********************************************************
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
   Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
             will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
    original document will not show up in this text version.
        Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
           will not be preserved in the text version.
        If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                        Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of                     )
                                    )
The Development of Operational,     )
Technical and Spectrum Requirements         )
                                        For Meeting Federal, State and Local         )         WT Docket No. 96-86
Public Safety Agency Communication           )
Requirements Through the Year 2010           )
                                    )
Establishment of Rules and Requirements          )
For Priority Access Service         )
               THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
                              AND
                     THIRD REPORT AND ORDER
     Adopted:  September 18, 2000       Released:  October 10, 2000
By the Commission:
                             Table of Contents
                                                  Paragraph No.
     I.                                                     INTRODUCTION. . . . . . 1
     II.                                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . .4
     III.                                                   BACKGROUND. . . . . . .10
     IV.                                                    THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. . . . . . . 16
          A.                                                Band Plan. . . . . . . 16
               1.                                           General Use Channels. . . . . . .18
               2.                                           Interoperability Channels . . . . . . 26
               3.                                           Location of Reserve Spectrum. . . . . 33
          B.                                                Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On-scene Communications . . . . . . 35
     V.                                                     THIRD REPORT AND ORDER. . . . . .40
          A.                                                Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the Third Notice. . . . . 40
               1.                                           State License . . . . .48
               2.                                           700 MHz Band Reserve. . . . . . .68
          B.                                                Protection of the GNSS from Second Harmonic Interference . . . . . .70
               1.                                           Base/mobile Pairing ("Band Flipping") . . . . . 71
               2.                                           Emission Limits . . . . . . 75
          C.                                                Interoperability Below 512 MHz . . . . . . 82
               1.                                           Interoperability Channels in the 150-174 & 450-512 MHz (Existing Public
               Safety Bands). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
               2.                                           Interoperability Channels in the 138-144 MHz Band (NTIA/DOD
               Reallocation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
               3.                                           Interoperability in 156-162 MHz Band (VHF Maritime Band). . . . . . 92
     VI.                                                    PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . 96
     VII.                                                   ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . .101
APPENDIX A . .Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
                                         Third Memorandum Opinion and Order
APPENDIX B Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Third Report and Order
APPENDIX C . . . .List of Parties for Third Memorandum Opinion and Order
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . .List of Commenters for Third Report and Order
APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Y2K Comments to Third Notice
APPENDIX F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Final Rules
APPENDIX G . . . . . . 700 MHz Band    Segmentation & Channelization Tables
APPENDIX H . . . . . . . . .Interoperability Frequencies in the Inland VPCs
     I.   INTRODUCTION
1.     Twenty-four megahertz of spectrum is allocated for public safety services at 764-776 MHz and
794-806 MHz (hereinafter "the 700 MHz band").  On August 6, 1998, we adopted a First Report and Order
and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making that established a band plan and service rules for this spectrum.
Seventeen parties filed petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification ("Petition(s)") of decisions contained
in the First Report and Order.  We addressed two of these Petitions in May 1999.  On July 21, 2000, we
adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order that addressed petitions for reconsideration of the First
Report and Order concerning:  (1) digital modulation requirement; (2) certain technical requirements namely,
transmitter power and antenna height, automatic power control, emission limits, frequency stability, wideband
channel efficiency standards, and receiver standards; (3) protection criteria established between television and
land mobile operations; (4) eligibility for licensing and alliances under Section 2.103(b) of our Rules, and (5)
administrative issues regarding regional planning, national planning, and frequency coordination.  In the
Second MO&O, we also deferred resolution of the reconsideration requests concerning digital standards in the
700 MHz band to the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the captioned proceeding.
2.     The instant Third Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Third MO&O") addresses the remaining
issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the First Report and Order; by presenting our decisions in
response to those various portions of the petitions that address the:  (1) band plan for the 700 MHz band, and
(2) low power narrowband devices for on-scene communication.
3.     In the Third Report and Order portion of this combined item, we address designation and licensing
issues for the spectrum that we reserved in the First Report and Order to be "subject to the Third Notice."
In addition, we adopt technical criteria for 700 MHz band operations to protect satellite-based global
navigation systems from harmful interference.  We also establish measures to promote interoperability on
public safety channels below 512 MHz.  Our actions today are additional steps toward the development of a
flexible regulatory framework to meet vital current and future public safety communications needs.
     IV.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.     Band Plan  We revise the band plan adopted in the First Report and Order to reposition the
location of the narrowband and wideband channel groups for the general use, interoperability, and reserve
spectrum.  Upon review of the reconsideration requests, this new plan represents an improved layout and will
promote better assignment and operational possibilities for the public safety community.  We also authorize
48 narrowband channels for low power use for on-scene communication.
6.     State License  Rather than adopting 8.8 MHz for state planning and approval, we adopt a modified
version of our proposal and will grant a single, geographic license directly to the states for up to a total of 2.4
megahertz for their needs.   We believe a state license complements the regional planning committees (RPCs),
streamlines administrative procedures, and enhances spectrum efficiency.  Under this decision, each state
(including U.S. territories, districts, and possessions) has the option to receive a statewide authorization to use
this radio spectrum statewide for public safety services.  This geographic license gives states a new tool for
managing and planning the radio communication needs of state agencies.  The Governor of each state or
his/her designee will have until December 31, 2001 (over one year from the effective date of this Third Report
and Order) to apply for a state license.  We believe that providing states this amount of time to apply for this
spectrum allows every state at least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the funds necessary to plan,
prepare, and implement the use of the spectrum.  What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not
applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered by the RPCs.  As with other
geographical-area based licenses, e.g., PCS, no further FCC authorization will be required to construct and
operate transmitter sites within the state (unless the site raises specific environmental, aviation safety, "quiet
zone," or international issues).
7.     Reserve  First, we reserve 128 narrowband channels pending the resolution of the Fourth Notice
in this proceeding.  Next, we relocate the remaining 5.4 megahertz of the 700 MHz band (108 wideband
channels) between narrowband and wideband segments and reserve this spectrum for future developments in
broadband technologies.
8.     In sum, as a the result of our actions today, we designate the 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700
MHz band as follows:
         700 MHz Public Safety Band Spectrum & Channels
                       Designated Purpose
                       Amount of Spectrum
                           Narrowband
                           (6.25 kHz)
                            Wideband
                            (50 kHz)
                                                      General Use
                            12.5 MHz
                            (52.1 %)
                            7.7 MHz
                        (1232 channels)
                            4.8 MHz
                         (96 channels)
                                              Interoperability
                                                        2.6 MHz
                                                       (10.8 %)
                                                        0.8 MHz
                                                 (128 channels)
                                                        1.8 MHz
                                                  (36 channels)
                                                 State License
                            2.4 MHz
                            (10.0 %)
                            2.4 MHz
                         (384 channels)
                             - 0 -
                           Low Power
                            0.3 MHz
                            (1.3 %)
                            0.3 MHz
                         (48 channels)
                             - 0 -
                            Reserve
                            6.2 MHz
                            (25.8 %)
                            0.8 MHz
                         (128 channels)
                            5.4 MHz
                        ( 108 channels)
                          T O T A L
                             24 MHz
                            (100 %)
                             12 MHz
                        (1920 channels)
                             12 MHz
                         (240 channels)
9.     GNSS Protection Criteria  We adopt technical solutions to protect certain global navigation
satellite systems (GNSS), particularly the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems (GLONASS) and
Global Positioning System (GPS).  These limits are in accordance with international requirements.
10.    Interoperability Below 512 MHz  We adopt our proposal to designate channels in existing public
safety bands for mutual aid purposes (five channels in the 150-174 MHz band and four channel pairs in the
450-512 MHz band).  We also terminate the Third Notice inquiry as to the FCC's future licensing of spectrum
in the 138 144 MHz band for interoperability purposes.  The inquiry is now moot because Congress reclaimed
this spectrum for exclusive federal use in the "National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000."   We also
adopt our proposal to designate two channel pairs in the VHF 156-162 MHz band for interoperability
communication in thirty-three Economic Areas (EAs), where these channels are allocated for public safety
entities.
