**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | ET Docket No. 03-158         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Amendment of Parts 2, 73, 74 and | ** | MB Docket No. 03-159         |
| 90 of the                        |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Commission's Rules to Permit     | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| New York Metropolitan Area       |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Public Safety Agencies to Use    | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Frequencies at 482-488 MHz       |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**Notice of Proposed Rulemaking**

**Adopted: July 7, 2003 Released: July 10, 2003**

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

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

By the Commission: Commissioner Martin issuing a statement.

1.  The Commission has before it a Report of the Police Department of
    the City of New York (NYPD), submitted on December 5, 2002,
    regarding the allocation of TV Channel 16 (482-488 MHz) in the New
    York Metropolitan Area.[^1] Specifically, the NYPD, on behalf of
    itself and the other public safety agencies comprising the New York
    Metropolitan Advisory Committee (NYMAC) (collectively Petitioners)
    states that there is a need to reallocate TV broadcast Channel 16
    (482-488 MHz) in the New York City Metropolitan Area to the land
    mobile service for public safety communications on a permanent
    basis. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petition and
    initiate a proceeding wherein we propose to reallocate Channel 16
    and solicit comments on various aspects of the technical
    implementation of our proposal. We believe that this action is in
    furtherance of the Commission's ongoing efforts to facilitate
    effective public safety communication and to promote
    interoperability.

**I. BACKGROUND**

2.  In 1995, the Commission conditionally waived Parts 2 and 90 of its
    rules to allow the temporary assignment of frequencies in the
    482-488 MHz band to public safety agencies in the New York City
    metropolitan area. As a result of this action, public safety use of
    the frequencies was permitted for a period of at least five years or
    until a television broadcast station in the New York City
    metropolitan area initiates use of Channel 16 for advanced
    television broadcast operations, whichever is longer.[^2] In that
    *Order*, the Commission found that the public safety agencies in New
    York had "an urgent and immediate need for additional spectrum
    capacity for public safety communications."[^3] The Commission
    believed that the use of TV Channel 16 would provide necessary
    relief and would allow for the development of interoperability of
    communications between the affected public safety agencies.[^4]
    Finally, the Commission concluded that the spectrum relief could be
    concluded without affecting then-existing television operations or
    plans for the implementation of advanced television.[^5]

3.  In support of their request, Petitioners state that the use of TV
    Channel 16 plays a critical role in the ability of the NYPD and
    other NYMAC agencies to engage in effective public safety
    communications.[^6] They also state that they have made enormous
    investments in planning, constructing and implementing a wireless
    infrastructure for voice and data which is integral to their ability
    to provide enhanced emergency response.[^7] According to the
    Petition, the NYPD alone has invested over \$50 million in the
    infrastructure for its operations on TV Channel 16, including
    transmitters, antennas, repeaters and approximately 25,000 portable
    and mobile radios. The Petitioners state that the New York City Fire
    Department, Corrections Department, Sanitation Department,
    Department of Information and Technology, Department of Parks and
    Recreation, and the Health and Hospitals Corporation Police all
    depend on TV Channel 16 as the core of their wireless communications
    capability. The Petition discusses how public safety agencies in
    Suffolk County, New York and Nassau County, New York also rely on TV
    Channel 16. According to the Petition, these entities, as well as
    the New York Transit Authority and other area public safety
    agencies, have invested millions of dollars in equipment to utilize
    TV Channel 16.

4.  The Petitioners contend that the substantial investments made by the
    various public safety agencies in the use of TV Channel 16 could be
    jeopardized if a party petitioned the Commission to assign TV
    Channel 16 for digital television (DTV) use in the Hudson River
    Valley.[^8] Petitioners also express concerns regarding the
    potential for interference from low power television operation.[^9]
    In order to forestall these types of threats, the Petitioners seek
    to have TV Channel 16 in the New York City metropolitan area
    permanently allocated as part of the land mobile service for use as
    a public safety communications band.

**II. DISCUSSION**

**A. Public Safety Agencies Access to Spectrum in the New York
Metropolitan Area**

5.  The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, illustrated the need for
    public safety personnel to have reliable access to sufficient
    telecommunications capacity during times of crisis.
    Telecommunications systems were essential to notify first responders
    and medical personnel of the tragic events that had occurred, and
    were occurring, and of the immediate need for their services. In the
    New York City metropolitan area, Channel 16 has formed an integral
    part of the emergency agencies' telecommunications system since the
    Commission's temporary authorization for its use in 1995 and is a
    key element in their plans for the future.

**B. Section 303 Authority**

6.  The frequencies at issue in this case - - 482-488 MHz - - are
    currently allocated for the broadcast television service in the
    Table of Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106 of our
    rules.  Petitioners state that their request is consistent
    with Section 337(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, a
    provision that directs the Commission to \"waive any requirement of
    this Act or its regulations implementing this Act (other than its
    regulations regarding harmful interference) to the extent necessary
    to permit the use of unassigned frequencies for the provision of
    public safety services\" when certain specified conditions are met. 
    The arguments made by petitioners, however, imply that what
    petitioners are really seeking is a permanent reallocation of
    television channel 16 in New York City to public safety use rather
    than a Section 337 waiver.  While proceeding via Section 337 would
    afford the named petitioners a permanent waiver of applicable rules
    if all relevant criteria are met, the spectrum would remain
    allocated to broadcast television.  If we were to
    instead proceed via Section 303 of the Communications Act, the
    spectrum could be permanently reallocated to fill the needs of
    all qualified public safety entities in New York City and the
    broadcast allocation would be eliminated. 

7.  We tentatively conclude that permanent reallocation of Channel 16
    pursuant to Section 303 to the land mobile service for use with
    public safety communications would serve the public interest. As we
    originally found in 1995, public safety agencies in the New York
    City metropolitan area continue to have an urgent and immediate need
    for additional spectrum capacity for public safety
    communications.[^10] The Petitioners contend that there is no other
    spectrum available to them within those bands that have been
    designated for public safety use. In support of this contention, the
    Petitioners include a frequency analysis (Frequency Analysis) of the
    technical parameters facing public safety entities in the New York
    City metropolitan area. We believe that the Petitioners' analysis
    demonstrates that the only unassigned spectrum in the 150-160 MHz
    band is not usable due to the close proximity of existing adjacent
    channels. In the Frequency Analysis, the Petitioners state that
    there are no frequencies available in either the 450-454 MHz band or
    the 460-465 MHz band that would satisfy the needs of the agencies.
    The Frequency Analysis also discusses the UHF T-Band pools (in
    Channels 14 and 15) and determines that all of the 25 kHz channels
    and most of the 12.5 kHz channels are assigned. The Petitioners
    demonstrate that the 12.5 kHz channels that are unassigned are
    unusable due to adjacent channel spacing. Likewise, they assert that
    the 6.25 kHz channels in that band are not usable due to the
    closeness of the adjacent channels. The Petitioners also state that
    all of the channels in the 806-821, 821-824, 851-866, and 866-869
    MHz band are in use. Finally, the Petitioners explain that immediate
    and future uses of the new Public Safety Band at 764-776/794-806 are
    prohibited in the New York City metropolitan area by current
    television station operations. We seek comment on our tentative
    conclusion and the Petitioners' assertions about public safety
    access to spectrum in the New York metropolitan area.

8.  Further, we tentatively conclude that use of Channel 16 on a
    permanent basis will provide immediate and necessary relief to the
    agencies and will allow for the continued development of
    interoperability in the New York metropolitan area. The Petitioners
    point to the long-standing use of the spectrum without harm to other
    users, including broadcasters, and other public safety users. The
    Petitioners contend that the tremendous financial investment of the
    various agencies and the serious public safety concerns of the New
    York City metropolitan area present a compelling public interest
    argument for the permanent allocation of TV Channel 16 for public
    safety services in the New York metropolitan area. We agree and we
    seek comment on the Petitioners' conclusions.

9.  Finally, as further discussed below, we tentatively conclude that
    permanent reallocation of Channel 16 can be accomplished without
    adversely affecting existing television operations or our plans for
    implementation of digital television. We seek comment on these
    tentative conclusions. The Petitioners provide an engineering
    analysis as to why the requested use will not cause harmful
    interference to other spectrum users who are entitled to protection.
    As discussed above, the NYPD and NYMAC have been using the requested
    spectrum pursuant to Commission authorization since 1995. When the
    land mobile service on Channel 16 in New York City was created,
    limitations were imposed to facilitate coexistence with existing
    licensees. For example, to accommodate WNEP-TV, Channel 16,
    Scranton, Pennsylvania and WPHL-TV, Channel 17, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania, limitations were placed on the effective radiated
    power (ERP) of base and mobile units in Bergen County New Jersey
    that were more stringent than those placed on systems east of the
    Hudson River and Kill Van Kull. Those limitations effectively
    preclude use of Channel 16 west of the Hudson River, and the
    Petitioners do not seek to have those limitations lifted.
    Petitioners contend that the existing service limitations resulted
    in successful coexistence with incumbent licensees and should be
    continued. In addition, the Petitioners and the licensee of Channel
    17, WEBR-CA, New York City, New York[^11] are parties to an
    agreement that coordinates interference between them. The
    Petitioners state that they seek to preserve the *status quo* in
    their relationship with WEBR-CA.[^12] On these bases, we agree with
    the Petitioners that the use of Channel 16 for public safety
    services has a history of coexistence with the users of co-channel
    and adjacent channel spectrum.

10. In addition, the Frequency Analysis states that Station WQEX(TV),
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania meets the co-channel separation
    requirement, but that Station WNEP-TV, Scranton, Pennsylvania and
    W16AX, Ithaca, New York do not. However, as the Petitioners state,
    the effects of the Hudson River, discussed above, and the
    limitations imposed on the land mobile use of Channel 16 in the 1995
    *Order* (which we propose to maintain) will continue to prevent
    co-channel interference with the Scranton and Ithaca television
    stations' channels.

11. The Petitioners also allege that uncertainty exists as to whether
    Class A, LPTV and TV Translator stations must protect land mobile
    stations operating on Channel 16 in New York, New York. For example,
    the Petitioners assert that Section 73.6020 of the rules
    specifically states that Class A TV stations must not cause
    interference to land mobile operations on Channel 16 in New York
    City.[^13] The Petitioners maintain that the rule does not
    specifically refer to low power TV (LPTV) stations, TV translators
    and TV booster stations. They question whether such facilities must
    also provide the same protection. [^14] We seek comment on this
    issue as well as on the basis for the Petitioners' contentions that
    grant of the requested relief will not cause harmful interference to
    those spectrum users entitled to protection.

**C. Section 337(c) Criteria**

12. As an alternative to reallocating the frequencies in question, we
    seek comment on whether we should permit Petitioners to use the
    frequencies pursuant to a Section 337(c) waiver. We tentatively
    conclude that we can make the requested reallocation pursuant to our
    authority in Section 303 of the Communications Act and we also
    believe that licensing of Channel 16 in New York City to the NYMAC
    for public safety communications is consistent with Section 337(c).
    Under that Section, the Commission shall grant an application to
    reallocate unassigned frequencies to the public safety services if
    it finds: (1) no other spectrum allocated for public safety uses is
    immediately available; (2) there will be no harmful interference to
    other spectrum users entitled to protection; (3) public safety use
    of the spectrum is consistent with other public safety spectrum
    allocations in the geographic area in question; (4) the unassigned
    frequencies were allocated for their present use not less than two
    years prior to the grant of the application at issue; and (5) the
    grant of the application is consistent with the public interest. The
    statute defines public safety services as those services that are
    provided by the government or by an entity that has been authorized
    by the government and whose sole or principal purpose is to protect
    life, health, or property on a non-commercial basis. [^15] The NYPD
    and NYMAC meet the definition of public safety services.

13. It appears that Petitioners have satisfied the first two
    criteria: (1) that no other spectrum allocated for public safety
    uses is immediately available and (2) that there will be no harmful
    interference to other spectrum users entitled to protection. As
    discussed above, the Frequency Analysis contains a thorough review
    of these issues and we tentatively conclude that it demonstrates
    that Petitioners have satisfied both criteria. We seek comment on
    our conclusions.

14. On the third criterion, that public safety use of the spectrum is
    consistent with other public safety spectrum allocations in the
    geographic area in question, the Petitioners point to the
    long-standing use of the spectrum without harm to other users,
    including broadcasters and other public safety users. We tentatively
    conclude that the Petitioners have satisfied this criterion and we
    seek comment on the Petitioners' assertions.

15. On the fourth criterion, that the unassigned frequencies were
    allocated for their present use not less than two years prior to the
    grant of the application at issue, the Petitioners maintain that the
    current temporary access to Channel 16 under waiver was made in
    1995, which they note is outside the time limitation. We believe,
    however, that the reason Congress included this criterion in its
    Section 337(c) analysis was to ensure that the frequencies for which
    reallocation is sought are frequencies that have genuinely been
    unclaimed for at least two years. In this case, the frequencies in
    question (482 -- 488 MHz) were temporarily assigned for public
    safety use in 1995. At the same time, they remained available for
    use by digital television broadcasters. A party interested in
    obtaining Channel 16 for use as a new digital television station
    could have requested that the Commission open an auction filing
    window. No one has made such a request or otherwise sought to use
    these frequencies for digital television in the New York City area.
    As a result, we tentatively conclude that the Petitioners have met
    the test under this criterion and we seek comment on this issue.

16. Finally, the Petitioners contend that the tremendous financial
    investment of the various agencies and the serious public safety
    concerns of the New York City Metropolitan Area present a compelling
    public interest argument for the permanent allocation of Channel 16
    for public safety services in the New York area. We agree and we
    seek comment on the Petitioners' conclusions.

