, *PSWAC Final Report* at 21. "By the year 2010, as
    much as an additional 70 MHz may be needed for \[voice and data\]
    applications, including image and video requirements." *Id.* (Key
    Recommendation 2.2.1).

[^59]: *See id*., 14 FCC Rcd at 169 ¶ 31, n.76, citing Motorola
    Comments, Appendix at 4-7, NPSTC Comments Appendix A, and Florida
    Comments at 2-6.

[^60]: *See generally* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the
    Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing
    Them, PR Docket No. 92--235, *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 10 FCC Rcd 10,076 (1995) (*Refarming First
    R&O*).

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3); *see also* note Error: Reference
    source not found, *supra.*

[^62]: Powell Petition at 7.

[^63]: *Id*. at 5.

[^64]: *Id* at 6.

[^65]: *Id*. at 4.

[^66]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 175--177 ¶¶ 42--46
    (Amount of Spectrum).

[^67]: *See Third Report and Order*, para. 68, *infra.*

[^68]: *See, e.g., id.*

[^69]: *Id.*

[^70]: *Id.* at 176--77 ¶¶ 45, 46.

[^71]: APCO Petition at 11.

[^72]: Refer pending in Fourth Notice. . . . .

[^73]: *See* Public Safety National Coordination Committee
    Recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission for
    Technical and Operational Standards for Use of the 764--776 MHz and
    794--806 MHz Public Safety Band Pending the Development of Final
    Rules, dated February 25, 2000 (*NCC Report*) at 21, 22 ¶¶ 68, 69.

[^74]: In the *First Report and Order*, we expected that in the next few
    years it would be both technically and economically feasible to use
    6.25 kHz channels individually for operational modes such as digital
    voice and data. *See generally Refarming First R&O*, 10 FCC Rcd at
    10,099 ¶ 38 (it is reasonable to expect manufacturers to produce
    6.25 kHz equipment in the Refarming bands within ten years since 5
    kHz systems are currently allowed in the 150--170 MHz band and 5 kHz
    systems are proliferating in the 220--222 MHz band). We note that
    the Project 25 Phase II standards have, in fact, been developed and
    incorporated into an ANSI standard and that these standards are
    expected eventually to be incorporated into commercially available
    equipment.

[^75]: *See Fourth Notice*, note Error: Reference source not found
    *supra*.

[^76]: NPSTC Petition at 3.

[^77]: *Id*.

[^78]: Unlike the previous suggestions discussed above (*see* paras. 19
    and 22), a rearrangement of channels continues to preserve the
    balance of wideband versus narrowband channels.

[^79]: The adjacent wideband interoperability groups are Channels 58-60,
    61-63, 178-180, and 181-183. *See* *First Report and Order,*
    Appendix H-6 and H-7.

[^80]: NPSTC Petition at 3.

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: NPSTC Petition at 4.

[^83]: *Id*.

[^84]: *Id*.

[^85]: STI Petition at ii.

[^86]: STI Petition at 4.

[^87]: The on-scene/PAR system in development by STI is known as the
    MaskCom® Communications System. STI Petition at 2.

[^88]: STI notes that according to industry literature, an informal
    survey of nearly 1000 firefighters revealed that more than sixty
    percent did not activate their PASS devices at every fire, and a
    substantial number of firefighters similarly may not assure that
    they are carrying their PASS devices. STI Petition at 4--5 citing
    *Firefighter Fatalities*, National Fire Protection Association
    (NFPA) Journal, July/Aug. 1998 at 50, 56.

[^89]: STI Petition at 6. These personnel system functions include
    recording time and status on--scene, automatic monitoring of air
    supply, man-down alarming signals, evacuation signals, and homing
    signals to locate firefighters trapped or lost in buildings. STI
    notes that the homing signal feature will assist firefighters in
    locating downed, trapped or lost comrades in dangerous fires and
    with reduced risk to the rescuers. *Id.*

[^90]: STI Petition at 5. STI notes that 94 firefighters lost their
    lives in 1997, half while operating at the fireground or at other
    emergencies, and that firefighter injuries at the fireground
    numbered from 40,000 to more than 60,000 annually during 1988-1997.
    *Id.* citing *Firefighter Fatalities*, NFPA Journal, July/Aug. 1998
    at 49-50.

[^91]: STI Petition at 12-14.

[^92]: APCO Response to Petitions at 10; AASHTO *et al.* Reply at 9.

[^93]: In general, low power system operations have been beneficial to
    the private land mobile radio services. *See, e.g.*, Replacement of
    Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services
    and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92--235,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 10
    FCC Rcd 10,076, 10,110 ¶ 66 (1995) (*Refarming First R&O*).

[^94]: For example, the police may need low power frequencies in
    connection with physical surveillance, stakeouts, raids and other
    such activities.

[^95]: *See, e.g.*, Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Low
    Power Radio and Automated Maritime Telecommunications System
    Operations in the 216-217 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 95-56, *Report and
    Order,* 11 FCC Rcd 18,517, 18,532 ¶ 34 (1996).

[^96]: The twenty-four 6.25 kHz channels (twelve 12.5 kHz channels)
    provides for the six 12.5 kHz low power channels STI says it needs
    and an additional six 12.5 kHz channels to satisfy other potential
    low power needs.

[^97]: Only one side of the pair is listed.

[^98]: For example, the RPCs would determine whether to allow the
    channel pairs to be used in a duplex operation or split the pairs to
    allow separate low power operations on each side of the pair.

[^99]: *See* § 90.7 for a definition of itinerant operations.

[^100]: Mobile and portable units can have analog modulation capability,
    but only as a secondary mode in addition to the primary digital
    mode. *See* *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 211 ¶ 128,
    n.322.