     XI.  BACKGROUND
12.    In 1993, Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to ensure that public safety
communications needs are met through the year 2010.  Pursuant to that directive, the Commission issued a
report to Congress identifying a need to gather additional information on the present and future communications
requirements of public safety agencies.  In 1995, the Commission, together with the National Tele-
communications and Information Administration (NTIA), established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee (PSWAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to provide advice and recom-
mendations regarding the communications needs of public safety agencies through the year 2010.  Shortly
thereafter, the Commission commenced this rulemaking proceeding to evaluate and plan for present and future
public safety communications requirements.
13.    On August 14, 1996, the Commission acknowledged that a portion of the spectrum recovered from
TV channels 60-69 when digital television (DTV) is fully deployed "could be used to meet public safety
needs."  In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would initiate a separate
proceeding to address the issue of allocating TV channels 60-69, and would give serious consideration to
allocating 24 megahertz of that spectrum for public safety use.  In September 1996, the PSWAC Final Report
was submitted to the Commission as part of the record in this proceeding.  The PSWAC Final Report found
that the spectrum then allocated to public safety was insufficient to support the current and projected voice and
data needs of the public safety community, did not provide adequate capacity for obtaining interoperability,
and was inadequate to meet future needs, based on projected population growth and demographic changes.  The
PSWAC Final Report concluded that in order to meet these needs, 25 megahertz of new public safety spectrum
allocations would be needed within five years.  The PSWAC Final Report further stated that data
communication and wireless video needs were also expected to grow rapidly, and additional spectrum was
required to support new capabilities and technologies, including high speed data and video.
14.    Subsequently, in the 1997 Budget Act, Congress directed the Commission to reallocate
24 megahertz of the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60-69 as a result of DTV implementation for public
safety services.  Shortly thereafter, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in ET Docket No. 97-
157 which led to the adoption of a Report and Order reallocating 24 megahertz of spectrum located in the
700 MHz band for public safety services.
15.    This new allocation is the largest ever made for public safety communications and constitutes a
significant public benefit derived from the conversion of television broadcasting in the United States from
analog technology to state-of-the-art digital technology.  In the Second Notice, the Commission sought
comment on a wide variety of public safety communications issues, including, but not limited to, future public
safety spectrum needs, projected operational and technological requirements for interoperability (between and
among public safety entities on a local and regional basis), and technical parameters needed to ensure efficient
and effective communications.
16.    In the First Report and Order, we established a band plan and adopted service rules for the 700
MHz band.  We designated 12.6 megahertz of the spectrum for general use to be managed by regional planning
committees (RPCs).  In addition, we designated 2.6 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for interoperability
purposes (the ability of different governmental agencies to communicate across jurisdictions and with each
other).  We also adopted technical specifications to enhance spectrum efficiency and minimize harmful
interference in the 700 MHz band.  The First Report and Order also designated 8.8 megahertz of 700 MHz
band spectrum as reserved subject to the Third Notice.
17.    In the Third Notice, we continued our inquiry into present and future public safety communications
needs.  We sought comment on a broad range of options to promote the efficient and effective use of the 700
MHz band spectrum that we reserved in the First Report and Order.  We also asked how to license the 2.6
megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that we designated for nationwide interoperability in the First
Report and Order.  Additionally, we discussed protection requirements for 700 MHz band operations in
connection with Global Navigation Satellite Systems.  We also offered proposals to facilitate use of nationwide
interoperability in public safety bands below 512 MHz.
     XVIII.    THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
          A.   Band Plan
19.    In the First Report and Order, we designated the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to
be divided as shown below:
                               Frequency (MHz)
764
770
776
794
800
806
TV Channel 63
TV Channel 64
TV Channel 68
TV Channel 69
NB
WB
NB
NB
WB
NB
     3 MHz     6 MHz          3 MHz               3 MHz          6 MHz          3 MHz
      NB  =  narrowband channels
     WB  =  wideband channels
First Report and Order (1998)   700 MHz Public Safety Band Spectrum & Channels
                       Designated Purpose
                       Amount of Spectrum
                           Narrowband
                           (6.25 kHz)
                            Wideband
                            (50 kHz)
                          General Use
                            12.6 MHz
                            (52.5 %)
                            7.8 MHz
                        (1248 channels)
                            4.8 MHz
                         (96 channels)
                           Nationwide
                        Interoperability
                            2.6 MHz
                            (10.8 %)
                            0.8 MHz
                         (128 channels)
                            1.8 MHz
                         (36 channels)
                            Reserved
                             8.8 MHz
                            (36.7 %)
                            3.4 MHz
                         (544 channels)
                            5.4 MHz
                         (108 channels)
                             TOTAL
                             24 MHz
                            (100 %)
                             12 MHz
                        (1920 channels)
                             12 MHz
                         (240 channels)
20.    The band plan designates 764-776 MHz (TV Channels 63 and 64) for base-to-mobile
communications and 794-806 MHz (TV Channels 68 and 69) for mobile-to-base communications.  The band
plan also accommodates all of the traditional operational modes (voice, data, image/hsd, and video) and is
flexible enough to allow deployment of future technologies.  We divided the band into separate segments for
narrowband and wideband communications for both General Use and Nationwide Interoperability.  To promote
efficient spectrum usage, the band plan incorporates a channelization approach that is based on the smallest
practical channel sizes for narrowband and wideband public safety communications).  To promote flexibility,
we included a "building block" approach that allows licensees to combine narrowband or wideband channels
to accommodate different technologies.  Specifically, we permit the combination of up to four narrowband 6.25
kHz channels (up to 25 kHz) and up to three wideband 50 kHz channels (up to 150 kHz) to create larger
bandwidths when needed to accommodate different technologies, such as 12.5 kHz or 25 kHz voice and data
channels, or communications requiring higher data speeds.
               1.   General Use Channels
21.    Band segments (narrowband and wideband).  APCO notes that we largely adopted the channel
plan proposed by NPSTC (which APCO helped to develop).  APCO contends, however, that the adopted plan
lacks necessary flexibility to meet the varying needs of each region for narrowband or wideband channels.
APCO requests, therefore, that we provide each RPC with additional flexibility to:  (1) aggregate narrowband
channels to create additional wideband channels and; (2) split wideband channels to produce additional
narrowband channels.  APCO states that in either case, we should permit RPCs to modify the adopted band
segments only as a last resort and that unassigned narrowband channels could not be aggregated unless and
until all existing wideband channels were exhausted (and vice versa as to splitting unused wideband channels).
22.    The adopted band plan reflects the best current evaluation of the relative spectrum requirements
for narrowband and wideband operations whereas APCO's suggested rule change would permit each of the
fifty-five RPCs to adopt irregular narrowband/wideband segments.  We continue to believe that it makes sense
to separate narrowband segments from wideband segments to ensure the placement of compatible
communications types together in band segments.  Ensuring compatibility removes an element of uncertainty
as to the potential for adjacent channel interference, leading to less complicated frequency coordination
requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum.  Nonetheless, we appreciate APCO's point that the need
for narrowband or wideband channels will vary throughout the nation.  We note in this connection that the
existing waiver process is available for individual applicants that demonstrate that all other alternatives have
been thoroughly exhausted.  Moreover, as discussed below in Section A.3. (Location of Reserve Spectrum),
we are adopting NPSTC's suggestion to relocate the reserve channels between the narrowband and wideband
segments.  This action will provide future flexibility to adjust the dividing line between narrowband and
wideband segments.