**D. Additional Technical Considerations**

17. The grant of the original waiver was predicated on several
    engineering considerations and restrictions to ensure that public
    safety operations do not interfere with television broadcast
    operations. We propose to adopt the same measures if we grant
    permanent reallocation or a Section 337(c) waiver. The specific
    provisions we propose to adopt include the following:

> Section 73.6020. The provision of this section, that Class A stations
> must not cause interference to land mobile stations operating on
> channel 16 in New York, NY, would be extended to cover public safety
> operations in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk.
>
> Section 74.709. Land mobile station protection. The provisions of this
> section, that make lower power TV and TV translator stations secondary
> to land mobile operations in designated urban regions, would be
> extended to public safety land mobile operations on channel 16 in New
> York City and the counties of Nassau and Suffolk.
>
> Section 90.303. In addition to the frequency assignments tabulated in
> this section, channel 16 (482-488 MHz) would be made available for
> public safety land mobile operations in New York City and Nassau and
> Suffolk Counties.
>
> Section 90.305. Base station operation on channel 16 in the New York
> City urban region would be restricted to the five boroughs of New York
> City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York. Operation of mobile
> units would be permitted exclusively in these counties and boroughs.
>
> Section 90.307. Protection Criteria. The effective radiated power
> (ERP) and antenna height of public safety base stations operating on
> channel 16 in the New York City urban region would be governed by
> tables B, D, and E and Figure \"B\" of this section.

18. We seek comment on the proposals.

**III. CONCLUSION**

19. We conclude that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
    underscored the increasing importance of public safety radio
    systems, which provide the primary telecommunication service for
    first responders in emergency situations. In the New York
    metropolitan area, the use of TV Channel 16 by the NYPD and NYMAC
    has been an essential part of this telecommunications service since
    the Commission's temporary authorization in 1995. We tentatively
    conclude that the public interest will be served by grant of the
    Petitioners' proposal to change the temporary authorization to a
    permanent reallocation. The Petitioners contend, and we tentatively
    conclude, that permanent reallocation of Channel 16 would serve the
    public interest by facilitating these agencies' ability to make long
    term plans based on its availability, to expand their investment in
    the spectrum, and to use the spectrum to protect public safety and
    well-being. By reallocating Channel 16 to public safety use in the
    New York City area, we believe that we will be providing permanent
    necessary spectrum capacity to area public safety agencies while
    continuing to facilitate the increasingly-important interoperability
    of public safety communications.

**IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

20. This matter shall be treated as a "permit --but-disclose" proceeding
    in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. 47 C.F.R. §
    1.200, 1.1206. Members of the public are advised that *ex parte*
    presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
    period, provided they are disclosed as provided under the
    Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202,
    1.1203 and 1.1206(a).

21. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
    comments on or before **30 days from the date of publication in the
    Federal Register** and reply comments on or before **45 days from
    the date of publication in the Federal Register**. Comments may be
    filed using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System
    (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents
    in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

22. Comments filed using ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
    Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only
    one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
    docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
    the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
    caption. When completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
    include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties also may submit
    electronic comments by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the body
    of the message, \"get form.\" A sample form and directions will be
    sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
    commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional
    docket or rulemaking number.

23. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
    overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
    Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving
    U.S. Postal Service mail).

24. The Commission\'s contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive
    hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
    Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite
    110, Washington, D.C. 20002.

    -The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    -All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
    fasteners.

    -Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    -Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    -U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority
    Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
    20554.

25. All filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office
    of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

26. For further information on this proceeding, please contact Dave
    Roberts at (202) 418-1600, Video Division, Office of Broadcast
    License Policy, Media Bureau.

27. The Commission has determined that the relevant provisions of the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to rule making
    proceedings to amend the TV Table of Allotments, Section 73.606(b)
    of the Commission\'s rules. See Certification That Sections 603 and
    604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to
    Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 46 FR 11549, February 9, 1981.

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES

28. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that pursuant to the authority
    contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 337
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
    151, 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 337 this *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* **IS ADOPTED**.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: Proposed Rules**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 C.F.R. part 2 as follows:

**PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS**

1\. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY**: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.

2\. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by
revising footnote NG66 to read as follows.

**[§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES

\* \* \* \* \*

NG66 The use of the land mobile service in the band 470-512 MHz is
available for assignment to licensees in the Public Mobile Services, the
Public Safety Radio Pool, and the Industrial/Business Radio Pool at, or
in the vicinity of 11 urbanized areas, as set forth in the following
table. Additionally, the band 482-488 MHz (TV channel 16) is available
for assignment to licensees in the Public Safety Radio Pool at, or in
the vicinity of, Los Angeles and at, or in the vicinity of, New York
City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. Such use in the land
mobile service is subject to the conditions set forth in 47 C.F.R. parts
22 and 90.

  --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------
  Urbanized area                                Frequencies (MHz)            TV channel

  New York, NY-Northeastern New Jersey....      470-482...................   14, 15

  Chicago, IL-Northwestern Indiana............  470-482...................   14, 15

  Boston,                                       470-476 and 482-488...       14, 16
  MA..................\.....................                                 

  Pittsburgh,                                   470-476 and 494-500...       14, 18
  PA....................................                                     

  Los Angeles,                                  470-476 and 506-512...       14, 20
  CA.................................                                        

  Miami,                                        470-476...................   14
  FL........................................                                 

  San Francisco-Oakland, CA.................... 482-494...................   16, 17

  Dallas,                                       482-488...................   16
  TX.........................................                                

  Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia......\...  488-500...................   17, 18

  Houston,                                      488-494...................   17
  TX......................................                                   

  Philadelphia, PA-New Jersey.................. 500-512...................   19, 20
  --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------

> \* \* \* \*
>
> **APPENDIX B: Report of the Police Department of the City of New
> York**

# 

# 

# 

# REPORT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 

# OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

> ***THE NEED TO ALLOCATE CHANNEL 16 IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA
> TO THE LAND MOBILE SERVICE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS ON A
> PERMANENT BASIS***

# 

# 

> **Police Department of the City of New York**
>
> John F. Gilmartin
>
> Deputy Chief and Commanding Officer
>
> Office of Technology and Systems Development
>
> Cornelius Walsh
>
> Lieutenant
>
> Office of Technology and Systems Development
>
> Police Department of the City of New York
>
> 1 Police Plaza
>
> New York, New York 10038
>
> 646.610.8969
>
> John E. Logan
>
> Special Counsel to the
>
> Police Department of the City of New York
>
> 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
>
> Tenth Floor
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036
>
> 202.772.1981

# December 5, 2002

# 

# 

#  

# REPORT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 

# OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

# *THE NEED TO ALLOCATE CHANNEL 16 IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA TO THE LAND MOBILE SERVICE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS ON A PERMANENT BASIS*

The Police Department of the City of New York for itself and the other
public safety agencies comprising the New York Metropolitan Advisory
Committee (NYMAC),[^16] submits this report to demonstrate the need for
broadcast channel 16 in the New York Metropolitan area to be allocated
by the Federal Communications Commission as a permanent part of the land
mobile service for public safety communications. The critical role
channel 16 has in providing public safety communications by the New York
City Police Department and other NYMAC agencies, the extensive
investment already made in support of these operations and the need to
make substantial additional investment, demonstrates that the temporary
character of present authority be made permanent.

> **BACKGROUND**

On March 17, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or
FCC) released its Order waiving Parts 2 and 90 of its rules to permit
the temporary assignment of frequencies in the 482-488 MHz band,
broadcast channel 16, to public safety agencies in the New York City
Metropolitan area. The Order stated that use of these frequencies will
be permitted for a period of at least five years or until the Commission
assigns channel 16 for advanced television service.[^17]

In the 1995 Authorization, the Commission responded to the severe
spectrum overcrowding that plagues the New York Metropolitan area. The
Commission recognized that the overloading of public safety channels
exceeded the Commission's own rules and the peril presented to public
safety. The Commission noted that consistent delays and backlogs were
taking place in even the most critical radio transmissions. Importantly,
the Commission determined that not only was there an urgent and
immediate need for additional spectrum capacity for public safety
agencies in the New York metropolitan area but that granting the
authorization would be accomplished without affecting existing broadcast
television operations or its plans for digital television.

Since the temporary authorization in 1995, the New York City Police
Department and NYMAC agencies have made enormous investment in planning,
constructing and implementing a wireless infrastructure for voice and
data integral to providing enhanced emergency response to citizens in
need. Existing broadcast operations have not been affected adversely by
these public safety operations. The channel 16 frequencies and the
investment and expertise committed by the Police Department and NYMAC
agencies have resulted in tangible improvements in public safety
response capability.

The substantial improvements in public safety communications in the New
York Metropolitan area that flowed from the Commission's 1995 decision
give broad credence to the need to make the authorization permanent and
designate channel 16 as part of the land mobile service. The September
11, 2001 attack has presented enormous additional challenges to public
safety communications. The substantial additional investment to be made,
the lack of any alternative spectrum, and the ability of channel 16
communications to operate without affecting broadcast operations in the
area, demonstrates the need to assign permanently channel 16 to public
safety land mobile operations in the New York Metropolitan area. The New
York City Police Department commends the Commission's contribution to
public safety communications in New York City and urges that it act
expeditiously and favorably in making channel 16 permanent.

**INVESTMENT IN AND OPERATIONS OF CHANNNEL 16**

***New York City***

The New York City Police Department, the Nation's largest police agency,
has invested in excess of \$50 million in the infrastructure
encompassing its operations on channel 16. This extensive capital
investment includes transmitters, antennas, repeaters, and approximately
25,000 portable and mobile radios and other equipment that ensures that
the Police Department have a robust wireless network throughout New York
City. The investment and time committed to design, construction and
implementation of this infrastructure has been an enormous undertaking
intended to increase substantially the efficiency and effectiveness of
the Department's wireless communications capability and how it responds
to citizens confronting emergencies. The result has demonstrated a
significant enhancement to New York City's almost 40,000 police officers
in being able to respond to the over 8 million residents of the City as
well as the million of visitors and commuters that travel to the city
each day. The infrastructure is the foundation of continuing investment
to bring more real time information to officers responding to
emergencies relating to locations and individuals encountered through
modernizing computer aided dispatch systems. These enhancements are a
critical element in improving homeland security as channel 16 is
fundamental to emergency responsiveness.

In addition, to the Police Department, channel 16 in an important
communications facility for the New York City Fire Department,
Department of Information and Technology, the Corrections Department,
the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of
Transportation, the Sanitation Department, and the Health and Hospitals
Corporation Police. Each of these agencies depends upon channel 16 to
provide core wireless communications capability in carrying out their
public safety responsibilities; there are 20,000 portable and mobile
units beyond those of the Police Department. Channel 16 is at the
foundation of the New York City Fire Department's effort to improve its
wireless communications capability. These efforts are a major priority
to ensure that firefighters have effective and efficient means to
communicate when responding to an emergency. The need for channel 16 to
provide quality spectrum to meet this goal is crucial to the bringing
forth these improvements.

***Suffolk County***

Suffolk County encompasses 1000 square miles of the eastern two-thirds
of Long Island, extending 120 miles into the Atlantic Ocean, East from
New York City. The distance from the Nassau County border to Montauk
Point is 86 miles. At Suffolk County\'s widest point the distance from
Long Island Sound to the southern shore is 26 miles. In carrying out its
responsibilities, the Suffolk County Police Department has over 3,200
sworn and civilian members serving over 1.4 million citizens. The
Department covers over 430 miles of coastline and open water. It
responds to over one million calls for service per year and is the
14^th^ largest Police Department in the country.

Suffolk County has committed substantial investment to public safety
communications since channel 16 were assigned by the Commission in 1995.
The critical role the infrastructure has in modernizing the Police
Department's Communications system cannot be overstated. The commitment
made by the Commission to public safety communications in the New York
Metropolitan area was followed by support from other federal agencies.
Specifically, the Suffolk County Police Department has received
a \$15-million grant under the COPS MORE program, which was matched by
\$5 million in County funds. The funding provided for Mobile Data
Computers (MDC\'s) in all of the Department's marked police units and
many unmarked units**,** LIVE SCAN Fingerprinting and Photo Imaging for
investigative units, and state-of-the-art integrated records management
system tied to the Computer Aided Dispatch system**.** The 1995
Authorization and subsequent grant monies have resulted in tremendous
productivity savings enabling the Department's officers to spend
significantly less time on paperwork and more time performing police
duties. It is these capabilities that the Commission has embraced as
bringing technology to benefit the public.[^18] Channel 16 is relied
upon to provide effective quality voice and data communications to
police officers in the field.

***Nassau County***

Nassau County, located on Long Island and near the center of the New
York metropolitan area, borders New York City to the west, Suffolk
County to the east, and covers over 285 square miles. The Nassau County
Police Department, with almost 3,000 officers and 1200 civilian
personnel, is also one of the largest in the country, providing law
enforcement and emergency medical services throughout the county. The
Department has more than 200 marked patrol units operating from eight
precincts located throughout the county. Five channels on channel 16 are
used for crucial mobile data communications.

In addition to the New York City, Suffolk and Nassau Police Departments,
the Elmont Fire District, the Yonkers Fire Department and the New York
City Transit Authority have committed substantial monies to
infrastructure investment to support the channel 16 frequencies that
they have been assigned. Moreover, the several New York City agencies
use channel 16 for mobile and portable wireless communications.

> **CHANNEL 16's PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS IS CHALLENGED BY OTHERS
> USERS OF THE SPECTRUM**

Attached hereto is an analysis of the technical parameters facing public
safety communications in the New York Metropolitan area in the use of
channel 16 and the need for placing channel 16 permanent in the land
mobile service. As the analysis makes clear, the New York City Police
Department and NYMAC agencies face a threat to public safety
communications unless channel 16 is allocated formally to the land
mobile service. [^19]

Despite the critical role channel 16 has in public safety communications
and the enormous investment made by the New York City Police Department
and NYMAC agencies, interests could petition the Commission to assign a
channel 16 to DTV in the Hudson River Valley. The Police Department
seeks to foreclose this potential and the costs relating to opposing
such an effort. The technical analysis shows that a petition to
establish a DTV station in the proximity of the New York metropolitan
area where it will adversely affect channel 16 operations is not
foreclosed by the Commission's rules and policies. As neither the
Commission's allocation tables nor rules refer to channel 16 use as a
public safety communications band, prospective stations have limited
notice of the need to protect channel 16.