[^101]: We have exempted low power equipment in the past from certain
    requirements because of the spectral efficiency attained through
    frequency reuse. *See, e.g.,* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to
    Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the
    Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92--235, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 17676, 17,686--87 ¶¶ 20--22 (1996).

[^102]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.547. We are also revising Section 90.547,
    on our own motion, to more clearly reflect the interoperability
    channel capability requirement that we adopted in the *First Report
    and Order*. *See First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 213 ¶ 135.
    "We are adopting \[new Section 90.547\] to require that all
    narrowband mobile and portable 700 MHz band public safety radios be
    capable of operating on all of the narrowband nationwide
    interoperability channels." *Id.*

[^103]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.535. Equipment that employs analog
    modulation as the primary mode of modulation must meet the emission
    mask and frequency stability requirements associated with PLMR 12.5
    kHz channels at 900 MHz. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.210(d), 90.213.

[^104]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.537.

[^105]: We concluded that the RPC approach has been a reasonably
    successful method of ensuring that the public safety spectrum in the
    800 MHz band was assigned fairly and efficiently and put to its most
    appropriate and efficient use. Nonetheless, we modified the 700 MHz
    RPC process after considering comments and experiences with the 800
    MHz RPC process. *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 191 ¶ 78.

[^106]: *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 175-176 ¶ 43.

[^107]: *See* para. 37, *supra.*

[^108]: *See* note Error: Reference source not found, *supra*.

[^109]: *See, e.g.,* *First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 170, ¶ 33.
    We noted that this reserve designation may be short term, based on
    the comments to the *Third Notice.* *Id.* Alternatively, we asked
    whether some or all of reserve spectrum should remain in reserve
    pending future developments. *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 228, 233
    ¶¶ 169, 181.

[^110]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 228-233 ¶¶ 169--181.

[^111]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 230 ¶ 173.

[^112]: *Id.*

[^113]: We noted that some commenters to the *Second Notice* argued that
    local politics, inadequate diversity of representation, lack of
    funding and training, and the inability to coordinate statewide
    channel assignments have hampered the 800 MHz RPC process. *Third
    Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 230 ¶ 172. We also noted that a number of
    states have developed statewide systems as a cost-effective way of
    sharing advanced technologies and that the RPC process may not lend
    itself as easily to these types of systems as a state-run process
    might. *Id.* at 230 ¶ 172. On the other hand, we also noted concerns
    that states administering statewide-shared system might be less
    responsive to the local needs and requirements of rural areas and
    more responsive to the needs of major metropolitan areas. *Id.* at
    232 ¶ 178.

[^114]: *Third Notice* 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178.

[^115]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178.

[^116]: *Third Notice* 14 FCC Rcd 232-233 ¶ 178, 179. We asked whether
    regional or statewide systems would provide the economies of scale
    and scope that would increase incentives for other public safety
    providers to participate in the regional or statewide system. *Id.*
    at 231 ¶ 175.

[^117]: *Id*. at 232-233 ¶ 179. We noted that, should we decide to
    license individual states, we would need to revise 47 C.F.R. §
    90.179 (Shared use of radio stations) to allow each state licensee
    to authorize appropriate public safety agencies within the state to
    use the spectrum pursuant to the state licensee's authorization.
    *Id.* at 234 ¶ 183. We also proposed to amend 47 C.F.R. § 90.1 to
    reflect that the scope of Part 90 does not govern the licensing of
    radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States. *See
    Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 234 ¶ 183 *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 305(a).

[^118]: *Third Notice* 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178.

[^119]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 233 ¶ 181.

[^120]: *Id.* at 234, ¶ 184.

[^121]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 233 ¶ 181.

[^122]: *See e.g.,* APCO Comments at 3-4; IACP Comments at 7; Cities
    Comments at 4.

[^123]: Arizona Reply Comments at 8; APCO Comments at 3.

[^124]: Cities Comments at 15; UTC Comments at 7.

[^125]: APCO Comments at 3; California Comments at 2; IACP Comments at
    3.

[^126]: California Comments at 2.

[^127]: Arizona Reply Comments at 8.

[^128]: *See e.g.,* NPSTC Comments at 6; Los Angeles Comments at 2; UTC
    Comments at 2; PSWN Comments at 10.

[^129]: *See* Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.* Comments at 1 (the joint
    commenters are American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Forestry Conservation
    Communications Association (FCCA), International Association of Fire
    Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC), International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies (IAFWA), International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA),
    and National Association of State Foresters (NASF)).

[^130]: Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.* Comments at 3-4.

[^131]: Tennessee DOT and Wisconsin submitted comments in response to
    the *Third Notice* but neither addressed the licensing of the 8.8
    MHz of reserve spectrum.

[^132]: Florida Comments at 3; Pennsylvania Comments at 5; Reply
    Comments at 3, Virginia Comments at 1; Arizona Reply Comments at 8
    (Arizona does not object to a state license for its internal use).

[^133]: NYSTEC Comments at 7. (NYSTEC provides technical assistance to
    New York State in defining and procuring a next-generation,
    statewide wireless communications system. NYSTEC Comments at 3.)

[^134]: Virginia Comments at 1.

[^135]: FLEWUG Comments at 4.

[^136]: *Id*.

[^137]: *Id* at 6.

[^138]: *Id.*

[^139]: As decided in the *First Report and Order* and modified by the
    *Third MO&O*, the composite band plan provides 7.8 megahertz of
    reserve spectrum split as follows --- 2.4 megahertz for narrowband
    operations (voice and data) and 5.4 megahertz for wideband
    technologies (image/HSD and slow motion video).

[^140]: The 7.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum subject to current
    consideration is split between narrowband and wideband segments --
    2.4 megahertz narrowband and 5.4 megahertz wideband.