23.    Aggregation of narrowband channels.  Ericsson seeks reconsideration of our decision to limit the
maximum aggregation of channels to four channels in the narrowband channel plan.  Ericsson contends that
limiting aggregation to four 6.25 kHz channel "building blocks" restricts the efficient accommodation of
emerging technologies that have operating bandwidths between 25 kHz and 50 kHz.  Thus, Ericsson proposes
that we modify the narrowband channel plan to permit the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz channels.
24.    We do not find this recommendation persuasive.  The composite plan that we adopted in the First
Report and Order, provides a careful balance of general use, interoperability, wideband, and narrowband
channels based on all of the band plans submitted in response to the Second Notice.  We also adopted
corresponding rules regarding channel pairing, the segments of the band to be used for narrowband and
wideband applications, minimum and maximum channel sizes, and spectrum usage efficiency standards.
Ericsson's proposal would allow data applications to use more than the 25 kHz of bandwidth for narrowband
channels.  We believe this to be unwise because permitting the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz channels,
the equivalent of a wide band channel (50 kHz), could prematurely deplete the availability of channels needed
for narrowband voice and data operations.  Moreover, allowing wideband channels within a narrowband
segment creates the same interference potential discussed above.
25.    Most importantly, Ericsson's proposal also raises concerns related to spectrum efficiency because
it could essentially defeat the efficiency safeguards of the adopted band plan.  As noted in the First Report and
Order, public safety entities are generally insulated from market forces in regard to the acquisition of licenses
for radio spectrum and the provision of public safety communications.  Instead, each jurisdiction typically
provides public safety communications to better protect the safety of life and property    with spectrum
utilization based more on budgetary limitations than on considerations of the most efficient and effective
technologies.  Thus, the technical structure of standard channelization is appropriate to ensure that the 700
MHz public safety band spectrum is used efficiently in the absence of the market forces that discipline other
services.  Moreover, from a regional and national perspective, the record reflects that not enough spectrum is
available to meet the long-term needs of the public safety community.  Thus, the adopted band plan
incorporates a channelization approach that is based on the smallest practical channel sizes for narrowband
and wideband public safety communications along with the "building block" approach to provide significant
flexibility.  Ericsson's proposal, however, would disturb this careful balance between efficiency and flexibility
by allowing voice and data operations within the narrowband segment to use bandwidths of up to 50 kHz (i.e.,
wideband).
26.    Ericsson's proposal would also result in irregular channelization (intra-and inter-regional) whereas,
as noted in the First Report and Order, standardizing channelization on a national basis provides for
reasonably rapid development of a cost-based equipment market for the 700 MHz band.  Standardizing
channelization on a national basis also removes a major element of uncertainty as to the potential for
interference due to irregular, overlapping channels (intra-or inter-region), leading to less complicated frequency
coordination requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum.  Specifically, allowing nonstandard channels
would create difficulties when overlapping channels are assigned to different types of users in nearby service
areas.  Interference and compatibility difficulties are currently issues in the refarmed bands below 512 MHz,
where new channels were established in between existing channels.  Similar difficulties would arise in the 700
MHz band, e.g., government and NGO users assigned on overlapping channels, if we allowed each RPC to
assign nonstandard, overlapping channels.  Moreover, the 700 MHz public safety band is newly allocated so,
unlike the refarmed bands, we have an exceptional opportunity to adopt a channelization plan that promotes
efficient use, balanced with significant flexibility and a minimum of overlapping channel assignments.  We
believe the adopted band plan, with some minor modifications adopted today, provides the appropriate balance
based on the broad range of commenters.  Finally, we note that the existing waiver process is available for truly
unique and unusual circumstances.
27.    Set-aside for wideband HSD channels  In his Petition, Powell requests that before allowing the
RPCs to begin their planning process, we meet with members of the manufacturing, system integration and
public safety communities to discuss a wideband channel plan that would permit development of a national
public safety high speed data (HSD) network and still allow the RPCs maximum flexibility to implement
regional channel plans.  Powell states that the wideband plan and channel bandwidths action adopted in the
First Report and Order will "severely hinder" any effort to establish a nationwide interoperability data
network.  Powell states that the need for an integrated wireless HSD network cannot be overstated and there
is insufficient public safety spectrum, even including this new 24 MHz, to allow law enforcement agencies,
much less other public safety users, to implement HSD systems.  Powell requests reconsideration of the
wideband channel plan where nearly half of the available HSD spectrum is designated for wideband "General
Use."
28.    We have considered Powell's request and concern regarding the public safety community's needs
for HSD systems.  As Powell indicates in his Petition, in response to the Second Notice, the Commission
received several suggestions for wideband channel plans.  These proposals were discussed in the First Report
and Order along with the rationale for our decision, based upon the record at that time, to designate the 12
megahertz of wideband spectrum as follows   4.8 MHz to General Use, 1.8 MHz for Interoperability, and
retain 5.4 MHz in Reserve.  We concur with Powell's expectation that HSD will be a highly desired product
by the public safety community at large.  After consideration of Powell's request, however, we affirm our
original wideband general use decision which provided a balance between the wide range of competing
wideband needs.  Accordingly, we will retain 4.8 MHz for General Use.  We believe the planning process of
the RPCs will be sufficient to address Powell's concerns.  We believe that any modification of the plan at this
time could be premature depending upon the technical progress made in the not-too-distant future.  Therefore,
while we decline to modify our wideband plan at this time, we leave this issue open for further analysis and
recommendations by the public safety community, RPCs, and the NCC as the technology progresses.  In this
connection, we note our decision in today's Third Report and Order reserving 5.4 megahertz of spectrum for
future needs such as the Law Enforcement HSD network.
               1.   Interoperability Channels
29.    We established narrowband and wideband channels in the First Report and Order and set the
standard channel bandwidth for narrowband channels at 6.25 kHz.  We designated all of these channels as for
general use, nationwide interoperability, or reserved subject to the Third Notice and, specifically, we
designated 2.6 MHz of spectrum for interoperability purposes.  This 2.6 MHz of spectrum included 128
narrowband channels for a total of 0.8 MHz of spectrum.  We located thirty-two of the 128 channels in each
of the four TV channels:  two contiguous interoperability channels, skip two channels, two contiguous
interoperability channels, skip six channels, two contiguous interoperability channels, skip sixty-six channels.
This pattern is repeated five times.  After the fifth repeat, eighty-four channels are skipped before arriving at
the final two interoperability channels, for a total of thirty-two channels.  Additionally, we paired the 128
channels (four times thirty-two) to make sixty-four channel pairs.  We received requests from APCO and
NPSTC to reconsider our decisions regarding the narrowband interoperability channeling plan.
30.    Narrowband interoperability channel size  APCO reiterates its initial proposal for a 12.5 kHz
channeling plan based on the Project 25 Phase I (12.5 kHz) standards.  APCO again requests that we revise
the band plan to change the channelization for the narrowband interoperability channels from 6.25 kHz to 12.5
kHz.  It states that a band plan with 12.5 kHz channelization would accommodate a wider range of equipment
options and enhance competition and interoperability.  APCO further states that operation on 6.25 kHz
channels, as opposed to 12.5 kHz, requires linear amplifiers and frequency stability techniques that are years
from being widely available in the marketplace.
31.    We have reviewed APCO's request and, while making no decision regarding Project 25 Phase I
standards at this time, we decline to adopt a 12.5 kHz channeling plan.  We find no benefit to adopting a 12.5
kHz channeling plan because the 6.25 kHz channeling plan can accommodate the Project 25 Phase I (12.5 kHz)
digital standard for interoperability, as recommended by the NCC, by combining 6.25 kHz channel pairs.
Thus, we find no advantage in amending the narrowband interoperability channel plan to 12.5 kHz channel
spacing, particularly given that such action could require a return to a 6.25 kHz spacing plan at a later date
depending on our decisions related to the interoperability digital standards.  We will make those decisions
based on the record developed in response to our Fourth Notice.  However, regardless of the outcome of the
Fourth Notice, we continue to believe that a 6.25 kHz channeling plan for the 700 MHz band provides the most
flexibility for future technologies and a consistency of channel widths between the general use and the
interoperability channels. Therefore, we are retaining the 6.25 kHz narrowband channel plan as adopted in the
First Report and Order.