Moreover, the transition to digital television, with full power stations
moving to different spectrum, and in many circumstances causing low
power television licensees to seek new spectrum, has caused a continued
threat to channel 16 communications. These

low power TV, TV translator and TV booster stations present substantial
challenge. The Commission's rules do not specifically protect channel 16
public safety communications with regard to full power, low power,
translator and booster stations. It is only in the rules addressing
Class A TV stations where channel 16 communications are protected.
Section 73.6020 of the Commission's rules states that Class A TV
stations must not cause interference to land mobile stations operation
on channel 16 in New York, New York. The technical analysis addresses
why the Commission should designate clearly that channel 16 is part of
the land mobile service, so that all present and future broadcasters are
on full notice of the need to protect channel 16 operations.

Committing Channel 16 to Public Safety Land Mobile Communications is
Consistent with the Standards of Section 337(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, that Makes Spectrum Available to Public Safety
Agencies

Section 337(c) of the Communications Act states that the Commission
shall grant an application by an entity seeking to provide public safety
services to the extent necessary to permit the use of unassigned
frequencies, if the Commission makes five specific findings. These
findings are: (1*)* no other spectrum allocated for public safety use is
immediately available; *(2*) there will be no harmful interference to
other spectrum users entitled to protection; (3) public safety use of
the frequencies is consistent with other public safety spectrum
allocations in the geographic area in question; (4) the unassigned
frequencies were allocated for their present use not less than two years
prior to the grant of the application at issue; and (5) the grant of the
application is consistent with the public interest.[^20] The need of the
New York City Police Department and the NYMAC to make channel 16
permanent part of land mobile communications satisfies all criteria of
the law as well as the Commission's requirements. The following
summarizes how channel 16's circumstances fulfill the criteria of
Section 337(c) and the Commission's rules:

*No other spectrum allocated for public safety services is immediately
available to satisfy the requested public safety service use.*

As set forth in detail in the attached technical analysis of the Vogel
Consulting Group, Inc., it is clear that there is no spectrum available
from pools allocated to public safety agencies. Specifically, in the
150-160 MHz band, the analysis revealed no available frequencies that
meet the requirements of the Police Department and NYMAC agencies. In
the 450-466 MHz and 470 to 480 MHz bands, the search shows that while
there are available 6.25 kHz frequencies they fall far short of the
need, and that no manufacturer provides equipment for this narrow
bandwidth.[^21] With regard to 806-821/851-866 MHz, all channels are
assigned; there are no land mobile channels available in this band. A
survey of the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee
(NPSPAC) shows no wide area channels are available in the New York
metropolitan area to meet agency requirements.[^22] In the new Public
Safety Band at 764-776 / 794-806, immediate and future use of this band
is prohibited by current TV stations licensed and in operation.

In summary, there are no frequencies in the VHF, UHF, or 800 MHZ bands
that provide clear usable frequencies to meet NYPD and NYMAC
requirements.

*The requested use is technically feasible without causing harmful
interference to other spectrum users entitled to protection from such
interference under the Commission's regulations*.

Until 1995, this frequency band, 482-488 MHz, was designated as a
Television Broadcasting Stations, channel 16. In the New York
Metropolitan area, there is no NTSC station assigned to channels 14 or
15. The New York City Police Department proposes that channel 16 be
designated permanently as part of the land mobile public safety service
in the New York Metropolitan area. As the technical analysis details,
the New York City Police Department's proposal comports with land mobile
policies. The proposal will cause no interference with entities
authorized to operate on adjacent frequency bands in the New York
Metropolitan area.

Channel 14, 15 and 16 and 17 TV stations in the states of New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut were investigated and are
detailed in the technical report*.*

The technical analysis addresses several circumstances regarding the
effective operation of channel 16 in the land mobile service in the New
York Metropolitan area. Included in the technical report is a discussion
addressing the proposed low power television station on channel 16 in
Hartford, Connecticut, potential broadcast operations in the Hudson
River Valley, adjacent operations of low power television station WEBR,
channel 17 and the pending operations of W17CR in Plainview, New York on
Long Island.

A petition is pending at the Commission for placement of a low power
television station in Hartford, Connecticut. As demonstrated by the
technical analysis, the proposed station's operations will severely
disrupt ongoing public safety communications of the Suffolk County
Police Department. The applicant's response, that the concerns of the
Suffolk County Police Department, the Nassau County Police Department,
and the New York City Police Department are "disingenuous" is a major
premise of this request that channel 16 be formally designated as part
of the public safety land mobile service, entitled to the accompanying
protections.[^23] The Commission has made clear that low power
television stations, much less applicants for such stations, accrue no
rights or benefits, and cannot prevail over significant public interests
such as public safety communications.[^24]

With regard to proposed broadcast operations in the Hudson River Valley,
the technical analysis sets forth the parameters of concern to public
safety operations on channel 16. The Department seeks to avoid a
continuing examination of potential applicants seeking broadcast
operations that may not comprehend the significance of channel 16 public
safety communications. Formally designating channel 16 in the land
mobile service for public safety will address this circumstance.

WEBR is a low power television station operating on adjacent channel 17
and transmitting from the Empire State Building to the Queens, New York
area. The NYPD and NYMAC agencies have a memorandum of understanding
with WEBR that seeks to ensure that channel 17 can serve its community
while protecting critical public safety communications. This report and
request seeks to bring clarity to WEBR's operations and the public
safety communications on channel 16. Significantly, there is a
difference between the Commission's record as to what parameters WEBR is
authorized to operate under and its actual operations. Specifically, the
ERP and other technical details obtained from WEBR-CA's engineering
consultant are contrary to technical information obtained from the FCC's
public access web site and the license issued to WEBR-CA. The FCC shows
the ERP to be 2.0 kW, not 1.07kW, and the polarization to be horizontal.
Additionally, the horizontal antenna pattern is different as is the
antenna model number. The build out of additional infrastructure, and
use by NYMAC agencies engages the parameters of WEBR's present and
future operations.

The technical report also addresses W17CR channel 17, and its likelihood
to probably produce interference to the nearby public safety base
stations sited. The interference from the recently issued construction
permit to W17CR, if implemented, will show to have the potential to
reduce the area of coverage for public safety communications on channel
16.

The technical analysis concludes that allocating channel 16 to the land
mobile service for public safety communications is technically feasible
and will not interfere with those authorized users that are entitled to
protection on channel frequencies and adjacent spectrum. There should be
no interference to the reception of the intended signals for any of the
authorized receivers at the sites of adjacent users.

*the use of the unassigned frequency for the provision of public safety
services is consistent with other allocations for the provision of such
services in the geographic area for which the application is made*

Channel 16 is in a frequency band where land mobile operations have been
authorized. Experience has demonstrated the effective use of these
channels by public safety agencies without harm to other users. The
frequency band has been used by the public safety agencies in the New
York Metropolitan area for over five years. The Commission's assignment
of channel 16 to the land mobile service is consistent with its 1995
decision and the positive experience that has followed.

*the unassigned frequency was allocated for its present purpose not less
than 2 years prior to the date on which the application is granted*

The assignment of channel 16 frequencies to public safety communications
commenced in 1995. The criteria's intent of protecting new services is
not undermined, thereby meeting the third criteria.

g*ranting such application is consistent with the public interest*

The New York City Police Department and NYMAC agencies continue to face
critical requirements to modernize public safety communications systems.
Each agency must also protect the investment already made in channel 16,
but more importantly respond to the enormous challenges of the September
11, 2001 attack. The health and safety of the public and New York City
police officers, and those of the NYMAC agencies, is at stake. The
Commission has a crucial role and can make a further tangible
contribution to the safety and well being of public safety officers and
the public they are sworn to protect. The public interest is clearly
forwarded by the Commission's swift and favorable action to allocate
channel 16 to the land mobile service in the New York Metropolitan area.

**CONCLUSION**

Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, states that the
Commission's responsibility to regulate the broadcast spectrum is
grounded on ensuring the "national defense ...and promoting the safety
of life and property." The Commission's important action in 1995 upholds
this fundamental. Since the Commission's 1995 decision to assign
temporarily channel 16 to public safety communications in the New York
Metropolitan area it has become a critical backbone to the
communications infrastructure of the Police Department of the City of
New York and NYMAC agencies. As public safety agencies face enormous
challenges emanating from the September 11, 2001 attack, channel 16
frequencies are crucial to meeting this challenge. The Commission's
expeditious and favorable action in allocating channel 16 in the New
York Metropolitan area to public safety land mobile communications is a
critical priority of the New York City Police Department.

Respectfully submitted,

Police Department of the City of New York

John F. Gilmartin

Deputy Chief and Commanding Officer

Office of Technology and Systems Development

Cornelius Walsh

Lieutenant

Office of Technology and Systems Development

Police Department of the City of New York

1 Police Plaza

New York, New York 10038

646.610.8969

John E. Logan

Special Counsel to the

Police Department of the City of New York

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Tenth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.772.1981

December 5, 2002

FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

IN SUPPORT OF THE PERMANENT

REALLOCATION OF TV CHANNEL 16

TO THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA FOR

PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS APPLICATIONS

by

VOGEL CONSULTING GROUP, INC

**105 DEER TRAIL**

**RAMSEY, NJ 07446**

**(201) 327-8083 FAX (201) 327-0846**

<limeem@compuserve.com>

**NOVEMBER 2002**

**V 3.3.3**

**Copyright Vogel Consulting Group, Inc. 2002**

**This notice does not imply publication.**

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The New York City Police Department conducts critical public safety
communications over channel 16. Temporarily assigned in 1995, and used
by agencies in New York City, Suffolk and Nassau Counties, the
Department is proposing that channel 16 be permanently assigned to
public safety communications. This technical report, prepared at the
request of the New York City Police Department, addresses current and
future public safety communications on channel 16 and the range of
users, some potential, on co and adjacent TV channels. This report
concludes that channel 16 in the New York metropolitan area can and
should be reallocated to the land mobile service for use by Public
Safety on a permanent basis.

**INTRODUCTION**

Starting over a decade ago, the public safety agencies in the New York
metropolitan area joined together to address the severe lack of radio
spectrum for public safety communications throughout the New York area.
Under the leadership of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), the
members of the New York Metropolitan Advisory Committee (NYMAC),
including the Police Departments in Suffolk and Nassau Counties in New
York, and Bergen County in New Jersey, began an effort to obtain relief.
That effort resulted in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Temporarily assigning to the NYMAC agencies 6 MHz. of spectrum in 1995
that was previously assigned to television broadcast. The FCC assignment
was for a period of five years or until channel 16, the assigned
channel, was used for *digital television* (DTV)[^25] service.

The NYMAC agencies expended significant effort to obtain this spectrum
for public safety communications. Since the assignment the NYMAC members
have also made substantial investments in the infrastructure and
ancillary communications equipment; the NYPD in particular has spent
significant sums.

Vogel Consulting Group has undertaken a search at their behest to
determine if it is possible to obtain the necessary channels from
existing spectrum. We find that all of the standard Public Safety VHF,
UHF and 800 MHz channels are already in use in the New York City
metropolitan area.

The continued use of channel 16 is dependent on no DTV station being
assigned the spectrum in the metropolitan area, as well as it not being
assigned to other interests seeking use of the spectrum for other
broadcast uses. Therefore, we are proposing that all of TV channel 16 be
reallocated for use by Public Safety agencies in the New York City
metropolitan area. And, we find that this can be undertaken without
causing additional harmful interference to geographically adjacent TV
channels.

With the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September,
2001, it is evident that there are individuals who will use any means at
their disposal to disrupt and destroy life and property in the United
States of America. It is one of the tasks of the Public safety community
in the New York City area to keep them from further attaining their
goals. The means by which communications is maintained is a critical
resource used to that end, and there is information in this report that
would put this resource at risk. Therefore there is critical information
that is blacked out in the copies that are available to the general
public. If there is a need to know such portions of the report they are
available from the NYPD or FCC by demonstrating such need.

**The engineering database used in this application is the best
available listing of FCC TV facilities technical data that could be
obtained as of this date. In the event there are errors that are found
within this application because the FCC database that has been made
available to industry is incomplete or otherwise inaccurate, we request
that we be given an opportunity to submit an amendment without prejudice
to correct such errors.**

#  

# AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM

Vogel Consulting Group, Inc. has conducted an extensive search of all
existing land mobile bands applicable for use by Public Safety in the
New York City metropolitan area. The results of the search are contained
in APPENDIX A. In addition, we contacted the Southern NY State Frequency
advisor for APCO and requested their assistance. See the attached letter
in APPENDIX B indicating that there are no channels available. The
results of our search are as follows:

# VHF

Any frequency found available in our search was checked against the
adjacent 15 kHz channel for the necessary separation to prevent
interference and disruption to public safety communications. Only the
new 7.5 kHz channels were found to be available and they were eliminated
due to the close proximity of the existing adjacent channels. It is not
possible to use this band to supply the requirement.

# UHF

Data for the UHF band is broken down into two sections and combined with
the report in APPENDIX A. The first section covers the 450 to 454 MHz
band (base transmit frequencies), the second section covers the 460 to
465 MHz band (also base transmit frequencies). The analysis shows that
there are no frequencies that are available in this band to satisfy the
need.