[^141]: Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.*, Arizona, Florida,
    Pennsylvania, Virginia, and NYSTEC supported either all or a portion
    of the reserve spectrum be designated for direct state licenses.
    While opposing the state licensing, APCO, IACP, NPSTC, and
    California recommended that RPCs be required to set-aside a portion
    of the reserve spectrum for statewide or wide-area systems. *See,*
    Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 1. Arizona Reply
    Comments at 8. Florida Comments at 3. Pennsylvania Comments at 5 and
    Reply Comments at 3. Virginia Comments at 1. NYSTEC Comments at 7.
    APCO Comments at 6. IACP Comments at 3. NPSTC Comments at 6.
    California Comments at 2.

[^142]: APCO Petition at 15, 16. Powell Petition at 5. NPSTC Petition at
    4. (discussed above in the *Third MO&O* at paragraphs 17, 23, and
    32.) FLEWUG Comments at 6.

[^143]: *See, e.g.*, *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 230-31 ¶¶ 174-75.

[^144]: APCO Comments at 3-6; APCO Reply Comments at 3; Florida Comments
    at 3; Pennsylvania Comments at 5; Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 5;
    Virginia Comments at 1; Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.* Comments
    at 1; NYSTEC Comments at 22-23; Arizona Reply Comments at 8;
    California Comments at 5-7.

[^145]: The Transition Subcommittee examined and proposed procedures for
    public safety agencies to transition to new technologies and new
    spectrum in an efficient, cost effective manner that does not
    interfere with their critical operations. *PSWAC Final Report* at
    726 (Transition Subcommittee Report § 1.0).

[^146]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 754 (Transition Subcommittee Report §§
    7.2.12-13). "The Transition Subcommittee supports such planning and
    priority licensing for shared state or area systems." *Id*. at 754
    (§ 7.1.13).

[^147]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 751-53 (Transition Subcommittee Report
    at § 7.2.8). TRSC observed that the state is the largest spectrum
    user in most instances. *Id.* at 755 (Transition Subcommittee Report
    § 7.2.14). TRSC noted that the system in Iowa, and surrounding
    states, is Racom's commercial wireless, trunked digital system that
    offers law enforcement customers "ruthless preemption" over business
    customers. *Id.*

[^148]: *Id*. at 754 (§ 7.1.13.).

[^149]: *Id*. at 755 (§ 7.2.14).

[^150]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 231 ¶ 176.

[^151]: PSWN Comments at 7-8; Region 20 Comments at 4; Cities Comments
    at 10-13.

[^152]: PSWN Comments at 7-8; API Comments at 7-8.

[^153]: California Comments at 5.

[^154]: PSWN Comments at 10 *citing* *PSWAC Final Report* at 755
    (Transition Subcommittee Report § 7.2.14).

[^155]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 315.

[^156]: California Comments at 5. "The State requests that the
    Commission assign \[2\]00 \[6.25 kHz\] channel pairs (2.5 MHz of
    spectrum) for state use only. The State further requests that these
    . . . channel\[s\] be spread across the entire band, grouped in into
    at least 20 sets of adjacent channels with at least 200 kHz
    separation between each set." *Id.* California separately noted that
    the "failure of just one \[RPC\] to provide appropriate channel
    assignments can destroy the state's ability to meet its
    communication need." *Id.* at 4.

[^157]: Florida Comments at 3.

[^158]: APCO Comments at 6.

[^159]: APCO initially suggested requiring RPCs to set aside a *minimum*
    of 1.25 MHz for state-wide use, but later noted support for a
    minimum of 2 MHz for state-wide use. APCO Comments at 6. (*Emphasis
    in original*.) APCO Reply Comments at 3.

[^160]: NYSTEC Comments at 23.

[^161]: California requests 2.5 MHz (200 pairs of 6.25 kHz channels) for
    narrowband operations and 0.3 MHz wideband for state systems.
    California Comments at 6. California also noted that 8.8 MHz of
    spectrum is too large an amount for state internal use. California
    Comments at 3.

[^162]: Florida requests 2.5 MHz (200 pairs of 6.25 kHz channels) for
    narrowband operations and 1.25 MHz for wideband. Florida Comments at
    4.

[^163]: Arizona Reply Comments at 8. Arizona adds "\[i\]f the 8.8
    megahertz of spectrum is licensed to the State directly for their
    own use only, then there is no reason for them to share in the
    general pool of frequencies." *Id.*

[^164]: We acknowledge that by designating 2.4 megahertz for state use,
    we are providing states with almost the same amount of spectrum that
    we allocated for nationwide interoperability. However, we believe
    this designation reflects the states need of spectrum for daily,
    routine use over a specific area, usually employing trunked
    infrastructure, while interoperability is almost exclusively used on
    a unit-to-unit, mutual aid basis in response to a concentrated,
    geographically-based incident.

[^165]: We feel that 2.4 MHz should be more than enough spectrum to
    ameliorate this potential problem in most states. We note that, in
    the event that 2.4 MHz proves to be an insufficient amount of
    bandwidth, states can seek additional spectrum from RPCs or pursue
    joint ventures with local governments to implement state/regional
    systems.

[^166]: We anticipate these developments could provide economies of
    scale and other benefits to state agencies and other government
    public safety agencies within the state. These developments also
    provide opportunities for less affluent localities to take advantage
    of the latest public safety technology by designing their systems
    around the use of the state-wide spectrum.

[^167]: *See, e.g.*, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services,
    Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate Future
    Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Amendment
    of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Provide for the Use
    of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901
    MHz and 935-940 MHz Band Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio
    Pool, PR Docket Nos. 89-553, 93-144, GN Docket No. 93- 252, *Third
    Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8044 (1994).

[^168]: APCO Comments at 5. (APCO cites the statewide systems of
    Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Connecticut, California, and
    Michigan. *Id.*)

[^169]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 315. PSWAC also noted a reticence of
    individual agencies to surrender some autonomy in return for the
    efficiencies and better coverage of the larger system. *PSWAC Final
    Report* at 317-318*.* We note, however, that PSWAC contends that in
    many instances perceived losses in terms of independence of
    operation are more than offset by improvements in function and
    efficiency. *PSWAC Final Report* at 3.