32.    Location of narrowband interoperability channels  NPSTC asks that we reconsider the
narrowband interoperability plan to the extent that we change the spacing between interoperability channels.
NPSTC asks that they be spaced 250 kHz apart.  NPSTC recommends that the interoperability channels
should be in a sequence such as: Channel 19/20, 59/60, 99/100, 139/140, 179/180, 219/220, etc.  NPSTC
requests this reconsideration of the band plan to permit system operation through a common antenna system
where 250 kHz spacing represents the closest efficient use of transmitter combiners.
33.    We have considered the NPSTC request to change the spacing between the interoperability
channels.  We agree with NPSTC that this modification will permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners
for common antennas and lower costs for public safety entities.  Accordingly, we will relocate the narrowband
interoperability channel sets in a more efficient pattern based on 250 kHz separations.  NPSTC's suggested
pattern, however, would  reduce the number of narrowband interoperability channels from 64 to 48 (6.25 kHz)
channel pairs.  Therefore, we will modify the narrowband interoperability plan giving consideration of 250 kHz
separations but maintaining the equivalent number of channels (64 pairs) for narrowband interoperability.
34.    Location of wideband interoperability channels  NPSTC states that the wideband plan generally
spaces the wideband interoperability channel groups apart from each other   thereby facilitating common
antenna systems.  However, two of the 150 kHz wideband interoperability groups in each wideband segment
are immediately adjacent to each other.  NPSTC recommends changing this channel spacing plan for wideband
channels to permit base stations to operate on a common antenna system.
35.    The wideband interoperability channel groups were generally spaced between 1200-1350 kHz
apart, except for the two adjacent blocks noted by NPSTC.  Similar to the narrowband interoperability
channels situation, we are also persuaded that modifying the wideband interoperability channeling plan will
permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas and lower costs for public safety entities
using wideband technologies.  Upon reconsideration, we amend the wideband interoperability plan to form the
two groups of 150 kHz wideband channel groups, in a regular pattern spaced 450 kHz apart, based on efficient
wideband combiner technology.
               1.   Location of Reserve Spectrum
36.    NPSTC requests modification of the band plan to place the reserve spectrum between the
narrowband and wideband channel segments as originally suggested in both their band plan proposal and
Motorola's proposed band plan filed in response to the Second Notice.  NPSTC states that both plans
recommended that we locate the reserve spectrum (channels not initially assigned) between the narrowband and
the wideband channel segments so that the dividing line between those band segments could be adjusted to meet
local and regional needs.  NPSTC notes that we located the reserve spectrum at mid-band locations distributed
throughout the narrowband and wideband segments.  NPSTC contends that in some metropolitan areas there
will be a greater need for wideband channels than is allocated in our wideband plan.
37.    After consideration of NPSTC's request for reconsideration, we conclude that grouping the reserve
spectrum into four segments of 1.35 MHz each located between the narrowband and wideband segments offers
improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time.  We, therefore,
concur with NPSTC's petition and amend the placement of the wideband reserve spectrum.
          A.   Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On-scene Communications
38.    STI requests that we amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to modify the narrowband general use
channel plan to designate twelve 6.25 kHz pairs specifically for nationwide use in a low power, analog
modulation, person-to-person communications and personnel accountability reporting (PAR) system for on-
scene, firefighting use.  STI notes that firefighters, and other public safety personnel working in
environmentally hazardous settings, wear protective gear and self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that
makes ordinary voice communications extremely difficult, even at close range.  To overcome this problem,
on-scene/PAR systems such as STI's have SCBA masks with low power radios that provide hands-free, voice
activated, firefighter-to-firefighter communication.  Furthermore, STI notes that existing personnel alert safety
systems (PASS) are ineffective when firefighters do not attach the separate PASS device to their gear and
remember to activate it upon entry onto the fireground.  By comparison, STI avers that its multifunction
system provides for improved communications and personnel alert safety and accountability reporting systems,
which STI believes should prevent some firefighter deaths and injuries.  STI claims that its on-scene/PAR
system could be available for use within one year if we amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to designate (a)
twelve channel pairs specifically for this use without going through the RPC process, and (b) Section 90.535
of our Rules to permit the use of only analog modulation in the on-scene/PAR system.  STI contends that
digital modulation is inferior to analog for use in the on-scene/PAR system for three reasons:  (1) the SCBA
mask radio would not operate as well with marginal signal strength (as signal strength goes down, digital
reception drops altogether whereas analog continues to work with degraded performance); (2) digital equipment
is more sensitive to ambient heat; and (3) digital radios tend to weigh more.
39.    APCO and AASHTO responded to STI's Petition and both support it.  APCO also asks us to set
aside a larger amount of spectrum than STI requested to accommodate additional low power public safety
operations such as:  police surveillance and tactical operations, urban search and rescue, and remote control
of robotic devices.
40.    We conclude that there is merit to providing for low power public safety communication systems
such as the on-scene/PAR system.  We are not convinced, however, that we should allocate 700 MHz
spectrum exclusively for this one particular public safety low power application as requested by STI.  We agree
with APCO that there may be other low power applications that could operate in the 700 MHz band.  In
instances where there is the potential for multiple low power applications, absent a compelling showing, we
favor a sharing approach rather than making exclusive assignments for each specific application.  In general,
we believe low power operations can co-exist on the same frequencies with minimal potential for interference
because of the low power restriction.  For these reasons, we will allocate twenty-four (6.25 kHz) channel pairs
for low power mobile operations only.   The maximum effective radiated power (ERP) on these channels is
limited to 2 watts.
41.    As noted above, we believe that a low power sharing approach is appropriate here.  However, to
minimize further the potential for interference we are adopting some additional restrictions.  We are designating
the twenty-four pairs as low power channels nationwide.  Further, since we believe most low power operations
will operate in-region the vast majority of the time, we will require applicants for eighteen of the pairs
(Channels 1-8 and 949-958)  to go through the regional planning process.  The RPCs will be responsible for
determining the most appropriate low power application(s) on these channels and the frequency coordinators
will be responsible for providing appropriate interference protection.  We have not specified all twenty-four
pairs for RPC oversight because we believe there may be public safety organizations who have low power
needs and cross regional borders routinely, such as search and rescue organizations.  Therefore, we will license
the remaining six low power pairs (Channels 9-12 and 959-960) on a nationwide, itinerant basis.  These six
channels should provide for the communications needs of entities that routinely need to travel to different parts
of the country and, because they are nationwide, we are exempting applications for the low power itinerant
channels from the frequency coordination requirement.  Finally, we clarify that a Commission license will be
required for operation on any of the low power channels.
42.    STI asks that we permit the use of analog modulation as the primary mode of modulation on its
on-scene/PAR system and that the interoperability channel operating requirement not apply.  In the First Report
and Order, we adopted rules requiring all portable and mobile units to be capable of operating on all the
narrowband interoperability channels and that when such equipment is operating on the interoperability
channels, it be designed to use digital modulation as the primary mode.  The purpose of the digital modulation
requirement was to make more efficient use of the spectrum.  The reason for the interoperability requirement
was to ensure that public safety entities could talk to one another.  These requirements were cornerstones of
the rules governing the public safety 700 MHz band.  Thus, we are concerned about the potential negative
impact of granting the exemption requested by STI.  In this case, however, we believe a limited exemption of
these two requirements may be in order but only for equipment that operates only on the designated low power
channels.  Low power systems by design make efficient use of the spectrum because they increase frequency
reuse.  Further, low power systems such as the on-scene/PAR system are usually not designed to communicate
with public safety entities outside "the system."  Finally, granting a limited exemption will provide additional
flexibility to design specialized, self-contained communications systems intended to enhance safety.  Therefore,
we will exempt equipment that is designed to operate only on the 700 MHz low power channels (capable of
transmitting only on these designated low power channels) from the requirement of having to be capable of
operating on all interoperability channels and the primary digital modulation requirement.  For these same
reasons, we will also exempt such low power equipment from the trunking requirement.  Finally, we caution
that 700 MHz band radios without these capabilities are inappropriate for meeting the multitude of daily public
safety communication requirements.  Nonetheless, so long as these operational limitations/circumstances are
understood, we agree that there is merit to providing for low power public safety communication systems.