# UHF T-Band

The two T-Band pools (channel 14 -- 470.3125 to 472.9875 MHz base
transmit frequencies and channel 15 -- 476.3125 to 478.99875 MHz base
transmit frequencies) show all 25 kHz channels and most 12.5 kHz
channels are assigned. There are a number of 12.5 kHz channels
available, but they cannot be used due to the adjacent channel spacing.
All 6.25 kHz channels are available, but again they cannot meet the
requirements due to the closeness of the adjacent channels.

**806-821/851-866**

The report for the 800 MHz. Public Safety Pool shows all channels are
assigned.

# 821-824/866-869

The New York metropolitan area is located within the boundaries of
Region 8. The City of New York and members of the New York City
Metropolitan Advisory Committee have been active participants in the
regional planning process from its inception. Members early on applied
for and received channels to construct 800 MHz Public Safety/ Service
trunked systems. They have added additional channels to expand their
systems where possible. However, these systems are now fully loaded, and
no additional channels are available for expansion. (see letter from
Regional Chairperson to County).

**764-776 / 794-806 New Public Safety Band**

This band is in the process of being established by the Commission. Its
immediate use in the New York City metropolitan area is prohibited by
the analog TV stations in TABLE 1 that are currently in operation:

TABLE 1

TV Stations that block the use of the 700 MHz band in New York City

> [Channel#]{.underline} [City]{.underline} [Co/adj]{.underline}
> [Distance to NYC]{.underline}
>
> 63 Newton, NJ co 36 miles
>
> 64 Philadelphia, PA co 81 miles
>
> 67 Smithtown adj 55 miles
>
> 68 Newark, NJ co 0.5 miles
>
> 69 Allentown, PA co 77 miles

In the Fifth Report and Order[^26] the Commission set "a target of 2006
for the cessation of analog service". That was subsequently modified to
allow delay until "2006 or the date by which 85% of the television
households in a licensee\'s market are capable of receiving the signals
of digital broadcast stations, whichever is later."[^27] Recently the
Commission ordered that digital tuners shall be installed in all new
television sets by the year 2008. There is delay from when the sets are
available for purchase, and the average set in the US lasts over 10
years. So, it is highly unlikely there will be channels available for
land mobile use in this band until well past 2006.

With the reassignment of channel 16 for Land Mobile Public Safety use on
a permanent basis in the New York Metro area, safeguards will be
required to eliminate further increases in interference. Co-channel or
adjacent channel TV stations should not be granted construction permits
or increases in power in and around the metropolitan New York area.
These safeguards will maintain the status quo so that interference
levels do not further degrade Public Safety communications.

[]{.mark}

The current situation is one in which the public safety use of channel
16 is exposed to the construction of a TV station on channel 16 north of
New York City. This can be within a distance that would cause serious
harm to the existing channel 16 Public Safety use by the NYPD. A similar
situation impacting other NYMAC Public Safety members involves W11BJ, in
the Hartford Conn. Area. Both of these situations are addressed in the
following report. []{.mark}

CAN A DTV CHANNEL 16 BE PLACED NEAR NEW YORK CITY?

The purpose of this section is to examine the potential for a broadcast
station to be placed north of New York City, in an area generally known
as the Hudson River Valley, as shown in Figure 1. Since channel 16 in
the New York metropolitan area is not allocated to the land mobile
service, the DTV rules and those applicable to Class A and low power
television will be used in order to examine this issue. The parameters
of channel 16 land mobile operations in the New York metropolitan area
are not delineated. Hence this note concludes that the potential for an
application placing a broadcast station in the Hudson River Valley is
tangible. This creates a significant challenge to NYPD and NYMAC public
safety communications that would not be present if channel 16 land
mobile operations were clearly noted in the Commission's rules.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.0in" height="5.1090277777777775in"}

Figure 1 Map of the New York City area showing Middletown, Newburgh, and
Kingston, New York

The first matter to be examined is what FCC rules must be met to show
that interference is (or is not) possible to land mobile radio systems
in New York City from a DTV allocation placing a channel 16 station in
the area of Kingston, Newburgh, or Middletown, New York. The issue is
whether a television station could meet all the FCC rules for
compatibility with other TV stations but still cause harm to land mobile
in the New York City area. The municipalities under consideration as,
shown in Figure 1, are located about 92, 64, and 59 miles from New York
City respectively.

## DTV RULES FOR DTV STATIONS

The FCC rules say:

> 73.622 (c) **Availability of channels.** Applications may be filed to
> construct DTV broadcast stations only on the channels designated in
> the DTV Table of Allotments set forth in paragraph (b) of this
> section, and only in the communities listed therein. Applications that
> fail to comply with this requirement, whether or not accompanied by a
> petition to amend the DTV Table will not be accepted for filing.
> However, applications specifying channels that accord with publicly
> announced FCC Orders changing the DTV Table of Allotments will be
> accepted for filing even if such applications are tendered before the
> effective dates of such channel changes. An application for authority
> to construct a DTV station on an allotment in the initial DTV table
> may only be filed by the licensee or permittee of the analog TV
> station with which that initial allotment is paired, as set forth in
> Appendix B of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of
> the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-268, FCC 98-24
> (*Memorandum Opinion and Order*) adopted January 29, 1998\....
> Applications may also be filed to implement an exchange of channel
> allotments between two or more licensees or permittees of analog TV
> stations in the same community, the same market, or in adjacent
> markets provided, however, that the other requirements of this section
> and paragraph 73.623 are met with respect to each application.

This appears to say that one must already be an analog operator and have
a DTV allocation to use or trade with someone else close by, or you
cannot have one of the existing allocations. And in order to modify it
you must go through the procedure in §73.623. The following sets forth
the procedure required from:

> §73.623 **DTV applications and changes to DTV allocations**
>
> \(a\) *General*. This section contains the technical criteria for
> evaluating applications requesting DTV facilities that do not conform
> to the provisions of §73.622 and petitions for rule making to amend
> the DTV Table of Allotments (§73.622(b))...
>
> (c)(1) Requests filed pursuant to this paragraph must demonstrate
> compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of
> section 73.625(a).
>
> (c)(2) Requests filed pursuant to this paragraph must demonstrate that
> the requested change would not result in more than an additional 2
> percent (sic) the population served by another station being subject
> to interference; provided, however, that no new interference may be
> caused to any station that already experiences interference to 10
> percent or more of its population or that would result in a station
> receiving interference in excess of 10 percent of its population. The
> station population values for existing NTSC service and DTV service
> contained in Appendix B of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
> Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-268,
> FCC 98-24 (*Memorandum Opinion and Order*) adopted January 29, 1998
> referenced in §73.622©, are to be used for the purposes of determining
> whether a power increase or other change is permissible under this de
> minimis standard.

It then goes on to say that the procedure in OET Bulletin 69 for
Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation is to be used and D/U values
defining interference are then given for co-channell, ±
adjacent-channel, and ± taboo-channel protection. They are reproduced in
TABLE 2 below.

TABLE 2

**DTV Into DTV D/U for "Valid" Interference**

  ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **item**                                             **D/U in dB**

                                                       

  Co-Channel                                           

  DTV into NTSC                                        +34

  NTSC into DTV                                        +2

  DTV into DTV                                         +15

  First Adjacent Channel                               

  Lower DTV into NTSC                                  -14

  Upper DTV into NTSC                                  -17

  Lower NTSC into DTV                                  -48

  Upper NTSC into DTV                                  -49

  Lower DTV into DTV                                   -28

  Upper DTV into DTV                                   -26

  Other Channels (Ch 14-69 only)                       

  DTV into NTSC, N=NTSC, DTV=                          

  N-2                                                  -24

  N+2                                                  -28

  N-3                                                  -30

  N+3                                                  -34

  N-4                                                  -34

  N+4                                                  -25

  N-7                                                  -35

  N+7                                                  -43

  N-8                                                  -32

  N+8                                                  -43

  N+14                                                 -33

  N+15                                                 -31
  ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------

But, the D/U interference above is only "valid" when the S/N is 28 dB or
better for DTV and 25 dB or better for NTSC stations, and it is 21 and
23 dB respectively at the 16 dB S/N noise limited coverage boundary. The
D/U tapers between the values above for DTV into DTV interference by the
equation:

> D/U = 15 -- 10 \* Log~10~ (\[1 / {1 -- 10
> ^--\ (S/N\ --\ 15.19)\ /\ 10^}\] )

A table is given for NTSC to DTV interference, instead of an equation,
and linear interpolation is required if necessary. TABLE 3 gives those
values.

TABLE 3

**NTSC into DTV D/U for "Valid" Interference**

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  **S/N in dB**                      **D/U in dB**

                                     

  16.00                              21.00

  16.35                              19.94

  17.35                              17.69

  18.35                              16.44

  19.35                              7.19

  20.35                              4.69

  21.35                              3.69

  22.35                              2.94

  23.35                              2.44

  25.00                              2.00
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

There were no initial DTV allocations to channel 16 close by New York
City that would cause land mobile licensees in the New York area a
problem because of the Commission's comprehension of this circumstance
and the substantial resources they committed when DTV allocations were
under consideration. Yet, the value of such a broadcast station,
combined with the lack of channel 16 in the New York metropolitan area
being designated in the land mobile service, presents the not
insignificant potential that some could try to change this circumstance
using the method detailed herein.

In the R&O establishing Class A TV stations[^28] the Commission stated:

> Analysis involving the DTV *de minimis* interference criteria is
> exceedingly complex. It would require determining a "baseline" service
> population for each Class A station, from which to calculate the
> allowable reductions to the station's service population. Baseline
> populations would have to account for interference already caused to
> Class A stations by other full-service, LPTV and TV translator
> stations, which would require significant revisions to the computer
> adaptations of OET 69 used by the Commission and consulting engineers.
> This would be a time consuming process...

The Commission's acknowledgement of the complex and time consuming
process properly neither forecloses nor encourages changes or additions
to the DTV allocations since the Commission's rules apply nationwide
across all markets. It is apparently possible to use the method, and a
copy of the computer code used by the Commission is available. But, the
code is almost void of comment statements thus requiring considerable
study to be able to correctly modify it. Thus, the Commission has issued
the above advice. The NYPD and NYMAC seek to avoid seemingly intractable
and endless proceedings that would entertain the possibility of a
station being placed in the Hudson River Valley.

**MODIFICATION OF THE DTV ALLOCATION TABLE**

If one can get a change in the Allocation Table to put a channel 16 in
the Hudson River valley, then an application can be made for that
channel 16. Changing the Table is handled in §73.623(d). In order to
make a change in the Allocation Table one must meet the following
coverage and geographical spacing requirements:

> §73.623
>
> (d)(1) Requests filed pursuant to this paragraph must demonstrate
> compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of
> section 73.625(a).
>
> (d)(2) Requests filed pursuant to this paragraph must meet the
> following requirements for geographic spacing with regard to all other
> DTV stations, DTV allotments and analog TV stations \[VHF omitted in
> TABLE 4 below\]:

TABLE 4

> **Spacing Required for New DTV Allocation**

+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Channel**               | **Separation Required**                   |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                           |                                           |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Co-Channel                |                                           |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| DTV to DTV                | Zone I: 198.3 km                          |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                           | Zone II & III: 223.7 km                   |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| DTV to NTSC               | Zone I: 217.3 km                          |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                           | Zone II & III: 244.6 km                   |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                           |                                           |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Adjacent Channel          | No allotments allowed between:            |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| DTV to DTV                | 24 km and 110 km                          |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| DTV to NTSC               | 12 km and 106 km                          |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Taboo Channels            | Zone I: 24.1 km and 80.5 km               |
|                           |                                           |
| DTV to NTSC               |                                           |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                           | Zone II & III: 24.1 and 96.6 km           |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Notably, in all of the preceding, if one gets an agreement in writing
from a station that interference is accepted, then the FCC will permit
the applicant station to operate.[^29] Yet, NYPD's use of channel 16 in
the land mobile service is an aberration, and its standing as an entity
whose permission must be obtained is not recognized in the Commission's
rules. Nothing is said in the above about what kind of station was being
considered. However, there were no low power or translator stations
(Class A did not exist) that received an allocation in the DTV Table.
This appears to apply only to full service stations. So, what is the
status of low power, translator, and Class A stations?

**LOW POWER CLASS A DTV STATIONS**

There is a requirement in the rules for a Class A station in §73.6020
that says:

> An application to change the facilities of an existing Class A TV
> station will not be accepted if it fails to protect stations in the
> land mobile radio service pursuant to the requirements specified in
> §74.709 of this chapter. In addition to the protection requirements
> specified in §74.709(a) of this chapter, Class A TV stations must not
> cause interference to land mobile stations operating on channel 16 in
> New York, NY.

This does not specify the form of signal radiated by the Class A
station, but it must not interfere with land mobile in New York City.
However, after the transition period from NTSC to DTV, LPTV stations are
required to transmit a DTV signal. And they can convert to a DTV signal
on the same channel at any time (however they do not have a second
channel on which to maintain an NTSC transmitter). These TV stations do,
however, qualify for protection from interference.

We will not pursue this alternative since there is this mandate to not
interfere with land mobile on channel 16 in New York City shown above in
§73.6020. Notably, land mobile operations in the New York metropolitan
area, and the need to protect them, are recognized only in the
Commission's Class A TV station rules.

**LOW POWER TV, TV TRANSLATOR, AND TV BOOSTER STATIONS**

In Subpart G -- Low Power TV, TV Translator, and TV Booster Stations,
§74.702(b) of the FCC rules, regarding channel Assignments it states:

> Changes in the TV Table of allotments or Digital Television Table of
> allotments (§§73.606(b) and 73.622(a) respectively, of part 73 of this
> chapter), authorizations to construct new TV broadcast analog or DTV
> stations or to authorizations to change facilities of existing such
> stations, may be made without regard to existing or proposed low power
> TV or TV translator stations. Where such a change results in a low
> power TV or TV translator station causing actual interference to
> reception of the TV broadcast analog or DTV station, the licensee or
> permittee of the low power TV or TV translator station shall eliminate
> the interference or file an application for a change in channel
> assignment pursuant to §73.3572 of this chapter.