[^170]: On a related point regarding administration of interoperability
    spectrum, Florida, Pennsylvania, FLEWUG, and PSWN, indicate that
    state communication systems are the most appropriate "bridge"
    between local and Federal government agencies. *See,* Florida
    Comments at 5, Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 3; FLEWUG Comments at
    17-18; and PSWN Comments at 15.

[^171]: We recently decided that a site-by-site licensing scheme with
    frequency coordination is the best approach to licensing the
    928/952/956 MHz bands (Multiple Address Systems) because we reserved
    these bands for private internal use. *See* Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket
    No. 97-81, *Report and Order*, FCC 99-415 at ¶ 45 (rel. January 19,
    2000).

[^172]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate the Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections
    3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act -- Regulatory Treatment of
    Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, Implementation of Section
    309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket
    No. 93-253, *Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 19,079 (1997).

[^173]: *Id.*

[^174]: APCO Comments at 4.

[^175]: Pennsylvania Comments at 4.

[^176]: *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).

[^177]: APCO Comments at 3.

[^178]: Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 2.

[^179]: *E.g.,* California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan,
    Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
    Virginia, and Utah. *See Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 232 ¶ 178;
    *see also* text accompanying note Error: Reference source not found,
    *supra.*

[^180]: One of the goals identified in the *Second Notice* was the
    promotion of efficient and effective use of the new spectrum, and,
    one of the keys to efficient spectrum use is accommodating local,
    state, and regional needs. *Second Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,711 and
    17,715.

[^181]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 317-318. Shared systems also offer a
    high level of built-in interoperability. *Id.*

[^182]: *See, e.g.,* *PSWAC Final Report* at 2.

[^183]: Pennsylvania Comments at 5, *see also* NYSTEC Comments at 22-23;
    PSWN Reply Comments at 8.

[^184]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 231 ¶ 176.

[^185]: *See PSWAC Final Report* at 2-4, 19 (Key Finding 2.1.7), 22-23
    (Key Recommendation 2.2.3).

[^186]: We are adopting a definition of "state" that includes United
    States territories and possessions. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.7, as
    amended (Appendix F).

[^187]: States will use FCC Form 601 for this application.

[^188]: We also believe that by allowing each state to elect whether to
    take the designated spectrum, we address Arizona and APCO concerns
    and avoid imposing an unfunded mandate on those states that do not
    wish to utilize the spectrum. Similarly, we believe that allowing
    states to apply for less than the full 2.4 megahertz of spectrum
    that will also avoid imposing an unfunded mandate and help to ensure
    the efficient utilization of this spectrum.

[^189]: *Accord, e.g.,* Florida Comments at 8 (Florida recommends that
    the Governor's office of each state be responsible and accountable
    for development and construction of a state use plan); Virginia
    Comments at 1.

[^190]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a).

[^191]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.149(a) (2000).

[^192]: *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- 47 C.F.R. Part 90 -
    Private Land Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 98-182,
    Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile
    Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them and
    Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the
    Private Land Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 92-235, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 00‑235 at ¶¶
    9-10 (rel. July 12, 2000) (*Part 90 Biennial R&O*).

[^193]: *See* Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket 99-168,
    *First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 504 ¶ 67 (2000)
    (*Commercial 700 MHz R&O*).

[^194]: We adopted fourteen year license term for geographic area
    licensees in the commercial 700 MHz band. *See id.* As discussed
    immediately below, however, the "substantial service" deadline for
    state licensees will be January 1, 2017. We envision granting state
    licenses early in the year 2002, thus necessitating a fifteen year
    license term.

[^195]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.155(b), 90.629(b).

[^196]: We may defer this date (and thus extend the deadlines) if the
    DTV transition period for a relevant market is extended as set forth
    in 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(B) (*e.g.,* markets where 15% or more
    households do not have access to either DTV-equipped receivers or
    multi-channel video). In addition, given the large geographic
    licensing areas, each with a number of incumbent broadcasters, we
    are setting a definite license term, rather than one dependent on
    the date on which incumbent broadcasters complete their digital
    television transition. *See Commercial 700 MHz R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    504 ¶ 67.

[^197]: The term "substantial service" -- a term more commonly used in a
    commercial wireless context -- is used for convenience herein to
    refer to the construction and operation of 700 MHz facilities by
    public safety entities providing "service which is sound, favorable,
    and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might
    minimally warrant renewal." *See* Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service
    ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96-228, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    10843-45 ¶¶ 111-115 (*Part 27 Report and Order*).

[^198]: We allow states to certify that they are providing substantial
    service to its population because we recognize that state public
    safety entities have a responsibility to protect the safety of life,
    health and property. We allow states to certify that they are
    providing substantial service to its territory because we recognize
    that state public safety entities have responsibilities statewide
    ---- both densely populated areas and lesser populated rural areas.

[^199]: *Accord* Joint Commenters AASHTO, *et al.* Comments at 3-4
    (spectrum should be maintained for a period of five years following
    the full availability of the spectrum and then default to the RPCs).

[^200]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.179.

[^201]: We recently amended 47 C.F.R. § 90.179 to allow on a non-profit,
    cost-shared basis: (1) Public Safety Pool licensees to share their
    facilities with Federal Government entities, and (2)
    Industrial/Business Pool licensees to share their facilities with
    Public Safety Pool eligibles. *See* *Part 90 Biennial R&O*, 15 FCC
    Rcd \_\_¶¶ 19-21 (2000).

[^202]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.179(a).

[^203]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.179(b). As with current Section 90.179, the
    shared use of the spectrum licensed to the individual states would
    be predicated on the authorized user and the state complying with
    all the provisions of Section 90.179.

[^204]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.179(d).