     XLIII.    THIRD REPORT AND ORDER
          A.   Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the Third Notice
44.    In the First Report and Order, we designated 12.6 megahertz of spectrum for general use, to be
managed by regional planning committees (RPCs), and 2.6 megahertz of spectrum for interoperability.  We
reserved the remaining 8.8 megahertz of spectrum "subject to the Third Notice."  In the Third MO&O, we
decided to designate 0.3 megahertz of spectrum for low power operations.  Of this 0.3 megahertz of spectrum,
we allotted 0.2 megahertz from the reserve spectrum and 0.1 megahertz from the general use spectrum.
Additionally, 0.8 megahertz (128 narrowband channels) was set-aside pending the resolution of the
interoperability guard band issue discussed in the Fourth Notice in this proceeding.  Consequently the amount
of the spectrum currently under consideration "subject to the Third Notice" is 7.8 megahertz   2.4 megahertz
for narrowband operations (voice and data) and 5.4 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/HSD and
slow motion video).
45.    In the Third Notice, we sought comment on three alternatives to govern the use and licensing of
the reserve spectrum.  First, we sought comment on whether we should allow RPCs to administer the reserve
spectrum, in addition to administering the 12.6 megahertz, we designated for General Use in the First Report
and Order.  We also invited commenters to suggest modifications or refinements to the RPC process to
improve the management of the reserve spectrum.
46.    Second, we sought comment on whether we should grant a single license to each state for the entire
reserve spectrum and require the states   rather than RPCs   to manage all use of this spectrum by state, local,
and Federal public safety providers.  We specifically invited states to comment on this issue.  We requested
comments on whether states should have to adhere to the same planning process as the RPCs.  Additionally,
we asked whether state licensing would facilitate the construction of regional or statewide systems and whether
to permit states to use and share the spectrum with local political subdivisions, as well as Federal and other
public safety providers.   We also sought comment on the appropriate amount of spectrum to assign to states.
47.    Finally, we also invited commenters to suggest other flexible licensing approaches to promote the
development of a comprehensively planned public-safety communication system in the 700 MHz band as well
as alternative uses of the 8.8 Megahertz that would promote innovative ways to serve the public safety
community.  We specifically asked commenters to address the Commission's legal authority to adopt
alternative licensing approaches.  We also sought comment on whether to continue reserving all or part of
the reserve spectrum for future technological advances.
48.    Commenters generally focused on two issues:  (1) state planning "versus" regional planning; and
(2) whether states should receive some spectrum for their statewide use.  As to the first issue, commenters
generally favor using the RPC method for administration of the reserve spectrum.  APCO and other
commenters assert that state administered spectrum would be an unfunded Federal mandate requiring states
to establish a "sub-licensing" program.  A few commenters claim that a block of spectrum that is state-
administered would not effectively, efficiently or responsively meet the radio communication needs of local
public safety service providers.  While opposing state administered spectrum, APCO and others recommend
that we require RPCs to set-aside a portion of the spectrum for statewide systems.  California and Florida
recommend that RPCs manage the reserve spectrum but they further recommend that we require RPCs to set-
aside a portion of the spectrum for statewide and multi-jurisdictional radio systems.  Arizona objects to a state
planning, instead of regional planning, approach to spectrum management, and it prefers that the RPC manage
the spectrum planning, but it has no objection to the licensing of spectrum directly to the state as a blanket
license for its internal use.
49.    As to the second issue, many commenters support licensing some spectrum directly to the states.
Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al., representing various public safety groups, support licensing each state
to administer the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum as delineated in the Third Notice.  Of the comments
received by the states, only California opposes giving states a direct license of at least a portion on the reserve
spectrum.  Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona, support direct licensing to the state of
at least a portion of the reserve spectrum and see no advantage to management of such state spectrum by the
RPCs.  New York (i.e., NYSTEC) suggests allocating a portion of the reserve spectrum for statewide use.
Pennsylvania strongly urges assigning at least some portion of the reserved spectrum directly to the states.
Virginia supports state licensing rather than using RPCs, and it supports state administration of the 8.8
megahertz of reserve spectrum.
50.    One commenter, FLEWUG, opposes both RPCs and state-based licensing, and contends that
neither process is appropriate or sufficient for licensing the reserve spectrum.  It suggests that an expanded
NCC becomes the controlling authority for administering and licensing the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.
FLEWUG avers that it is premature to make any further determination as to the use of the reserve spectrum
and suggests we defer any decision regarding this spectrum at this time.  It recommends we refer this matter,
i.e., the use of the reserve spectrum, to the NCC for further examination.
51.    Upon review of the extensive record in this proceeding and based on the Commission's
considerable experience in licensing public safety entities, we believe a two-fold approach is best for the
7.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum.  We conclude that the 700 MHz plan should be augmented by designating
the narrowband segment (2.4 megahertz, or ten percent of the spectrum) as an optional geographic state license,
while holding the wideband segment (5.4 megahertz, or twenty-two percent of the spectrum) in reserve for
future expansion.  We believe this decision complements the current 700 MHz plan, whereby RPCs administer
12.5 megahertz, or fifty-two percent of the spectrum   7.7 megahertz for narrowband operations (voice and
data) and 4.8 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/HSD and slow motion video).  This decision
responds to the majority view that a certain portion of the spectrum needs to be set-aside for statewide systems,
either licensed directly to the states or administered through the RPCs.  We further believe, for the public
safety radio service where market incentives do not apply, that it is prudent to hold some spectrum in reserve
to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time.  This decision is in line with those parties,
which filed either Petitions for Reconsideration to the First Report and Order or comments to the Third Notice,
that suggest that our 700 MHz plan either lacks flexibility or needs further study.
               1.   State License
52.    As discussed above, we conclude that each state should have an option to receive a statewide
license for up to 2.4 megahertz of 700 MHz band public safety spectrum.  The Commission has long
encouraged public safety agencies to develop wide-area multi-agency trunked public safety radio systems and
the 700 MHz band public safety allocation offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the development of these
systems.  Under this approach, states will have limitless possibilities to apply their unique expertise and
knowledge to best use the radio spectrum to meet the public safety needs of their citizens.  Specifically, state
licensees will have significant flexibility in terms of the technologies, programs/systems to deploy    so long
as the spectrum is used for public safety services as required by Section 337 of the Communications Act.
53.    Licensing up to 2.4 megahertz of the reserve spectrum to each state is consistent with a majority
of the commenters    those supporting state licensing for either all or a portion of the spectrum as well as those
parties requesting that RPCs set aside spectrum for state-wide use.  The PSWAC Transition Subcommittee
(TRSC) also reported solid support for state wide and area wide system licensing and operation    so long
as such licenses are for state operations and based on state and local governments having joint planning,
ownership, and operation of such systems.  TRSC described a sampling of these systems then under
development by the States of Colorado, Michigan, Louisiana, and Iowa and surrounding states.  TRSC
emphasized that "[i]t is important not to confuse state licenses for [state agency] operations [with state licenses]
for operations with other than state agencies on a shared basis."  Specifically, TRSC contrasted the solid
support for state wide and area wide system licensing with any block license approach that would create
spectrum management roles for states.  TRSC averred that the state planning approach would raise complex
issues including:  (1) whether states want to be spectrum managers; and (2) the extent to which such a role
would affect the "balance of power" between the state and local governments within their boundaries.