The Commission's rules are emphatic in allowing the installation of a
DTV station without any limitation based on the existence of a LPTV or
TV translator station, construction permit, or application for such.
And, the above does not state a limitation on interference from
operation on any channel; if the LPTV station interferes, the licensee
must fix it. It appears to apply to interference by any mode from
operation on any channel. This is reinforced in §74.703(b) regarding
interference where it says:

> It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of a low power TV, TV
> translator, or TV booster station to correct, at its expense any
> condition of interference to the direct reception of the signal of any
> other TV broadcast analog station and DTV station operating on the
> same channel as that used by the low power TV, TV translator, or TV
> booster station or an adjacent channel which occurs as a result of the
> operation of the operation of the low power TV, TV translator, or TV
> booster station. Interference will be considered to occur whenever
> reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signals
> radiated by the low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station,
> regardless of the quality of the reception or the strength of the
> signal so used. If the interference cannot be promptly eliminated by
> the application of suitable techniques, operation of the offending low
> power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station shall be suspended and
> shall not be resumed until the interference has been eliminated...

Yet, with regard to land mobile operations on channel 16 in the New York
metropolitan area, the rules provide neither recognition nor protection
from potential low power, TV translator, or TV booster operations.

**NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL TV STATIONS**

In §73.621 of the FCC rules it states:

> In addition to the other provisions of this subpart, the following
> shall be applicable to noncommercial educational television broadcast
> stations: ...

Limitations follow on ownership (nonprofit organizations only), what may
be broadcast (educational, cultural, and entertainment for use by
schools, produced within or by others, but no payoff to get a program
televised, and no advertising are allowed), and other limitations that
do not concern us here.

We thus conclude that the technical rules applicable to commercial
broadcasters also apply to educational television on the broadcast band.

## FCC RULES SUMMARY

The FCC rules have been reviewed to determine what may be necessary for
a channel 16 DTV station to be licensed north of New York City. A
straightforward approach is to use the spacing criteria to obtain a
change in the DTV Allocation Table. A brief preliminary analysis has
been made to determine if the Commission's rules preclude it; it appears
that they do not. An analysis of known channel 15 and 16 nearby stations
will provide additional insight into the potential of a channel 16 being
placed north of the metropolitan area of New York City. That analysis
will now be given.

## ANALYSIS

A total of 13 stations are shown in TABLE 5 with their distance from New
York City center.

TABLE 5

Channel 15 - 17 TV Stations Near New York City

+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 4 |    |        |       |          |       | 40-4 | 73     |    |
| 7 |    |        |       |          |       | 5-06 | -59-39 |    |
| C |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| F |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| R |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| § |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| 9 |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| 0 |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| . |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| 3 |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| 0 |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| 3 |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| R |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| e |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| f |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| e |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| r |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| e |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| n |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| c |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| e |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| f |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| o |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| r |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| N |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| Y |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| # | *  | **     | **C   | **       | *     | **La | *      | *  |
| # | *S | City** | ALL** | Status** | *Serv | titu | *Longi | *M |
| # | ta |        |       |          | ice** | de** | tude** | il |
| # | te |        |       |          |       |      |        | es |
|   | ** |        |       |          |       |      |        | ** |
| C |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
| h |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        |    |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | B      | W15BH | LIC      | CA    | 43-0 | 78     | 2  |
| 5 |    | uffalo |       |          |       | 1-32 | -55-43 | 98 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .3 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | Roc    | WB    | LIC      | TX    | 43-0 | 77     | 2  |
| 5 |    | hester | XO-LP |          |       | 8-07 | -35-07 | 47 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .2 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | MS | Boston | 900   | CP       |       |      |        |    |
| 5 |    |        | 523KF | Expired  |       |      |        |    |
|   |    |        |       | 5/3/95   |       |      |        |    |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | PA | Lan    | WL    | LIC      | TV    | 40-1 | 76     | 1  |
| 5 |    | caster | YH-TV |          |       | 5-45 | -27-53 | 34 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .1 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | PA | Pitt   | WQEX  | LIC      | TV    | 40-2 | 79     | 3  |
| 6 |    | sburgh |       |          |       | 6-46 | -57-51 | 13 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .7 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | PA | Sc     | WN    | LIC      | TV    | 41-1 | 75     | 1  |
| 6 |    | ranton | EP-TV |          |       | 1-00 | -52-10 | 02 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .2 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | Wat    | WP    | LIC      | TV    | 43-5 | 75     | 2  |
| 6 |    | ertown | BS-TV |          |       | 1-44 | -43-43 | 32 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .3 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | Ithaca | W16AX | LIC      | CA    | 42-2 | 76     | 1  |
| 6 |    |        |       |          |       | 5-47 | -29-49 | 73 |
|   |    |        |       |          |       |      |        | .6 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | CT | Ha     | W11BJ | CP       | TX    | 41-4 | 72     | 89 |
| 6 |    | rtford |       |          |       | 2-13 | -49-57 | .2 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | PA | Philad | WP    | LIC      | TV    | 40-0 | 75     | 81 |
| 7 |    | elphia | HL-TV |          |       | 2-30 | -14-24 | .8 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | New    | WE    | LIC      | CA    | 40-4 | 73     | 0  |
| 7 |    | York   | BR-CA |          |       | 4-54 | -59-10 | .5 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | NY | Pla    | W17CR | CP       | TX    | 40-4 | 73     | 27 |
| 7 |    | inview |       |          |       | 7-44 | -27-40 | .7 |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+
| 1 | CT | St     | W17CD | Under    | TX    | 41-0 | 73     | 32 |
| 7 |    | amford |       | Remain   |       | 4-32 | -32-55 | .3 |
|   |    |        |       | Silent   |       |      |        |    |
|   |    |        |       | A        |       |      |        |    |
|   |    |        |       | uthority |       |      |        |    |
+---+----+--------+-------+----------+-------+------+--------+----+

W11BJ, close to New York City with an application for a low power or
translator station, is addressed later this report and demonstrates the
need to protect the channel 16 land mobile operations. Another close
licensee to New York is WNEP-TV with a construction permit for a DTV
station to be located in Scranton, PA on channel 16. We use it here to
determine if the mileage requirement to place a DTV station in or near
one of the cities in Figure 1 can be met.

The distance from the WNEP-TV application for Scranton to the
approximate center of the metropolitan areas of Kingston, Newburgh, and
Middletown, is 107, 97, and 78 miles respectively. The requirement from
§73.623(d) above for Zone 1 (where New York City is located) is 198.3 km
(123 miles) separation, so none of the cities is far enough away.
However, a new DTV station can be located about 16 miles east of
Kingston, and meet the requirement (98 + 16 = 124 miles). Investigation
of that area shows that Stissing Mountain with peak elevations over
1,400 feet is about 16.7 miles east of Kingston. This is farther away
from all of the active stations but one in the Boston area. Station,
900523KF, is listed by the CDBS public access web page as an
experimental station with a construction permit that was granted, but it
expired May 3, 1993. There is no further action listed, so this is not
an issue.

Therefore, a DTV station approximately 16 miles from Kingston, New York
appears to be possible under the Commission's rules, and it would have
the potential to adversely affect land mobile operations on channel 16
in the New York metropolitan area.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.763779527559055in"
height="5.864566929133859in"}

> Figure 2 Northern New Jersey channel 19 land mobile base station
> sites.

## CAN IT REALLY HAPPEN?

In §90.305 of the Commissions rules, TV channel 19 is assigned for use
by land mobile radio base stations within 50 miles of the coordinates
assigned to Philadelphia, PA. Figure 2 shows a map of an area of
northern New Jersey with many land mobile stations, all on frequencies
within TV channel 19. The 50 mile contour is shown, and 17 of these land
mobile sites are within the 50 mile contour line from Philadelphia. They
are listed in TABLE 6 (The others are there based on waivers from the
FCC.) Ten of the 17 are also within the 41 dB contour of WMBC-DT a DTV
station located in Newton New Jersey. A construction permit has been
issued for WMBC-DT channel 18 to Mountain Broadcasting Corporation in a
trade with WNJB in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The construction permit
listed an allowed ERP of 50 kW, but there was an application to increase
that to 95 kW at an HAAT of 1093 feet that was also approved. Finally, a
request for extension of the CP has been granted until December 12,
2003[^30]. WMBC-DT is thus authorized to be adjacent to the licensed
land mobile users in TV channel 19, at a location where the potential
for interference exists.

TABLE 6

Land Mobile Stations in TV Channel 19

That Are Within the Philadelphia 50 Mile Contour

  --------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ------------
  **Location**    **call**    **lat**    **lon**    **miles to  **miles to
                                                    phili.**    Wmbc-DT**

                                                                

  Flemington      KJW567      40-33-16   74-54-15   43.8        35.6

  Flemington      WIJ528      40-32-30   74-54-00   43.1        36.2

  Hillsborough    WIL900      40-31-54   74-37-59   48.7        33.2

  Neshanic        WPKP640     40-28-27   74-42-55   43.0        37.7

  Neshanic        WIL900      40-28-10   74-43-43   42.4        38.1

  Belemead        WIJ782      40-27-06   74-43-57   41.3        39.4

  N. Brunswick    WIM689      40-26-49   74-29-13   49.2        39.4

  Monmouth Junct. WIJ458      40-24-19   74-32-46   45.0.       42.0

  Hopewell        PNO25223    40-21-48   74-49-19   35.5        46.3

  Clarksville     KNS818      40-17-00   74-41-20   33.8        50.6

  Clarksville     WPPH715     40-16-58   74-41-11   33.8        50.6

  Milstone        WII217      40-15-34   74-24-03   45.3        52.9

  Trenton         KZM473      40-15-30   74-38-39   34.2        52.1

  Trenton         W11414      40-14-36   74-45-36   29.1        53.8

  Freehold        KRW414      40-13-39   74-17-45   49.3        56.3

  Freehold        WIJ783      40-12-13   74-16-15   50.0        58.3

  Bordentown      KSB669      40-08-50   74-42-35   27.3        60.0
  --------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ------------

The 41 dB contour was computed for a receiving antenna height of 30
feet above ground. However, the base station antennas of the land mobile
licensees are well above that height. Therefore they are at much greater
risk than the mobiles. So, in answer to the question: "Can it really
happen?" we must answer that it appears that much the same thing has
already happened.

## SUMMARY REGARDING

## A POTENTIAL DTV CHANNEL 16 NEAR NEW YORK

A review of the FCC rules shows that it is possible to locate a DTV
station north of New York City by applying for a modification to an
existing facility as detailed in §73.623(c)(2). This can be done by
computing interference using the DTV *de minimis* interference criteria.
It requires that interference be limited to a maximum of 10 percent of
the viewing population of all protected stations in the area from the
proposed station and all other stations in the area. While the
Commission warns that this approach is difficult and time consuming, it
leaves open the possibility for an applicant to pursue such an approach.

There is also another way. The DTV Allocation Table can be modified by
applying the geographical spacing rules in §73.623(d) to the spacing
between the site of the proposed station and all existing and proposed
protected TV stations. Then an application can be applied for at that
location. A preliminary assessment of this approach shows that it may be
possible to use it north of New York City.

The example of channel 18 in Newton, New Jersey is used to show that an
adjacent channel DTV station has already been assigned to an area nearby
a city which is allocated for use by land mobile, and for which the
potential for interference is very high.

Additionally, because channel 16 is not formally designated in the land
mobile service, there is also the potential for an application to locate
a low power, TV translator, or TV booster station in the New York
metropolitan area. This would present substantial challenges to channel
16 land mobile Public Safety operations.

Thus, we conclude that it is necessary to take action to provide
protection for the use of TV channel 16 by public safety in the New York
City area.

**FCC REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND MOBILE USE OF 470-512 MHz BAND**

The FCC has technical rules in CFR 47 90.309 for the use of channels in
the 470-512 MHz band in which channel 16 is located. These rules limit
the close spacing, power, and transmitting antenna height of any land
mobile facility and the close by TV transmitters that are co-channel and
adjacent-channel to the land mobile use. For transmitters operating
within the New York metropolitan area, there are significant hills and
mountains that provide attenuation to potential interference signals.
Therefore, it is appropriate to use the 40 dB protection provided by the
maximum ERP in Table B of §90.309. In order to operate with no
limitations on transmitter height and power, the Table shows that the
co-channel spacing must be 130 miles or more. In addition, the adjacent
channel spacing must be 67 miles or more as shown in §90.309 Table E.
Limited use is allowed for spacings as small as 90 and 60 miles
respectively.

**PROPOSED CONTINUED LAND MOBILE USE OF CHANNEL 16**

With the limitations that were imposed on land mobile usage when channel
16 was first proposed for the New York City area in 1994, successful
coexistence has resulted. However, because of the existence of WNEP-TV
in Scranton, Pennsylvania and WPHL-TV in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
limitations were placed on the ERP of base and mobile units in Bergen
County New Jersey that were more stringent than on systems east of the
Hudson River and Kill Van Kull.[^31] Experience has shown that these
limitations effectively prohibit use of channel 16 west of the Hudson;
therefore licenses in channel 16 west of the Hudson are non-existent.
Consequently, only continued use of channel 16 by Public Safety agencies
in New York City (all five boroughs), Nassau and Suffolk Counties is
being proposed.