[^205]: *See, e.g.,* *Commercial 700 MHz R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 514 ¶ 93.
    *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.51, 27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61,
    27.63; *see also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848-65
    ¶¶ 123-161.

[^206]: The "field strength" approach requires a licensee to limit the
    field strength of its station transmissions to some prescribed level
    at the licensee's geographic border.

[^207]: The predicted 40 dBu/v field strength shall be calculated using
    Figure 10 of Section 73.699 of this chapter, with a correction
    factor for antenna height differential of --9 dB. 47 C.F.R. §
    73.699, Fig. 10.

[^208]: *Commercial 700 MHz R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 515 ¶ 96-97.

[^209]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(d)(1).

[^210]: *Commercial 700 MHz R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 515 ¶ 97.

[^211]: With 1920 narrowband channels available, we do not think public
    safety entities will be adversely impacted in the short term if the
    Commission retains some reserve spectrum.

[^212]: For example, when deciding on how to allocate the 40 megahertz
    of 800 MHz PLMR spectrum, the Commission decided to make 30
    megahertz available and keep 10 megahertz in reserve for unforeseen
    needs. *See* An Inquiry Relative to the Future Use of the Frequency
    Band 806-960 MHz; Amendment of Parts 2, 18, 21, 73, 74, 89, 91, and
    93 of the Rules Relative to Operations in the Land Mobile Service
    Between 806 and 960 MHz, Docket No. 18262, *Second Report and
    Order*, 46 FCC 2d 752, 759 ¶ 19 (1974). Later, when the Commission
    made the 10 megahertz of reserve spectrum available, the Commission
    changed the operating and licensing parameters due to changing
    needs.

[^213]: *See* NPSTC Petition at 4; *see also* para. 33, *supra.*

[^214]: *See* Powell Petition at 5; *see also* para. 24, *supra*.

[^215]: *See* FLEWUG Comments at 4; *see also* para. 46, *supra*.

[^216]: *See* paras. 33-34, *supra.*

[^217]: IACP Comments at 3.

[^218]: API Comments at 8.

[^219]: FLEWUG Reply Comments at 8.

[^220]: The GNSS has two components, GPS and GLONASS, and provides
    radionavigation satellite services (RNSS) worldwide. The GPS is in
    operation and will be the United States component of the GNSS. GPS
    utilizes the lower portion of the RNSS (space-to-Earth) allocation
    from 1559-1610 MHz on a primary basis, and is maintained by the
    United States Department of Defense. GLONASS, the other component of
    the GNSS, is the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation
    Satellite System, which will use the 1597-1605 MHz portion of that
    allocation (*i.e*., the second harmonic frequencies of TV channels
    68 and 69) when the system reaches its final frequency configuration
    after 2005. We recently addressed the potential of second harmonic
    emissions in the 776-794 MHz band (TV Channels 65-67) to GPS. *See
    Commercial 700 MHz R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 524 ¶ 116.

[^221]: *Third Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 241 ¶ 196.

[^222]: Radio transmitters produce energy not only on the desired
    frequency but also lesser amounts of energy on multiples of the
    desired frequency, known as harmonics. Although most of the power
    generated is on the desired frequency, very sensitive receivers can
    detect the smaller amounts of power generated on the harmonic
    frequencies.

[^223]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 241, ¶ 196.

[^224]: *Id.* at 243 ¶ 199.

[^225]: *Id.* at 243, ¶ 199, n.533.

[^226]: Although some commenters raised similar concerns regarding
    second harmonic interference from public safety operations in the
    772-772.5 MHz band to ground stations (known as Local User
    Terminals, LUTs) in the 1544-1545 MHz band of the COSPAS-SARSAT
    satellite system for search and rescue emergency radio beacons of
    the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), this matter
    will not be considered at this time because the affected public
    safety frequencies are located in the wideband reserve spectrum
    (Channels 103-108). *See* NTIA Comments at 16-17, and NOAA/USCG
    Reply Comments at 2.

[^227]: *Id.* at 243, ¶ 199.

[^228]: *Id.* at 168 ¶ 28.

[^229]: *Id.*

[^230]: FLEWUG Comments at 20--21 n.46 *citing* FLEWUG Petition for
    Reconsideration of *First Report and Order* \[WT Docket No. 96--86\]
    at 25 ¶ 41 (FLEWUG Petition); *see also* NTIA Comments at 12. FLEWUG
    raises band flipping in the context of protecting GNSS from
    interference both in its Petition and in its Comments to the *Third
    Notice.* *Id.* We discussed GNSS issues primarily in the *Third
    Notice;* thus, we are considering FLEWUG's "band flipping"
    recommendation, along with all responsive pleadings, in this *Third
    Report and Order*.

[^231]: FLEWUG Comments at 20--21 n.46 *citing* FLEWUG Petition at 25 ¶
    41 (FLEWUG Petition); *see also* NTIA Comments at 12.

[^232]: *Id*.

[^233]: *Id*.

[^234]: *See* Florida Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration at 1;
    APCO Response to Petition for Reconsideration at 11-12; Arizona
    Comments at 5; Motorola Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at
    3-4.

[^235]: *Id*.

[^236]: Motorola Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 3.

[^237]: Arizona Comments at 5.

[^238]: Motorola Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration at 4.

[^239]: *Id.*

[^240]: *Id.*

[^241]: *Id.*

[^242]: Defense FY99 Appropriations Conference Report and in the
    Commercial Space Act of 1998, H.R. 105-746, Defense FY99
    Appropriations Conference Report; H.R. 1702 Commercial Space Act of
    1998.

[^243]: *Commercial 700 MHz R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 504 ¶ 67. We recently
    reaffirmed these conclusions on reconsideration. *See* Service Rules
    for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of
    the Commission's Rules, WT Docket 99-168, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 00-224 at ¶¶
    28-29 (rel. June 30, 2000).