Accordingly, we conclude that states with bold visions for expansive statewide/regional coverage should have
the option to receive a direct State License as a new tool for addressing their communication requirements.
54.    State License complements the RPC process.  The State License approach complements the RPC
process by ensuring that each state receives a significant amount of spectrum for statewide use, because the
RPC process, by definition, may not focus on the statewide needs of every state.  In this regard, we note that
several commenters want the FCC to make significant changes to the process to correct alleged deficiencies
(in the RPC process adopted in the First R&O), or assume oversight of RPCs.  California notes that because
wide-area systems reduce the availability of not only the channels assigned to the system but also the adjacent
channels which might present interference situations, states are at a distinct disadvantage in arguing within the
regional planning structure for spectrum.  PSWN notes that states, due to their status as the largest users of
spectrum, may find it difficult to objectively weigh its spectrum needs against those of local governments,
counties and cities.  PSWAC noted that while the regional planning for the 800 MHz band has been
reasonably successful overall, the process may have frustrated state government's inherent interest in planning
public safety communication solutions on a statewide basis by fragmenting the management of the 800 MHz
RPC spectrum.
55.    Although some commenters favor an approach whereby the RPCs set-aside spectrum for statewide
or regional systems, we believe it would be administratively burdensome, complicate coordination, and possibly
increase the potential for interference. While favoring the RPC process, California asks us to require RPCs to
assign channels for state use only pursuant to a specific channelization pattern.  Florida sees no advantages
to RPC management of any portion of the spectrum that we might allocate for statewide use.  We agree with
these views and find that a uniform channel plan facilitates the development of state systems whereas allowing
each of the fifty-five RPCs to adopt irregular channel plans would complicate the inter-regional coordination
and increase the potential for interference.  We disagree with APCO's assertion that RPCs should have the
responsibility to designate which frequencies to set-aside in consultation with RPCs from neighboring regions
to maximize re-use of the spectrum.  Co-channel and adjacent channel assignments need to be judiciously
spaced (i.e., frequency re-use) to avoid interference regardless of whether the assignments are used by
neighboring states or other public safety entities (e.g., city or county governments).  In fact, we believe
designating consistent frequencies to states would promote frequency re-use because each state would have a
vested interest in designing optimal frequency plans for both parties.  It also simplifies border-area coordination
to a state-to-state discussion rather than multiple state-to-regional, i.e., numerous counties and other local
jurisdictions, discussions.  Consequently, we will designate certain spectrum for State Licenses rather than
requiring RPCs to set-aside spectrum.
56.    State License   2.4 megahertz of spectrum.  We conclude that designating 2.4 megahertz for state
licensing is in line with the spectrum needs identified by those commenters who suggested designating specific
amounts of spectrum for state use.  While the commenters sought amounts ranging from APCO's suggestion
of 1.25-2.0 megahertz as the minimum for the RPCs to set-aside to Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. and
Virginia's request for all 8.8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum, most commenters sought between 2.5 to 3.75
megahertz of spectrum.  NYSTEC suggests at least 2.5 megahertz of spectrum should be designated for
statewide systems.  California requests 2.8 megahertz of spectrum for state systems and another 3.1 for multi-
jurisdictional radio systems.  Florida requests 3.75 megahertz of spectrum.  Arizona has no objection to
licensing all 8.8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum to the State, as a blanket license for its internal use.  Based
on the comments, we believe 2.4 megahertz strikes the right balance between providing states sufficient
spectrum to fully explore and implement state-wide public safety systems and providing states with an amount
of spectrum that would either lie fallow or be used in an inefficient manner.
57.    While we acknowledge that each state has varying communications requirements, our decision to
designate 2.4 megahertz of spectrum is consistent with the record before us.  Adopting the same amount of
spectrum for all states, regardless of size, is reasonable because the needs of smaller states for frequencies to
satisfy communications requirements of high-density population areas will be similar to needs of larger states
to cover fewer urban centers spaced over expansive geographic areas.  Moreover, as discussed above,
designating consistent spectrum for state use offers distinct benefits such as improved coordination.
Consequently, we will adopt the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum for all states.  As noted above, we are
providing states the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum nationwide to "open the door" for states to consider
cooperative arrangements with their neighbors for new, reliable 700 MHz band radio networks to address
interstate public safety concerns such as natural disasters, forest fires, search and rescue missions, and highway
emergencies or maintenance.  Designating the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum nationwide provides additional
opportunity for the development of interoperability capabilities as well as the potential acceleration of the
introduction of new equipment designed to take advantage of this spectrum.  Designating the same 2.4
megahertz should also improve interstate frequency coordination, thereby decreasing the potential for
interference at state borders.
58.    State License is a geographical area license. For commercial mobile radio services, the
Commission has concluded that licensing based on pre-defined service areas poses significant advantages, over
site-based licensing, because of the greater operational flexibility it affords licensees, its inherent ability to
simplify system expansion, and its easing of the administrative burden on the Commission.  While APCO
states that statewide systems are not incompatible with regional planning and cites that numerous statewide
systems have been approved within the 800 MHz band, we believe a geographic license offers some distinct
advantages.  PSWAC noted that the implementation of wide-area systems by the public safety community has
been hindered, in part, by the Commission's site-by-site licensing process for public safety radio.  Frequency-
by-frequency, site-by-site, planning is a costly and time-consuming process for states that are seeking to
assemble spectrum building blocks at the local level and aggregate into a statewide structure.
59.    We conclude that a geographical license for states is a logical outgrowth of the RPC process and
we believe it would provide a valid approach to the varying communications needs of all sectors of the public
safety community   federal, state, and local.  Generally, when spectrum is used for private internal services,
including public safety, it is not necessary to develop geographic area licensing [to ensure that service is widely
available to the general public].  However, site-by-site licensing is designed primarily to license dispatch radio
systems on a transmitter-by-transmitter basis in local areas [markets] and the Commission has recognized that
this licensing process is very cumbersome for radio systems comprised of several hundred sites.  It also
deprives licensees that need to cover a wide geographic area of flexibility to move transmitter sites throughout
a defined service area without obtaining our prior approval.
60.    In determining what type of geographic area license is most appropriate for particular wireless
services, we have considered such factors as the nature of the service (e.g., technological constraints), the
presence of natural markets, cost of build-out, and the range of services that can be offered in the most rapid
and efficient manner.  This determination has led to the use of a variety of different license areas (e.g.,
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Economic Areas).  In this case, the geopolitical boundaries of each state form
an appropriate and convenient geographical licensing area for public safety radio spectrum.  Noting that
spectrum propagation does not honor state boundaries, APCO cites the northeast where regions are organized
around multi-state metropolitan areas as a drawback to state licensing.  We reject this argument, because, as
Pennsylvania points out, radio signals do not respect the artificial boundaries of the RPCs.  Indeed, the
northeast, where RPCs are metropolitan based rather than state-based, have provided some of our most
complicated and vexing problems to be solved.  Consequently, we conclude that an optional state-based
geographic license is desirable and offers some distinct advantages over RPCs for managing spectrum
designated for state operations.
61.    State License promotes efficient spectrum use  and allows economies of scale.  Experience with
geographic area licensing in the commercial wireless sector demonstrates that geographic area licenses often
encourage the rapid development and deployment of innovative service, facilitate interoperability and
operational standards while allowing economies of scale that encourage the development of low cost
equipment.  APCO contends that, although a few large states may well have the capability to administer the
reserve spectrum, most state governments are ill-equipped and unwilling to manage radio spectrum, nor are
they able to fund such activities in most cases.  Pennsylvania disagrees and notes that the states have the
technical and policy expertise to construct wide-area systems and to manage the use of spectrum licensed to
the state.  We concur, and cite the many state systems currently being built or planned as evidence of the
expertise and resources being expended by the states.  We believe that providing each state with up to 2.4
megahertz of spectrum will give each state greater latitude to implement spectrum saving technologies in public
safety communications by allowing states to plan and develop shared, wide-area systems under a substantially
streamlined FCC licensing process.  We further note that shared, wide-area systems, i.e., large trunked
systems, can provide service to many governmental entities in a given geographical area, which provides greater
spectrum efficiency than systems incorporating many smaller non-trunked systems or systems trunked on fewer
channels.