The possibility of interference to WNEP-TV and WPHL-TV was addressed
when this channel was first proposed for land mobile use in 1994. Based
on §90.309, the limitations on land mobile usage that were imposed at
that time have resulted in successful coexistence. We propose that those
limitations remain in effect. The proposed use of channel 16 west of the
Hudson River and Kill Van Kull is therefore limited to 225 Watts at an
antenna height of 152.5 meters (500 feet) above average terrain. We also
propose that adjustments of the permitted ERP be allowed when in
accordance with the "169 km Distance Separation" entries in Table B or
permitted by Figure B of §90.309(a)(5) of the FCC rules.

**CHANNEL 16 AVAILABILITY**

Under the Commission's Order permitting temporary use of channel 16 for
public safety communications, the Commission established the parameters
of its operations, which are set forth in Appendix 4 (pp 39)(hereinafter
referred to as "parameters"). These parameters generally follow the
premise of the methodology used by Subpart L of Part 90 of the
Commission's rules, Authorization and Use of Frequencies by Land Mobile
Stations in the Band 470-512 MHz in certain Urbanized Area, but are
structured to comport with use by public safety and non public safety
entities in the New York Metropolitan area.[^32] This technical analysis
is based on the ability to place channel 16's public safety
communications infrastructure within the New York Metropolitan area
consistent with the parameters.

The TV stations close to New York City have been compiled from the FCC
database, and were shown in TABLE 5. The great-circle distance to these
TV stations from the coordinates of New York City was determined, and is
shown in that TABLE. The adjacent channel requirement between full power
and height land mobile base stations and full service TV stations in
this band is listed in 47CFR§90.309 table E as 108 km (67 miles). The
land mobile base stations can be up to 80 km (50 miles) from the
coordinates of the city. So, the minimum distance from the city center
to any TV station should be 108 + 80 = 188 km (117 miles). The existing
adjacent channel 15 stations in this TABLE 5 all meet this requirement.
The channel 17 stations are another matter indeed.

WPHL-TV channel 17 interference was originally addressed by the
Commission when channel 16 was proposed for use by land mobile in the
New York area. The allowed power and height were adjusted so that
interference to WPHL-TV would not occur, and satisfactory performance
has resulted over the years of operation. There is a present agreement
with WEBR-CA channel 17 and this review addresses this circumstance in
more detail. We do anticipate significant interference from the proposed
operation of W17CR to nearby base stations in Nassau and Suffolk
counties. This interference situation must be dealt with by the
Commission.

W17CD in Stamford, CT is close to New York City as shown in TABLE 5, and
even closer to the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) sites.
However, it is a translator radiating most of its 100 kW ERP east by
north east. Never-the-less, because of its close proximity to SCPD sites
operating within the Commission's parameters; it has the potential to
cause significant interference. Should they receive authority to go on
the air, they too will be a problem for the Public Safety land mobile
stations nearby.

The co-channel separation requirement for full height and power land
mobile base stations to full service TV stations is given in
47CFR§90.309 Table B as 209 km (130 miles), and adding as before the
minimum separation between the city center and the TV station is 209 +
80 = 289 km (180 miles).

WQEX channel 16 in Pittsburgh, PA meets this criterion, but the channel
16 stations WNEP-TV in Scranton, PA and W16AX in Ithaca, NY do not. But,
they do not need to do so. The range of land mobile base stations and
mobile radios in the direction of these co-channel stations is limited
by the Hudson River, and is 153.1 km (95.1 mi.) and 273.1 km (169.7 mi.)
respectively. So, W16AX in Ithaca, NY does meet the 209 km actual
separation requirement for full power and height stations. WNEP-TV was
originally addressed by the Commission, and the allowed land mobile
power and height were reduced so that stations east of the Hudson River
and Kill Van Kull do not interfere with WNEP-TV. We will now address
channel 16 W11BJ in Hartford, CT.

# POTENTIAL W11BJ INTERFERENCE TO SCPD

The analysis herein will show that TV station W11BJ will cause
significant interference to existing public safety communications within
the New York metropolitan area. They do this by interfering with the
reception of signals transmitted from mobiles and portables as received
at a base station antenna. This section uses Longley-Rice path loss
values[^33] to estimate the interference potential of TV channel 16
W11BJ transmissions to SCPD base station receivers that have been placed
throughout the County consistent with the Commission's parameters. The
map of Figure 3 shows Suffolk County and W11BJ. The TV station is
located at Latitude 41-42-13 N, longitude 72-49-57 W, with its antenna
center 274 feet above local ground level and an ERP of 275 Watts as
determined from the FCC CDBS Public Access data base.

> ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.0993055555555555in"
> height="4.468055555555556in"}
>
> Figure 3 Location of SCPD Public Safety Base Stations at risk to
> interference from proposed channel 16 operation by W11BJ in Hartford
> CT, shown.

Figure 4 shows the elevation profile between a typical SCPD site and
W11BJ. This profile has been drawn so the path of a radio wave will be a
straight line, and it clearly shows that there is not a direct
line-of-sight path between the W11BJ transmitting antenna and the SCPD
base station receiving antenna. This is also true for the other sites;
thus the choice of the Longley-Rice propagation model is appropriate.

> ![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.029861111111111in" height="3.5in"}
>
> Figure 4 Elevation profile between W11BJ and a typical SCPD site.

W11BJ is directional, and Figure 5 shows the relative electric field
horizontal pattern of the antenna. The ERP in the direction of the SCPD
sites is modified by the directivity as shown here. Distance and heading
values are calculated using a great circle navigation program, and the
magnitude of the horizontal pattern in the direction of specific SCPD
sites is determined from the heading and this pattern.

> ![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.8333333333333335in"
> height="4.197916666666667in"}
>
> Figure 5 Electric field horizontal pattern of W11BJ showing the span
> of directions to SCPD sites to the south.

In order to compute the interference, the ERP must be adjusted based on
frequency offset from the visual carrier. For this, the maximum level
reached ten percent or more of the time in over-the-air measurements of
a typical TV station in Chicago, IL has been used. A graph of that
spectrum, normalized to channel 16, is shown in Figure 6.

The value of Longley-Rice path loss is taken as the value exceeded at
least 10% of the time for 10% of the "situations". Three SCPD sites,
(#1, #2 and #3) have interference levels exceeding --123 dBm, the noise
floor usually associated with land-mobile receivers. These receivers
have 0.25 V sensitivity, at 12 dB static SINAD audio quality and 4 dB
signal-to-noise ratio. It is noted that noise-like interference
(expressed as power, not dB) adds to the noise floor. So, received
interference at --123 dBm doubles the equivalent noise, resulting in a
net 3 dB degradation in sensitivity. Thus, the interference at these
three sites causes degradation in excess of 3 dB.

> ![](media/image6.wmf){width="4.5625in" height="3.34375in"}
>
> Figure 6 Typical NTSC spectrum observed with 10 kHz resolution
> band-width at the point where 10 percent of the observations are
> greater (90 percent are smaller) than the values indicated.

At large distances from a base station, it is typical to use 12 dB as
the gain necessary to double the geographic range of a signal. However,
at shorter ranges, a more typical number is 10 dB.[^34] This is used in
the analysis in TABLE 7 to quantify the interference for the three sites
and the reduction in coverage area. The sum of the factors from the ERP
to the receiving antenna and coaxial cable net gain yields the received
interference. That interference plus the noise floor, compared to the
noise floor alone, is then used at 10 dB per octave to determine the
column of percent coverage area remaining.

This represents a severe reduction in coverage when over 70 percent of
the coverage from one site is placed at risk. If this is allowed to
happen, it will place life and property at severe risk in the areas
affected. Additionally, it must be noted that this is not the only
source of interference that may be present in the area of the SCPD
sites. There is potential interference from a newly approved low power
TV station on channel 17 W17CR in Plainview, New York that was noted in
TABLE 5 in an earlier section of this report. Out of band transmissions
from that source will also add to the noise and interference from W11BJ
and potentially make the situation even worse.

TABLE 7

Range Reduction To SCPD Sites Due To Interference from W11BJ

+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+
| **site** | *  | *     | **TV  | **Lo  | **Rx  | **Net dB | **Re    |
|          | *E | *Ante | Freq. | ngley | Ant & | Interf   | maining |
|          | RP | nna** | Resp. | Rice  | Coax, | erence** | Cov     |
|          | ** |       | dB**  | dBd** | dB**  |          | erage** |
|          |    | **    |       |       |       |          |         |
|          | *  | Patt. |       |       |       |          |         |
|          | *d | dB**  |       |       |       |          |         |
|          | Bm |       |       |       |       |          |         |
|          | ** |       |       |       |       |          |         |
+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+
|          |    |       |       |       |       |          |         |
+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+
| SCPD     | 54 | -6.0  | -34.7 | -     | 4.0   | -114.8   | 29 %    |
| Site \#  | .4 |       |       | 132.5 |       |          |         |
| 1        |    |       |       |       |       |          |         |
+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+
| SCPD     | 54 | -2.6  | -31.0 | -     | 4.0   | -115.1   | 33 %    |
| Site \#  | .4 |       |       | 139.9 |       |          |         |
| 2        |    |       |       |       |       |          |         |
+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+
| SCPD     | 54 | -2.0  | -35.4 | -     | 4.0   | -119.6   | 50 %    |
| Site \#  | .4 |       |       | 140.6 |       |          |         |
| 3        |    |       |       |       |       |          |         |
+----------+----+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+---------+

# 

WEBR-CA CHANNEL 17 MEASUREMENTS

WEBR-CA channel 17 broadcasts from the TV channel adjacent to the NYMAC
members. Its transmissions are particularly important to use by the NYPD
and other agencies now, as well as in the future build-out by Public
Safety agencies in channel 16. WEBR-CA radiates a maximum ERP of 1.07 kW
circularly polarized (equal power of 1.07 kW in both horizontal
polarization and vertical polarization) with a horizontal cardioid-like
antenna pattern[^35] shown in Figure 7 that points to the northeast. The
vertical pattern has a half-power (3 dB) beamwidth of 2.5 degrees and it
is down tilted 2.5 degrees as shown in Figure 8. The antenna is mounted
on the side of the Empire State Building with a RCAMSL of 322 meters.
There is building blockage in the direction of the backlobe in the
horizontal antenna pattern.

> ![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.09375in" height="3.6354166666666665in"}
>
> Figure 7 Relative horizontal field pattern of WEBR-CA on channel 17.

There are many base receiving sites on TV channel 16 that NYPD has
installed throughout New York City, a map of which appears in Figure 9.
The Empire State Building is also plotted on this map. It is evident
that there are many NYPD sites that are in the direction of the main
beam of the WEBR-CA horizontal antenna pattern and that are very close
to the WEBR transmitter.

> ![](media/image8.wmf){width="4.364583333333333in"
> height="3.7083333333333335in"}
>
> Figure 8 Relative Vertical field pattern of WEBR-CA on channel 17.

There is the potential for interference from splatter outside of the TV
channel 17 band of WEBR-CA into the receivers of NYPD that occupy TV
channel 16. For that reason, it is necessary to quantify the level that
may be occurring at the present time. An estimate can be made with
computations, but this must ultimately be done with measurements.

**COMPUTED NOISE LEVEL**

The advertised ERP of WEBR-CA[^36] is 1.07 kW, but this is in the
direction of the horizon from their location at an elevation of 322
meters on the Empire State Building. The radio horizon is reported to be
at an angle down from the horizontal by 0.49 degrees, and it is at that
angle the ERP of 1.07 kW is quoted. The magnitude of the vertical field
pattern at 0.49 degrees below the horizontal is quoted as 0.3803. This
is 8.39 dB below the main-beam maximum, and when the 1.07 kW is
increased by 8.39 dB the resulting maximum ERP in any direction is 7.40
kW. This value is modified by the directivity in the direction of the
NYPD station under consideration.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="5.814583333333333in"}

Figure 9 NYPD base stations (transmitter and receiver) that use
frequencies in the 6 MHz of TV channel 16 are located throughout New
York City, consistent with the parameters established by the Commission.

(Coordinate datum NAD83/WGS84. Distance in km from Empire State Building
coordinates N40-44-54.35 W73-59-8.53).

The other factor that must be considered is the radiated energy outside
of the channel 17 band into channel 16 where the NYPD receivers are
located. Measurements of a typical NTSC transmitter signal have been
made in-band with a spectrum analyzer as shown in Figure 10. Then, an
estimate was made of the out of band emissions of a potential low power
TV transmitter; it is also shown in Figure 10. This estimate is
purposely made so that the interference resulting is probably high, but
it can be used until the measurement program is completed and the actual
field results are known.

> ![](media/image10.wmf){width="4.552083333333333in"
> height="3.3333333333333335in"}
>
> Figure 10 Potential interference power that may be produced by WEBR-CA
> based on the 10th percentile highest values measured on an NTSC signal
> in band.

Because of the height of the Empire State Building, and the tall NYPD
receiving sites, the free space propagation model is appropriate. The
antenna at the NYPD receiving site is omnidirectional, and we will use a
7 dBd gain antenna and 3 dB of transmission line loss to bring the
signal down to the receiver. Using this, and the other parameters
described above, the level of the interference received by each NYPD
station examined was computed by summing the gains and losses in dB. The
results are shown in TABLE 8, and NYPD Site \# 4 is highlighted as the
computed worst case site

A noise floor of --123 dBm establishes sensitivity for typical land
mobile equipment with a 15 kHz IF. Thus, we see that there is the
potential for significant interference at almost all the sites. The
lowest level is at a site that is protected by being in a null of the
vertical pattern and being over 2 ¼ MHz away from the band edge of
WEBR-CA.