[^244]: NTIA Comments at 1. AirTouch suggests that our proposed emission
    limits could be difficult to meet for portable units, but does not
    suggest that they would be so difficult as to prevent equipment
    manufacturers from producing mobiles and portables meeting those
    limits. We have not received any indication from any potential 700
    MHz band equipment manufacturers commenting in this proceeding that
    it will be difficult to suppress wideband out of band emission
    limits to the --70 dBW/MHz level.

[^245]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.210.

[^246]: Although we noted in the *First Report and Order* that the
    current GPS operating at 1563.42-1587.42 MHz would not be impacted
    by second harmonic emissions from public safety systems operating in
    794-806 MHz band (TV Channels 68-69), we clarify that a portion of
    the public safety band (794-805 MHz) does impact the upper portion
    of the band used by the GNSS (1559--1610 MHz).

[^247]: NTIA Comments at 4-5; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 16.

[^248]: *See, e.g.* NPSTC Comments at 12; Pennsylvania Reply Comments at
    12-13.

[^249]: NPSTC Comments at 14-15; Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 13; PSWN
    Reply Comments at 11; IACP Comments at 6-7.

[^250]: *See Third Notice* 14 FCC Rcd. at 244 ¶ 201.

[^251]: The GPS Commenters suggest the following changes to the proposed
    47 C.F.R. § 90.553: To provide adequate protection to GNSS receivers
    which will utilize the Radionavigation-Satellite Service
    (space-to-Earth) band, mobile units must meet a minimum second
    harmonic suppression standard in the frequency range of 1559-1605
    MHz of 120 dB (was 90) down from the maximum effective radiated
    power of the carrier and handheld and portable units must meet a
    minimum second harmonic suppression standard in the frequency range
    of 1559-1605 MHz of 110 dB (was 80) down from the maximum effective
    radiated power of the carrier. This proposed standard would apply
    only to equipment operating in the frequency range of 779.5-802.5
    MHz. GPS Commenters at 17.

[^252]: *See e.g*. FLEWUG Reply Comments at 15-16.

[^253]: APCO Comments at 9-10; Motorola Comments at 5; Arizona Reply
    Comments at 5-6; NPSTC Comments at 14.

[^254]: The current plan of the Russian Federation will result in its
    highest GLONASS carrier frequency relocating to 1604.8125 MHz. The
    French Low SATellite NAVigation (LSATNAV) and the ESA E-NSS-1
    satellite navigation systems have been proposed for operating in the
    1559.052-1563.144 MHz and 1587.696-1592.788 MHz portions of the
    1559-1610 MHz band. It is envisioned that one of these RNSS systems
    will be included in the second generation of GNSS, referred to as
    GNSS-2. The U.S. is engaged in discussions with the European Union
    (EU) regarding their Galileo system, a developing RNSS system that
    is planned to be compatible and interoperable with GPS. The EU is
    considering spectrum in both the upper and lower portion of the
    1559-1610 MHz band for Galileo. The French Administration and the
    European Space Agency are developing other RNSS systems that may
    operate in this band as well.

[^255]: NTIA Comments at 4-7.

[^256]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 241 ¶ 197.

[^257]: PSWN Comments at 18; FLEWUG Comments at 20-21.

[^258]: On a related matter, we note that as a result of WRC-2000 there
    is a new allocation for the radionavigation satellite service in the
    1164-1215 MHz band. As part of the GPS modernization program a new
    GPS signal (L5) for aviation and civil use will be provided in the
    1164-1188 MHz portion of the band. RTCA Working Group 6 is currently
    in the process of examining the protection limits for GPS receivers
    using the L5 signal.

[^259]: In the *First Report and Order*, we designated 2.6 megahertz of
    the 700 MHz band for nationwide interoperability*. Third Notice*, 14
    FCC Rcd at 236 ¶ 188.

[^260]: Five channel pairs in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band (800 MHz
    band) are available only for mutual aid purposes. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    90.617(a)(1). *See* *also* *Report and Order,* General Docket No.
    87-112, 3 FCC Rcd 905.

[^261]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 236 ¶ 188. "\[M\]ost public safety
    radio systems, especially smaller ones, operate in the VHF and UHF
    bands below 512 MHz. Locating interoperability channels above 512
    MHz will not help these \[public safety providers\] )." *Id.,* ¶
    187.

[^262]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 3.

[^263]: *First Notice*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,469.

[^264]: *PSWAC Final Report* at 3*; First Notice*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,472.

[^265]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 237-38 ¶ 191.

[^266]: *See e.g.,* FLEWUG Comments at 18-19; Florida Comments at 7-8;
    Motorola Comments at 8; APCO Comments at 7.

[^267]: *See e.g.,* IACP Comments at 4; Florida Comments at 6; Cities
    Comments at 17; NYSTEC Comments at 12-13.

[^268]: APCO Comments at 7-8; FLEWUG Comments at 19 citing *PSWAC Final
    Report* at 21; PSWN Comments at 16-17; PSWN Reply Comments at 10;
    NYSTEC Comments at 13; State of California Comments at 8.

[^269]: Motorola Comments at 8-9; NPSTC Comments at 8.

[^270]: *First Report*, 14 FCC Rcd at 238-239 ¶193 citing *PSWAC Final
    Report* at 52.

[^271]: We note that NTIA has designated certain federally allocated
    radio frequencies for interoperability use under a plan it developed
    in cooperation with IRAC and FLEWUG. *See* National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S.
    Department of Commerce, *Manual of Regulations and Procedures for
    Federal Radio Frequency Management* (January 2000 Edition) § 4.3.16.

[^272]: NPSTC Comments at 7-8; IACP Comments at 4; Arizona; Motorola
    Comments at 7.