62.    We also believe that our decision may give state public safety agencies greater access to cutting-
edge technology that will not only allow them to achieve greater efficiencies in the performance of their duties,
but also will reduce danger to public safety personnel.  As noted in the Third Notice, the development of state-
wide systems that include state agencies of various sizes may allow states to more easily deploy state-of-the
art systems, due to the economics of scale and scope.  Pennsylvania further notes that these wide-area, state
systems can provide economies of scale and other benefits to state agencies and local public-safety agencies
within the state.  States deploying such systems decrease the cost that any one agency needs to bear for
infrastructure and lowers the per-user cost for the whole system.  Thus, a statewide system could serve as the
backbone for delivering new technologies in a cost-effective way to localities throughout the state.  Rather than
bypassing local communications needs, the statewide system is a way to ensure that jurisdictions in the state
are not divided into communications "haves" and "have-nots."
63.    The State License approach that we are adopting is also in line with PSWAC's recommendations
to (1) encourage more sharing and joint use of spectrum resources in light of the considerable success some
states and regions are experiencing in pooling spectral resources, and (2) consider block allocations for public
safety use and adopt flexible licensing policies that encourage the use of the most spectrally-efficient technology
to meet user defined needs.
                    a.   Licensing and Operational Requirements
64.    Based on the channel plan and other decisions set forth above, we will allow any state that chooses
to take advantage of spectrum that we have designated for state use to file an application for up to 2.4
megahertz of this spectrum no later than December 31, 2001.  We believe that providing states this amount
of time to apply for this spectrum allows every state at least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the
funds necessary to plan, prepare, and implement the use of the spectrum.  What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz
that a state has not applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered by the
relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of states that encompass multiple RPCs).
65.    Upon receipt and processing of a state's application, we will issue a license directly to the governor
of each state, or its designee.  The Communications Act imposes no time limit on licenses issued by the
Commission, other than those for broadcast services, which are limited to an eight-year license term.  Section
90.149 of our Rules provides for ten year license terms in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services.  In the
context of 700 MHz band geographic area licenses, we are concerned that the continued existence of
incumbent broadcasters in the state license spectrum may retard a licensee's development and use of the
spectrum.  Thus, we are modifying the license term for the state license to accommodate licensees' need for
additional time to develop and use this spectrum, in light of its continued use by broadcasters until 2006 at the
earliest.  Subject to the conditions set forth below, the initial license term for these licenses will be fifteen
years.  States can subsequently renew these licenses for additional ten-year periods.  Renewal will not be
automatic, but state licensees will have a renewal expectancy subject to the conditions set forth below.
66.    Conditions of Grant  We believe it is necessary to establish construction and operation
requirements to ensure efficient use of the spectrum including the provision of service to rural, remote, and
insular areas.  We believe setting our initial construction/operation benchmark at five years is consistent with
our experience and Rules for public safety/government entities.  Because incumbent broadcasters are not
required to complete relocation to other portions of the spectrum until December 31, 2006, we will calculate
the five year benchmark using January 1, 2007 as the starting date.
67.    Accordingly, each state license will be granted subject to the condition that the state certifies on
or before each applicable benchmark date (see below) that it is:
              providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to one-third of their population or
            territory by January 1, 2012, i.e., within five years of the date that incumbent
            broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum;"
              providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to two-thirds of their population
            or territory by January 1, 2017, i.e., within ten years of the date that incumbent
            broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum.
         We will deem a state "prepared to provide substantial service" if the licensee certifies that radio
       system has been approved and funded for implementation by the deadline date.
         If a licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the license is modified automatically to the
       frequencies and geographic areas where the state certifies that it is providing substantial
       service.
              Any recovered spectrum will revert to General Use.
              We clarify, however, that spectrum licensed to a state under a state license remains
            unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until the Commission's database reflects
            the parameters of the modified state license.
68.    We conclude that these construction and operation requirements constitute effective safeguards
and performance requirements for the efficient use of this spectrum.  However, we reserve the right to review
these requirements in the future if we determine that a reassessment is warranted to ensure that the radio
spectrum is used efficiently.
69.    Conforming Amendment to Section 90.179  Under Section 90.179 of our Rules, a licensee may
share its system with other entities that are eligible to hold a license for the same spectrum.  A station is shared
when persons not licensed for the station control it for their own purposes pursuant to the licensee's
permission.  In the Third Notice, we noted that if we decided to license individual states, we would need to
revise Section 90.179 to allow state licensees to authorize appropriate public safety agencies within the state
and its political subdivisions to use the spectrum for their own purposes pursuant to the state licensee's
authorization.
70.    The state, as licensee, will be responsible for assuring that the authorized facility is used only by
persons and for purposes consistent with Section 90.179.  For example, if the state, as licensee, shares a land
station on a non-profit, cost sharing basis, it must do so pursuant to a written agreement between the state and
each participant that is kept as part of the station records.  This amendment is necessary to provide state
licensees with the same operational flexibility that Section 90.179 now provides all other PLMR licensees.  By
comparison, we decline to adopt a "State Licensing" approach under which states   rather than regional
planning committees (RPCs)   would manage state, local, and Federal use of all or most of the 8.8 megahertz
of reserve spectrum.
                    a.   Technical Requirements
71.    State applicants and licensee will be subject to the general limits that govern geographic area
licenses including antenna structures and air navigation, international coordination, environmental
requirements, and quiet zones.  In addition, we will mirror our decision in the Commercial 700 MHz R&O and
adopt a field strength of 40 dBu/m to control harmful interference between state systems in the 746-764 MHz
and 776-794 MHz bands.  As we stated in that decision, we believe the field strength approach provides
established, objective criteria for controlling in-band interference, and gives licensees the ability to construct
and operate facilities in boundary areas so long as the limit is met.  We further believe that use of the field
strength procedure will satisfy the requirement in Section 337(d)(1) that the Commission establish "interference
limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block and service area."  Similarly to our decision in the Commercial
700 MHz R&O, we will permit adjoining states to agree to alternate field strengths at their common border.
               1.   700 MHz Band Reserve
72.    We are reserving the remaining 5.4 megahertz of wideband spectrum for future (mid term) needs
and future developments in broadband technologies.  We recognize that there was opposition to our retaining
any of the public safety 700 MHz band as reserve spectrum.  We believe, however, that whenever a large
amount of spectrum is made available in a new band for public safety, it is good spectrum management policy
to keep some spectrum in reserve for unforeseen needs.  In this case, public safety regional plans for the 700
MHz band have not been finalized and, in most cases, not even started.  As discussed earlier, some parties
asked for further study   NPSTC's Petition for Reconsideration requested locating a "reserve band" between
the narrowband and wideband channels to accommodate future needs; Powell's Petition for Reconsideration
also requested that we defer the planning of the wideband channels until further discussions could commence
on the development of a national HSD network; and FLEWUG requests that all 8.8 megahertz be held in
reserve pending further consideration by the NCC.  Thus, we conclude that holding some wideband spectrum
in reserve is a prudent course of action at this time.  Keeping a relatively small reserve (twenty-two percent of
the 700 MHz band) gives the Commission flexibility to "fine tune" the band plan in the future with the benefit
of experience that can only be gained after radio systems are deployed in this new band.