However nulls in an antenna pattern are known to be difficult to
predict, so this may well be higher.[^37]

TABLE 8

Computed Base Receiver Interference to NYPD From WEBR-CA

+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| ###### Site Name  | **ERP | **    | **Sp   | **Path | *   | **R     |
|                   | dBm** | Patt. | latter | Loss** | *Rx | eceived |
|                   |       | L     | A      |        | Sys | Pwr     |
|                   |       | oss** | ttn.** |        | Gai | dBm**   |
|                   |       |       |        |        | n** |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
|                   |       |       |        |        |     |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 1    | 67.4  | -0.2  | -74.1  | -98.1  | 4.0 | -101.0  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 2    | 67.4  | -0.9  | -79.4  | -92.9  | 4.0 | -101.8  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 3    | 67.4  | -8.2  | -77.9  | -83.7  | 4.0 | -98.4   |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 4    | 67.4  | -0.8  | -68.5  | -95.4  | 4.0 | **[-    |
|                   |       |       |        |        |     | 93.2]{. |
|                   |       |       |        |        |     | mark}** |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 5    | 67.4  | -29.0 | -80.0  | -85.8  | 4.0 | -123.3  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 6    | 67.4  | -17.6 | -76.4  | -85.9  | 4.0 | -108.5  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 7    | 67.4  | -1.8  | -65.8  | -100.2 | 4.0 | -96.3   |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 8    | 67.4  | -2.5  | -62.8  | -102.1 | 4.0 | -95.9   |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 9    | 67.4  | -3.8  | -68.8  | -103.8 | 4.0 | -105.0  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+
| NYPD Site \# 10   | 67.4  | -2.8  | -71.5  | -102.2 | 4.0 | -105.1  |
+-------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-----+---------+

Recently the FCC issued a construction permit for a channel 17 low power
1 kW maximum ERP TV station W17CR to be located in Plainview, New
York.[^38] Should this station be constructed, it is anticipated that
there will also be similar interference to public safety land mobile
operations from this source. Further, the noise power from this station
will add to the interference already present from WEBR-CA and the other
sources described herein.

**MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY**

The above indicates that current and future uses of channel 16 as it
relates to WEBR, raises questions, calling for additional measurement
and analysis. Since they are close to the WEBR-CA transmitter, it is
recommended that the signal received at all ten NYPD sites be measured.
The goal is to produce a cumulative distribution of the received signal
on 20 land mobile channels spaced approximately equally over the channel
16 TV band at each site. However, these measurements must be made on
frequencies that are not presently occupied by NYPD or by any other
nearby public safety facilities. Vogel Consulting Group has been
supplied a list of frequencies that are occupied by NYPD, and that are
used for mobile data applications in the channel 16 TV band and are
plotted in Figure 11. It is evident that exact equal spacing cannot be
maintained, but a suggested list of frequencies which are not in use and
are unoccupied by NYPD, were also examined. Channel 16 licensed
frequency lists have also been obtained from Nassau County and Suffolk
County, and the frequencies examined do not appear on their use lists.
However, they should be checked with any other potential sources to
determine that they are in fact not being used by others, before the
measurement program is initiated.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="5.958333333333333in"
height="3.0729166666666665in"}

> Figure 11 Licensed ERP of transmitters of NYPD that are in the TV
> channel 16 frequency band.

Measurements will be made over a minimum of 24 hours at each site. A
spectrum analyzer will be used to make the measurements; one with a
computer port is necessary so that the measurement can be automated by
using a computer where the data can be stored for processing. An Agilent
model E4401B or equivalent is suggested. The proposed measurement
configuration is shown in Figure 12. In addition to the computer and
spectrum analyzer, a directional coupler is necessary to couple energy
from the antenna transmission line. Assuming that a one-day reduction in
receiver sensitivity of 3.5 dB[^39] is allowable, a 3 dB directional
coupler should be used so there will be adequate signal to provide the
dynamic range necessary in the measurement. Any of the 50 Ohm 3 dB
directional couplers made by Narda or HP and that function over the 482
to 488 MHz bandwidth of the measurement should be adequate. If the
coupler has a fourth port, that port should be matched with a 50 Ohm
load.[^40]

Protection of the spectrum analyzer from the picture carrier of WEBR-CA
is necessary, and a notch filter such as the Radio Frequency Systems
(RFS)[^41] 1155 can provide isolation. In order to reduce the noise
floor of the measurement and provide additional

protection, a receiver multicoupler is shown. The RFS RMC460 series is
acceptable. Finally, in order to record the noise floor of the
measurement system, a separate 50 Ohm load is to be provided along with
a computer controlled RF switch. The computer can then switch between
the antenna coupler and the load to provide this measurement.

> Figure 12 Measurement configuration integrated into site receiver
> equipment

To maximize sensitivity and match the selectivity of base station
receivers as closely as practical, spectrum analyzer resolution and
video bandwidths of 10 kHz each should be used. To prevent overloading
of the spectrum analyzer, the WEBR-CA video carrier power at 489.25 MHz
should be conservatively maintained under --20 dBm (1 dB gain
compression is specified as 0 dBm for the E4401B analyzer). Frequencies
should be programmed into the analyzer in a circular fashion at a rate
of one per second and measurements taken using a zero frequency span.
This will produce 86,400 measurements per day (4320 measurements per
frequency per day). Data collection must cover at least one full day.
Confirmation that WEBR-CA is the source of the observed power can be
made through comparisons of the average signal level just before and
just after transmitter shutdown or turn-on.

The gain and/or loss of each component above will be recorded before the
measurements are initiated. Then, at each location, document the type of
antenna being used, the type and length of transmission line being used,
and if possible take a picture of the antenna with the Empire state
building in the background. If it is not possible to show the Empire
State Building in the background, note the building that prohibits
direct line of site so it can be pointed out in the report. Note the
date and time the data taking started and when it ended, and the
frequencies on which data was taken.

It is recommended that the first measurements be made at a site most
impacted by WEBR-CA. This would be a site located close to the Empire
State Building and the NYPD antenna at this location is in both the
vertical and horizontal pattern main beam of WEBR-CA. So, it has the
potential to receive the largest signal from WEBR-CA.

**PRELIMINARY RESULTS**

Measurements have been made at the first measurement site on isolated
frequencies using a 15 kHz IF tunable receiver with external tuned band
pass and band reject filters. The latter rejected the high power carrier
of WEBR-CA channel 17 to eliminate desensitization of the receiver, and
the band pass filter was used to reject other sources of noise in nearby
frequencies. A multicoupler adjusted for 0 dB net gain was available at
the site with a spare port, so the 3 dB directional coupler was not
necessary to obtain the signal. There was about 200 feet of ½ inch foam
coaxial cable (attenuation 3.04 dB at 500 MHz) attached directly to a 5
dB omnidirectional co-linear antenna. The receiver and filters were
tuned to a particular frequency and the magnitude of the signal was
noted on the meter of the receiver. Then a matched adjustable calibrated
signal generator was used by substitution to bring the meter on the
receiver to the same reading as the "noise". The magnitude in dB was
then recorded.

By removing the band stop filter attaching the antenna directly to the
receiver and using appropriate attenuators the video and aural carriers
were also measured, again using substitution. The results are shown in
Figure 13 superimposed on the spectrum used by the NYPD.

> ![](media/image12.wmf){width="4.5625in" height="3.1145833333333335in"}
>
> Figure 13 Preliminary measurements of WEBR-CA channel 17 signal into a
> receiver at the NYPD site at first measurement site normalized to the
> Video Carrier.

The worst-case received interference measured --99 dBm at the measured
UHF frequency. This is an increase of 24 dB from the ambient noise level
in the land mobile receiver. A third order intermodulation product from
the video and audio carriers of channel 17 occurs at this frequency. A
third order product from the video carrier and the color sub-carrier of
channel 17 also occurs within the 15 kHz land mobile IF centered at
another frequency within channel 16. Interference at this frequency
measured --111 dBm, and it produces an increase of 7.8 dB in the noise
plus interference in the receiver. Other measurements near the latter
frequency resulted in interference between --114 and --116 dBm.

The 10 dB per octave range reduction developed above translates these
interference levels to reductions in area covered. The --99 dBm
interference level reduces the coverage area of the channel at that
location by 96.5 percent leaving only 3.5 percent of the area covered.
The --116 dBm interference level reduces the coverage area by 66 percent
leaving only 34 percent of the area covered.

By good design, the worst case frequency measured above is not in use by
NYPD. But frequencies that are in use appear to have less than 35
percent of their potential area of coverage remaining. However, detailed
measurements are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

**PRELIMINARY MEASUREMENT CONCLUSION**

The preliminary measurements indicate that there is a severe reduction
in coverage area of the NYPD site at the impacted site of frequencies
that are in use. Should the levels be

confirmed by further measurements, continued degradation of the noise
floor by interference may lead to severe consequences when coverage and
capacity is strained in an emergency.

**CONCLUSION**

A search has been conducted to find spectrum to permit the NYMAC public
safety members to implement needed improvements in their communications
systems. None could be found to satisfy the present need. The continued
use of channel 16 was investigated, and it is found that there are
potential problems that must be addressed.

It has been shown that the FCC rules permit the implementation of a new
channel 16 DTV station in the New York City area co-channel with
existing Public Safety land mobile stations that can cause interference.
In fact, an adjacent channel station has recently been issued a
construction permit near Philadelphia, PA that will probably cause
interference to properly licensed land mobile stations within the land
mobile allocation to Philadelphia.

Also W17CR channel 17, though not analyzed in detail, will probably
produce interference to nearby public safety base stations as it was
shown in the case of WEBR-CA channel 17 similarly sited. The
interference from the recently issued construction permit to channel 16
W11BJ, if implemented, is shown to have the potential to reduce the area
of coverage of one Suffolk County Police Department station to only 30
percent of the area presently covered.

Preliminary measurements at one New York Police Department site have
shown the interference from channel 17 WEBR-CA to be reducing the area
of coverage of channel 16 frequencies in use at that site to less than
35 percent of what it would be without the interference present.

Therefore, we request that the Commission permanently reassign TV
channel 16 to the use of land mobile communications for the public
safety community in the greater New York metropolitan area.

  --------------- --------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  **FREQUENCY**   **\# OF** **\# OF**   **CO-CHAN**    **DIR.**   **CALL**   **STATE**   **ADJ**        **DIR.**   **CALL**    **STATE**

  **(MHz)**       **CSN**   **MOBLS**   **DIST(mi)**   **Deg.**   **SIGN**               **DIST(mi)**   **Deg.**   **SIGN**    

                                                                                                                               

  **BEST USEABLE                                                                                                               
  FREQUENCIES -                                                                                                                
  VHF BAND**                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                               

  153.5300        3         240         29.72          290        KED793     NJ          1.17           38         WPLX726     NY

  151.6700        1         0           27.9           204        WPMK746    NJ          0.59           44         WNUJ744     NY

  151.0250        5         340         26.41          7          WNLF882    NJ          11.78          312        WNRM842     NJ

  154.6100        1         0           22.17          353        WPOX628    NY          0              156        WPLP823     NY

  159.6900        4         620         18.99          47         WPMV662    NJ          4.9            261        WPQK983     NJ

  153.5450        7         130         17.21          81         WRY348     NY          13.88          94         WPPT453     NY

  151.4000        4         95          14.75          25         KNBI425    NY          4.61           238        KNGC323     NJ

  151.1900        4         0           13.33          306        WRA626     NJ          1.09           88         KNGZ785     NY

  151.0100        4         28          11.78          312        WNRM842    NJ          0.44           345        KEG941      NY

  150.8900        10        46          11.64          122        KNDF943    NY          8.48           330        WNVQ907     NJ

                                                                                                                               

  **BEST USEABLE                                                                                                               
  FREQUENCIES -                                                                                                                
  450 BAND (BASE                                                                                                               
  STATION                                                                                                                      
  FREQS)**                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                               

  451.8000        0         0           135.93         312        WNPQ619    NY          0.87           37         WPPD916     NY

  452.9500        0         0           56.75          3          WPMQ955    NY          0.86           85         WPPB524     NY

  452.9250        2         1           31.28          49         WPMV844    CT          3.08           96         WPBF230     NY

  451.2500        4         18          13.66          285        WPUZ624    NJ          0.93           313        WPPC258     NY

  451.2000        4         100         7.24           30         WPRK787    NY          0.93           313        WPPC258     NY

  452.9000        2         66          3.08           96         WPBF230    NY          0.79           337        WPMS378     NY

  451.8750        11        760         2.65           97         WPMF739    NY          0              156        WPNS794     NY

  452.5750        10        1757        1.81           38         WPPH550    NY          0.03           93         WPPV475     NY

  452.8250        11        315         1.56           68         WNEA328    NY          0.59           44         WPJZ465     NY

  452.4250        16        493         1.31           69         WPMM859    NY          0.47           120        KDB667      NY

                                                                                                                               
  --------------- --------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ----------- -----------

**Appendix A1**

See notes on page A3

  --------------- --------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- --------------- -----------
  **FREQUENCY**   **\# OF** **\# OF**   **CO-CHAN**    **DIR.**   **CALL**   **STATE**   **ADJ**        **DIR.**   **CALL**        **STATE**

  **(MHz)**       **CSN**   **MOBLS**   **DIST(mi)**   **Deg.**   **SIGN**               **DIST(mi)**   **Deg.**   **SIGN**        

                                                                                                                                   

  **BEST USEABLE                                                                                                                   
  FREQUENCIES -                                                                                                                    
  460 BAND (BASE                                                                                                                   
  STATION                                                                                                                          
  FREQS)**                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                   

  460.9750        1         0           32.82          86         KRT259     NY          0.59           67         WSW436          NY

  462.9250        5         0           8.17           274        WPNQ353    NJ          0              156        WPNS794         NY

  460.6750        14        24          6.55           75         KJX291     NY          3.42           97         WPTD807         NY

  460.7250        8         180         6.55           75         WNZJ417    NY          0.57           209        WPTW819         NJ

  460.8750        10        8           6.55           75         KJX291     NY          3.51           140        WPAK474         NY

  464.2000        19        579         3.67           26         WPOG482    NY          0.04           0          WNVF603         NY

  460.9500        5         0           8.78           200        WPTW819    NY          39.56          88         WPPD615         NY

  464.0250        13        430         2.57           275        WNRO772    NJ          0.27           217        KYQ231          NY

  463.7000        16        407         2.05           135        WPPT651    NY          0              156        WPCD538         NY

  463.2500        18        468         1.68           81         WNGW768    NY          0.44           42         WSN686          NY

                                                                                                                                   

  **BEST USEABLE                                                                                                                   
  FREQUENCIES -                                                                                                                    
  800 MHZ BAND**                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                   

  855.9375        1         0           36.04          300        WPQK799    NJ          1.05           47         KNEH690         NY

  858.8375        2         168         27.29          80         KIU751     NY          0.09           53         KNDH643         NY

  860.8875        2         0           9.99           246        KNIV727    NJ          1.96           175        KNDH631         NY

  856.8875        2         0           9.99           246        KNIV727    NJ          0.08           106        KNDH627         NY

  857.8875        2         0           9.99           246        KNIV727    NJ          0.08           106        KNDH635         NY

  855.3125        2         0           5.65           167        KNHY619    NY          2.93           200        KNGK513         NY

  855.6375        1         0           4.03           175        WPEH546    NY          1.05           47         KNEH690         NY

  855.2875        1         0           2.93           200        KNGK513    NY          0.96           91         WNAJ397         NY

  855.3375        2         0           2.93           200        WPMJ400    NY          1.05           47         KNEH690         NY

  857.8125        1         0           2.93           200        KNIH396    NY          0.47           120        KNIH396         NY
  --------------- --------- ----------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- --------------- -----------

**Appendix A2**

**Appendix A3** See notes on page A3

**NOTES:**

The above charts represent a sample of frequencies in each band and
points out that frequencies are not available for any entity that
requires more than one frequency for their communications needs.