[^273]: NPSTC Comments at 10 *citing* Letter comments from DOD to PSWAC,
    dated July 29, 1996, and incorporated as Appendix K to the Spectrum
    requirements Report, *PSWAC Final Report* Appendix D at 119 (725);
    Arizona Reply Comments at 8.

[^274]: *See e.g.*, APCO Comments at 8, Motorola Comments at 7, NYSTEC
    Comments at 13.

[^275]: Frequencies in the 450-512 MHz band are paired channels,
    necessitating adoption of an even number of channels (four or six)
    rather than five.

[^276]: While noting limitations, several commenters supported the
    designation of five VHF channels for interoperability. None suggest
    alternative channels. *See e.g.,* APCO Comments at 8, IACP Comments
    at 4, Florida Comments at 6, Cities Comments at 17, FLEWUG Comments
    at 19.

[^277]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 237-38 ¶191.

[^278]: NPSTC Comments at 7-8; IACP Comments at 4; Arizona; Motorola
    Comments at 7.

[^279]: *See NCC Report* at 21, 22 ¶¶ 68, 69.

[^280]: Based on our experience with the five channel pairs designated
    at 800 MHz for interoperability, four represents the appropriate
    number of interoperability channels in the UHF band where channels
    also are paired. Given that one pair is reserved as a calling
    channel, fewer than four channel pairs would provide too few
    tactical channels and greater than four would have even a greater
    impact to existing licensees.

[^281]: These \"least licensed\" channels are 12.5 kHz "offset" channels
    chosen from the PX coordinator pool (former local government radio
    service) because the PX pool has the largest number of channels
    pairs (75 pairs) and applications can be coordinated by all four
    coordinators. By comparison, the PP coordinator pool (former police
    radio service) has 41 pairs, the PM coordinator pool (former
    emergency medical radio service) has 24 pairs, the PF coordinator
    pool (former fire radio service) has 6 pairs, the PS coordinator
    pool (former special emergency radio service) has 1 pair, and
    PP/PF/PM jointly share 4 pairs. Choosing channels in the PX
    coordinator pool also should minimize the impact to the majority of
    existing police, fire, and emergency medical licenses which were
    located in their respective pools. Each "offset" channel that we
    select for interoperability has a potential impact on between 32-78
    incumbent (primary), co-channel licensees. As a factual matter,
    between 2376-2506 adjacent channel licensees are also impacted. We
    selected channels that are spaced 250 kHz apart since no "offset"
    channel appears to be significantly better than another simply by
    numbers counted, because the 250 kHz separation between channels
    presents a technically sound solution (*e.g.*, permits antenna
    combining and minimizes intermodulation interference) for these four
    channels. *See* paras. 29, 30, *supra*.

[^282]: *See* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private
    Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them,
    PR Docket No. 92--235, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 8642, 8660 ¶ 33 (1999) citing Freeze on the Filing of High Power
    Applications for 12.5 kHz Offset Channels in the 450-470 MHz Band,
    *Public Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd 9995 (1995).

[^283]: *See* Freeze on the Filing of High Power Applications for 12.5
    kHz Offset Channels in the 450-460 MHz Band to be Lifted January 29,
    2001, *Public Notice*, DA 00-1360 (June 29, 2000). *See also*
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Accepts LMCC Low Power Plan for
    Part 90 450-470 MHz Band, *Public Notice*, DA 00-1359 (June 29,
    2000).

[^284]: The January 1, 2005, date corresponds to the required date by
    which the new equipment in the VHF and UHF bands must meet the new
    6.25 kHz standards. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.203 (j); s*ee* also
    *Refarming First R&O*, 10 FCC Rcd at 10,099 ¶ 38.

[^285]: Secondary operations may not cause interference to primary
    interoperability use.

[^286]: As with the 800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory
    Council (NPSPAC) mutual aid channels, base and control stations must
    be licensed individually. *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).

[^287]: *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).

[^288]: FLEWUG Comments at 19; NYSTEC Comments at 14.

[^289]: With an exception not relevant here, there are currently four
    frequency coordinators certified to coordinate frequencies for
    public safety applicants; Association of Public--Safety
    Communications Officials--International (APCO), International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC)/International Municipal
    Signal Association (IMSA), Forestry Conservation Communications
    Association (FCCA), and American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials (AASHTO). *See*, *e.g.,* Replacement of
    Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services
    and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92--235,
    *Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14307 (1997) at App. D (List
    of Frequency Coordinators Below 512 MHz).

[^290]: We additionally note that the existing licensee could migrate to
    frequencies in the 700 or 800 MHz bands, or be offered alternative
    channels in the VHF/UHF bands as other licensees relocate to these
    higher bands.

[^291]: *Third Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 238-239 ¶ 193, citing *PSWAC Final
    Report* at 52*.*

[^292]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 239 ¶ 193. *See also* *Petition of
    the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council for Further
    Rulemaking to Allocate Spectrum in the 138-144 MHz Band for Public
    Safety (*April 9, 1998*).*

[^293]: *See* Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 1062, 113 Stat. 767 (1999).

[^294]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* PR Docket No. 92-257, 13 FCC Rcd 19853, 19853, 19895-19900
    (Appendix C, D and E) (1998) (*Maritime Third Report and Order*).

[^295]: A VPC constitutes a separate licensing area and is an inland
    Economic Area, no part of which is within one hundred miles of a
    major waterway. *See Maritime Third Report and Order* at 19862 ¶ 15.

[^296]: *Maritime Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 19863-64 ¶ 18.

[^297]: *Maritime Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 19899 Appendix
    E. We note that the Maritime Communications proceeding, PR Docket
    No. 92-257, remains pending and that there may be additional
    opportunities to facilitate public safety use of maritime channels
    to meet interoperability or other needs.

[^298]: *Maritime Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 19868-69 ¶ 31.

[^299]: *Third Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 240 ¶ 194*.*

[^300]: *Id.*

[^301]: APCO Comments at 9; NPSTC Comments at 9-10; IAPC Comments at 5.

[^302]: NPSTC Comments at 9-10 citing *PSWAC Final Report*, Appendix C
    -- Interoperability Subcommittee Report, Section 12.3.11.4, page 152
    (426) and Section 12.3.11.5, page 153 (427); *see also* IACP
    Comments at 5.

[^303]: A map of the inland VPCs is attached as Appendix H.

[^304]: APCO Comments at 9; IACP Comments at 5; NPSTC Comments at 9-10.

[^305]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.205.

[^306]: *See* former 47 C.F.R. § 90.283(c) (1997) (limiting transmitter
    power of Part 90 users sharing VHF public coast spectrum to 50
    watts), (removed by the *Maritime Third Report and Order* at
    Appendix F).

[^307]: 47 C.F.R. § 80.215(c)(1).

[^308]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.

[^309]: *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).

[^310]: *See* Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96‑86, *Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd.
    17706, 17809 (1997).

[^311]: *See* 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, 249 (1998) (\"*First Report and
    Order*\").

[^312]: *See* 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, *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
    Rcd. 8059, 8070 (1999) (\"*First MO&O*\").

[^313]: *See* Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96‑86, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 00-264 (rel.
    August 1, 2000) (\"*Second MO&O*").

[^314]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^315]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^316]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^317]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"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 term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^318]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^319]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^320]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^321]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^322]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^323]: *Id.*

[^324]: *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.

[^325]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5), *see supra* ¶ 4.

[^326]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 3663.

[^327]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC 3663.

[^328]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4833 (1996).

[^329]: 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).

[^330]: *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.

[^331]: ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^332]: 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)).

[^333]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22953 (1998), at
    Appendix C; ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^334]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) at
    Appendix C.

[^335]: A census for communications establishments is performed every
    five years ending with a \"2\" or \"7.\" *See* ESA 1992 Census at
    III.

[^336]: 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.

[^337]: *See Allocation Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14142.

[^338]: *See DTV Proceeding,* 12 FCC Rcd 14588.

[^339]: *See Allocation Notice* 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.5.

[^340]: 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.

[^341]: *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.

[^342]: *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).

[^343]: *See Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22986 at Appendix
    C.

[^344]: *See Allocation Notice* at 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.3.

[^345]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^346]: In the *Third MO&O*, we amend our Rules to exempt mobiles and
    portables that operate exclusively on these low power frequencies
    from the digital modulation requirement of Section 90.535, the
    trunking requirement of Section 90.537, and the interoperability
    channel capability requirement of Section 90.547 of our Rules. In
    addition, we are revising Section 90.547 to more clearly reflect the
    interoperability channel capability requirement that we adopted in
    the *First Report and Order*.

[^347]: *See Third Report and Order*, para. 38, *supra.*

[^348]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^349]: *See 5* U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^350]: *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).

[^351]: The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    96-86, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 12,460 (1996)
    (*Public Safety Notice*); The Development of Operational, Technical
    and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local
    Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year
    2010 and Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access
    Service, WT Docket 96-86, *Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    12 FCC Rcd 17,706 (1997) (*Second Notice*), The Development of
    Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting
    Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010 and Establishment of Rules and
    Requirements For Priority Access Service, WT Docket 96-86, *First
    Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC
    Rcd. 152 (1998) (*First Report and Order* or *Third Notice*, as
    applicable).

[^352]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^353]: *See First Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd. at 175-176 ¶ 43.

[^354]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^355]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"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 term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^356]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^357]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^358]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^359]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^360]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^361]: *Id.*

[^362]: *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.

[^363]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5), *see supra* para. 3.

[^364]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 3663.

[^365]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC 3663.

[^366]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4833 (1996).

[^367]: 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).

[^368]: *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.

[^369]: ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^370]: 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)).

[^371]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22953 (1998), at
    Appendix C; ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A-9.

[^372]: *Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) at
    Appendix C.

[^373]: A census for communications establishments is performed every
    five years ending with a \"2\" or \"7.\" *See* ESA 1992 Census at
    III.

[^374]: 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.

[^375]: *See Allocation Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 14142.

[^376]: *See DTV Proceeding,* 12 FCC Rcd 14588.

[^377]: *See Allocation Notice* 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.5.

[^378]: 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.

[^379]: *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.

[^380]: *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).

[^381]: *See Allocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22986 at Appendix
    C.

[^382]: *See Allocation Notice* at 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n.3.

[^383]: *See Third Report and Order,* para. 78-81 , *supra.*

[^384]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^385]: *See Third Report and Order*, paras. 48-58, *supra*.

[^386]: *See Third Report and Order*, paras. 75-81, *supra*.

[^387]: Defense FY99 Appropriations Conference Report and in the
    Commercial Space Act of 1998, H.R. 105-746, Defense FY99
    Appropriations Conference Report; H.R. 1702 Commercial Space Act of
    1998.

[^388]: *See id.,* para. 88, note Error: Reference source not found.

[^389]: *See Third Report and Order*, paras. 82-90, *supra.*

[^390]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^391]: *See 5* U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^392]: APCO Comments at 10-12.

[^393]: FLEWUG Comments at 21 and Reply Comments at 17.

[^394]: California Comments at 9.

[^395]: *Id*.

[^396]: FLEWUG Comments at 23.

[^397]: *Id*.

[^398]: Florida Comments at 7-8.

[^399]: Comments of IACP at 6.

[^400]: PSWN Reply Comments at 11.

[^401]: NPSTC Comments at 10-12.

[^402]: Joint Commenters Comments at 4.

[^403]: The Cities Comments at 18.

[^404]: *Id*.

[^405]: Motorola Reply Comments at 12.

[^406]: PSWN Comments at 19-20.

[^407]: Motorola Reply Comments at 12.

[^408]: *Id*. at 12-13.