The data was obtained through the Communications Engineering Technology
data base (now known as Site Safe) using their Autofind Program.

Data was obtained by searching a 50 mile radius of New York City Center
with coordinates 40-45-06 / 073-59-39.

A full listing of each band and the results of the search is available
in electronic or written form and will be supplied upon request.

**Appendix A4**

APPENDIX

In order to prevent interference between the proposed land mobile
operations on Channel 16 in New York City and the existing television
operations of WNEP- TV in Scranton, Pennsylvania on Channel 16 (FCC File
Number BLCT-2623) and WPHL-TV in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Channel
17 (FCC File Number BLCT- 2611), the proposed land mobile operation will
be restricted as follows:\
Base station operation is permitted in the five boroughs of New York
City and Nassau, Westchester and Suffolk Counties in New York, and
Bergen County, New Jersey. Mobile operation is permitted in these
counties and boroughs as well as outside these areas provided the
distance from the Empire State Building (Geographic Coordinates: 40
\<\<degrees\>\> 44\' 54\" N, 73 \<\<degrees\>\> 59\' 10\" W) does not
exceed 48 kilometers (30 miles).\
\
Co-Channel Television Protection\
\
For base stations to be located in the five boroughs that comprise the
City of New York and other jurisdictions east of the Hudson River and
Kill Van Kull, the maximum effective radiated power (ERP) will be
limited to 225 watts at an antenna height of 152.5 meters (500 feet)
above average terrain. Adjustment of the permitted power will be allowed
provided it is in accordance with the \"169 kilometer Distance
Separation\" entries specified in Table B or prescribed by Figure B of
[[Section
90.309(a)(5)]{.underline}](http://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.309&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW2.84&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Communications&FN=_top)
of the FCC Rules.\
For base stations to be located west of the Hudson River, the maximum
ERP will be limited to the entries specified in Table B or prescribed by
Figure B of [[Section
90.309(a)(5)]{.underline}](http://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.309&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW2.84&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Communications&FN=_top)
of the FCC Rules for the actual separation distance between the land
mobile base station and the transmitter site of WNEP-TV, Scranton
(Geographic Coordinates: 41 \<\<degrees\>\> 10\' 58\" N, 75
\<\<degrees\>\> 52\' 21\" W).\
Mobile stations associated with such base stations will be restricted to
100 watts ERP in the area of operation extending eastward from the
Hudson River and 10 watts ERP in the area of operation extending
westward from the Hudson River. These restrictions offer 40 dB of
protection to the Grade B coverage contour of WNEP-TV, Scranton.\
\
Adjacent Channel Television Protection\
\
The above parameters and conditions are considered to be sufficient to
protect first-adjacent channel television station WPHL-TV, Philadelphia
(Geographic Coordinates: 40 \<\<degrees\>\> 02\' 30\" N, 75
\<\<degrees\>\> 14\' 24\" W). Operation of mobile units within a radius
of 48 kilometers (30 miles) from the Empire State Building would be no
closer than 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the WPHL Grade B coverage
contour. This will offer a 0 dB protection ratio to WPHL- TV.\
\
Low Power Television Protection\
\
LPTV station W17BM has no responsibility to protect land mobile
operations on adjacent TV Channel 16 other than from spurious emissions.
Land mobile licensees must correct, at their expense, interference
caused by their operations to the reception of W17BM within its
protected signal contour as defined in Section 74.707 of the FCC Rules.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Amendment of Parts 2, 73, 74 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to
Permit New York Metropolitan Area Public Safety Agencies to use
Frequencies at 482-488 MHz, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No.
03-158 and MB Docket No. 03-159.*

I strongly support this proposal to permanently reallocate Channel 16 in
New York City to land mobile service for public safety communications.
The men and women working for New York's public safety agencies learned
first-hand almost two years ago how critical reliable communications
networks are in times of crisis. The ability to communicate with other
public safety personnel can determine the difference between life and
death. Harmful interference and inadequate networks can prevent
first-responders from doing their jobs -- protecting the people of New
York -- and can endanger their lives.

Over a year ago, I talked with local government officials and members of
the public safety community in New York about what steps the Commission
could take to improve their plight. Their primary concern was the need
for spectrum in the crowded New York City airspace. In discussing the
unique spectrum needs of New York -- marked by an exceptionally dense
population with a high concentration of tall buildings -- they
emphasized their reliance on Channel 16. In particular, they asked that
their temporary authority to use Channel 16 be made permanent, so that
they could continue to make the substantial investment necessary in
enhancing their use of this frequency.

I am extremely pleased that the Commission is finally acting on this
request. It is my hope that the step we take today will facilitate and
accelerate the development, integrity, and coordination of these
agencies' communications systems.

[^1]: Letter to the Honorable Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission from John E. Gilmartin, Deputy Chief, The
    City of New York Police Department (December 5, 2002). Attached to
    the letter is a "Report of the Police Department of the City of New
    York," which is also dated December 5, 2002. We will treat the
    Report as a petition for rulemaking (Petition). A copy of the
    Petition is attached as Exhibit B.

[^2]: *Waiver of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Permit New
    York Metropolitan Area Public Safety Agencies to Use Frequencies at
    482-488 MHz on a Conditional Basis*, 10 FCC Rcd 4466 (1995)
    (*Order*).

[^3]: *Id*. at 4468.

[^4]: *Id*.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: Report at 2.

[^7]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^8]: *Id.* at 5.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 4468.

[^11]: On August 21, 2000, the Commission granted the application by the
    licensee of WEBR-LP to convert its status to Class A, at which time
    its call letters were changed to WEBR-CA. File No.
    BLTTA-20020707ADX.

[^12]: *See* *Establishment of Class A Television Service*, 15 FCC Rcd
    6355, 6390 (2000).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.6020. ("An application to change the facilities of
    an existing Class A TV station will not be accepted if it fails to
    protect stations in the land mobile radio service pursuant to the
    requirements specified in §74.709 of this chapter. In addition to
    the protection requirements specified in §74.709(a) of this chapter,
    Class A TV stations must not cause interference to land mobile
    stations operating on Channel 16 in New York, NY.")

[^14]: Our rules do require LPTV and TV translator stations to protect
    existing land mobile uses. 47 C.F.R. § 74.703(e). ("Low power TV and
    TV translator stations are being authorized on a secondary basis to
    existing land mobile uses and must correct whatever interference
    they cause to land mobile stations or cease operations.")

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(f)(1).

[^16]: In addition to the New York City Police Department, NYMAC public
    safety agencies encompass the New York City Department of
    Information and Technology, the New York City Fire Department, the
    New York City Department. of Corrections, the New York City
    Department of Transportation, the New York City Department of Parks
    & Recreation, , the New York City Health & Hospital Police, the New
    York City Department of Sanitation, the New York City Transit
    Authority, the Bergen County, New Jersey Police Department, the
    Elmont Fire District, the Yonkers Fire Department, the Nassau County
    Police Department and the Suffolk County Police Department.

[^17]: *In the Matter of the Waiver of Parts 2 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to Permit the New York Metropolitan Area Public
    Safety Agencies to Use Frequencies at 482-488 MHz on a Conditional
    Basis*, FCC 95-115, 10 FCC Rcd 4466 (March 17, 1995).

[^18]: *In the Matter of the Development of Operational Technical and
    Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public
    Safety Agency Communication Requirements through the Year 2010*,
    First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT
    Docket 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 154 (1998), citing the *Final Report
    of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal
    Communications Commission*, September 11, 1995 at 5.

[^19]: See Report of the Vogel Consulting Group, Inc., *Frequency
    Analysis in Support of the Permanent Reallocation of TV Channel 16
    to the New York Metropolitan Area for Public Safety Applications*,
    November 2002.

[^20]: **"**Public safety services" are defined by 47 U.S.C. § 337(f) as
    services the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the
    safety of life, health, or property, that are provided by the
    governmental entities or by non-governmental entities authorized by
    the governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of
    such services, and that are not made commercially available to the
    public by the provider.

[^21]: *See* Letter of the New York Metro Advisory Committee, dated
    November 21, 2002, attached to the technical analysis.

[^22]: *See* Letter of the Tri-State Radio Planning Committee, Regional
    Planning Update Committee, Region 8, dated November 21, 2002.

[^23]: *Response of Communications Site Management, LLC*, dated July 17,
    2001 at page 3, LPTV Displacement Application, No. BPTVL-19980601QZ.

[^24]: *In re Petition of Community Broadcasters Association*, 59 Rad.
    Reg. 2d 1216, 1217, para 4 (1986).

[^25]: Originally this was called the *advanced television (ATV)
    service*, but the name was changed over time to *digital television*
    (DTV) service.

[^26]: *Fifth Report and Order* In the Matter of Advanced Television
    Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast in
    MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997), paragraph 99.

[^27]: Required by Congressional Mandate in the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended in section 309(j)(14) of the 1997 Budget
    Reconciliation Act.

[^28]: Before the Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of
    Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket 00-10, FCC
    00115, Report and Order, Adopted March 28, 2000, Released April 4,
    2000.

[^29]: See §73.623(f) for acceptance of interference from DTV into land
    mobile and §73.623(g) for acceptance of interference from DTV into
    DTV.

[^30]: See Application under FCC file number BEPCDT 20020204ABA granted
    February 25, 2002.

[^31]: For base stations in Bergen County this limitation was to entries
    specified in Table B or prescribed by Figure B in §90.309 of the FCC
    Rules for the actual separation distance between the land mobile
    base station and the transmitter site of WNEP-TV, Scranton PA. For
    mobiles in Bergen County this limitation was 10 Watts ERP .

[^32]: *In the Matter of Waiver of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Permit New York Metropolitan Area Public Safety Agencies to
    use Frequencies at 482-488 MHz on a Conditional Basis*, FCC 95-115,
    10 FCC Rcd 4466, at Appendix (March 17, 1995)

[^33]: G. A. Hufford, A. G. Longley, and W. A. Kissick, "A Guide to the
    Use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode,"
    NTIA Report 82-100, April 1982.

[^34]: This is the factor for the Okumura propagation curves in the
    range of 1 to 20 km with a mobile antenna 1.5 meters above ground
    and a base antenna 61 meters above ground.

[^35]: This pattern, as well as the vertical pattern to follow is read
    from ENGINEERING STATEMENT PREPARED IN SUPPORT OF MINOR AMENDMENT OT
    LPTV DISPLACEMENT APPLICATION WEBR CA CHANNEL 17Z K LICENSEE, INC.
    PBTTL-19991201AAP MANHATTAN, NEW YORK, September 2000, updated
    3-20-2002, WEBR Figure 1B (for vertical polarization) of the ANDREW
    ALP16L10-CSER-17 antenna. The slight non-symmetry suggests the
    pattern may be measured. This is not the horizontal pattern nor
    antenna model that is shown in the FCC CDBS public access database,
    but we are assured by WEBR-CA that it is the antenna and pattern
    that is in use.

[^36]: The ERP and other technical details are taken from Engineering
    Statements made in support of WEBR-CA by Clarence Beverage of
    Communications Technologies Inc. This material is contrary to
    technical information obtained from the FCC CDBS public access web
    site, and the license issued to WEBR-CA. However, Mr. Beverage
    assures us that this is the correct information. The FCC shows the
    ERP to be 2.0 kW, the polarization to be horizontal, and the
    horizontal antenna pattern is different as is the antenna model
    number.

[^37]: It is well known in the antenna industry that a null is made up
    of the sum of the contributions from each radiator when they add out
    of phase. Thus, computed nulls are often in error by over 10 dB.

[^38]: Construction permit issued to CATHOLIC VIEWS BROADCASTS, INC,
    file number BMPTTL-19990917AAN, grant date August 19, 2002

[^39]: A 3 dB reduction in receiver sensitivity is usually just
    perceptible to personnel in the field, so this should not be
    objectionable for the period of the test.

[^40]: If the site is equipped with a receiver multicoupler, and a spare
    port is available, it can be used. Then the directional coupler can
    be deleted from the measurement system.

[^41]: Radio Frequency Systems was formerly known as Celwave.