73.    Specifically, in the Third MO&O, we regrouped the reserve spectrum into four (2 pair) segments
of 1.35 megahertz each that are located between the narrowband and wideband segments.  This regrouping
offers improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time because the 5.4
megahertz of reserve spectrum is located between narrowband and wideband segments so we can accommodate
future needs for narrowband, wideband or broadband that may be identified through the planning process or
by advances in technology without impacting existing plans or licensees. Keeping a reserve that is grouped in
two pairs of 1.35 megahertz each also recognizes trends towards broadband technologies.  For example, the
108 wideband channels that we are reserving could accommodate needs such as exclusive high speed data,
additional interoperability spectrum, or hybrid commercial/private mobile system.  Therefore, we will retain
5.4 megahertz of spectrum as a public safety reserve.  Once the 700 MHz band planning process is complete,
we will review the status of a spectrum reserve.  Also, we would welcome any future suggestions the NCC may
have regarding this issue.
          A.   Protection of the GNSS from Second Harmonic Interference
74.    In the Third Notice, we proposed technical solutions to protect the GNSS global navigation
satellite systems, particularly the GLONASS.  We were concerned that second harmonic emissions from
public safety mobiles operating in the 794-806 MHz band (TV channels 68 and 69) may cause harmful
interference to aeronautical users of GLONASS receivers.  To protect this system and to ensure that
equipment operating in these bands would not cause radio interference to the GNSS, NTIA advocated applying
out-of-band emission limits for GNSS to all spurious emissions, including second harmonic emissions, and
being limited to:  (1) wideband emissions, -70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP); and
(2) narrowband emissions, -80 dBW/700 Hz.  We proposed to apply the emission limits requested by NTIA
only to the second harmonics to the GLONASS band.  However, we requested comment concerning the validity
of the assumptions that underlie NTIA's requested standard, such as the assumed separation distance of 30
meters between public safety mobile operations and GLONASS receivers.  In addition, we sought comment
on the impact of these proposed limits on the design of equipment for public safety use in the 700 MHz band.
We further noted that NTIA's standard is only necessary to protect  GNSS operations in the 1559-1605 MHz
band.  Therefore, we proposed to apply the traditional FCC standard (i.e., generally 43 + 10 log P) outside
the radionavigation satellite service (RNSS) frequency band.
               1.   Base/mobile Pairing ("Band Flipping")
75.    In the First Report and Order, we noted that manufacturers could design future public safety
equipment to operate in both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands.  In that context, we decided to designate the
higher 794-806 MHz band for mobile-to-base communications, due in part to its proximity to the adjacent 806-
824 MHz band that is designated for mobiles and/or portables as well.  FLEWUG has requested that we
amend the band plan for 794-806 MHz to allow only fixed, base-to-mobile communications.  In this way, the
possibility of transmitters operating from multiple and unknown locations is reduced and the problem is
confined to fixed stations only.  FLEWUG also states that its recommendation reduces the impact of the
problem with respect to the equipment modifications required to adhere to the emission limit criteria because
slight increases in weight or size in base stations would be manageable while similar changes to handheld
devices would be much more apparent and potentially a hindrance to public safety operations.  FLEWUG
argues that the designation of 794-806 MHz for mobile-to-base communications, rather than for base-to-mobile
communications, may exacerbate interference with the GNSS band at 1559-1605 MHz.
76.    Several commenters oppose FLEWUG's request because they believe that such redesignation of
the band plan would do little to avoid interference with GNSS, and that the traditional emission limits (i.e., 43
+ log P) should be sufficient.  Florida, APCO, Arizona and Motorola oppose FLEWUG's request because the
present band plan offers direct interoperability with existing mobile systems in the adjacent 806-824 MHz
band.  They also assert that FLEWUG's request would effectively eliminate the ability for mobiles and/or
portables to engage in "talk-around" communications between the 700 and 800 MHz bands.  Arizona
disagrees with FLEWUG and NTIA's recommendation to flip the band plan, noting that it would result in 700
MHz base stations only a few kHz from other 700 MHz base station receivers on primary sites.  Motorola
states that the potential interference relationship between 700 MHz public safety systems and GNSS is actually
quite limited because only a small portion of the public safety mobile allocation (i.e., 779.5-802.5 MHz) has
direct second harmonic relations with frequencies assigned to GLONASS.  It would therefore be unwise to
overlook the benefits of allowing mobile transmitters in the 794-806 MHz band.
77.    Motorola alleges that reversing the base and mobile allocations would require the establishment
of a guard band of at least one megahertz between the upper edge of the 794-806 MHz base band and the lower
edge of the existing 806-824 MHz mobile band.  Motorola also notes that establishing such a guard band
would further reduce the ability of the 700 MHz allocation to meet the immediate needs of public safety.
Additionally, Motorola states that reversing the plan would complicate the design of dual-band mobile receivers
by requiring manufacturers to further increase receiver bandwidth in order to accommodate talk-around in the
764-776 MHz band, which would further add to the cost of public safety equipment.
78.    After considering all the views, we decline to flip the band plan as suggested by FLEWUG and
NTIA.  Prohibiting use of the mobile transmitters in the 794-806 MHz base station allocation, as proposed by
FLEWUG, would affect the ability of public safety users to communicate unit-to-unit in talk-around mode.
Unit-to-unit operations are fundamental to public safety operations and critical to interoperability.  As noted
by Motorola, reversing the base and mobile allocations may also necessitate the establishment of a 1 MHz
guard band at the 806 MHz band edge, further reducing the ability of the 700 MHz allocation to meet the
immediate needs of public safety.  Moreover, the proposed band plan offers direct interoperability with existing
mobile systems in the adjacent 806-824 MHz band.  Flipping the band plan would result in the location of 700
MHz base stations with a separation of only a few kHz from other 700 MHz base station receivers on primary
sites.  We believe that the adopted mobile transmit/receive plan is optimal for public safety users because it
provides manufacturers the opportunity to easily broaden the bandwidth of mobile radios to provide
interoperability between 700 MHz and 800 MHz band radios.  By contrast, reversing the plan would
complicate the design of dual-band mobile receivers by requiring manufacturers to further increase receiver
bandwidth in order to accommodate talk-around in the 764-776 MHz band and would further add to the cost
of public safety equipment.
               1.   Emission Limits
79.    We are faced with dual Congressional obligations on this issue.  First, we must "protect the
integrity of the [GPS] frequency spectrum against interference and disruption."  Additionally, we are also
charged with making spectrum available for public safety use in the 746-806 MHz band.  Mindful of these
obligations, we proposed to adopt the emission limits presented by NTIA but sought comment to create a
thorough understanding of the need and ramifications of this standard on use of the 700 MHz band for public
safety.  Specifically, we must balance the needs of competing requirements of the spectrum.  We have
considered the comments and conclude that the limits proposed by NTIA provide the appropriate balance
between these two obligations.  Further, we note the similarity between the issues we confront here and those
in the Commercial 700 MHz R&O and believe that in the interest of consistency, we should follow the lead
previously established with regard to the treatment of GNSS/GPS.  Regarding these same issues, we expressed
our concern about critical safety-of-life applications of GPS, particularly those systems that will use GPS for
aeronautical radionavigation, and our desire to ensure that adopted rules do not adversely affect these
operations.  NTIA, which represents the positions of the Federal Government on spectrum management
matters, has suggested specific emission limits for equipment operating in this band that it believes will
sufficiently protect aeronautical radionavigation operations.  We agree with NTIA that the proposed emission
limits will "ensure that fixed and mobile equipment will not cause radio frequency interference to the GNSS
when those systems are used for precision approach and landing" and we adopt NTIA's recommendations.
Outside of the 1559-1610 MHz radionavigation satellite service (RNSS) band, our traditional standard (i.e.
generally 43 + 10 log P) will apply.
80.    Accordingly, using the rules established in the Commercial 700 MHz R&O as a guide, we adopt
the following limits:  for operations in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands, emissions in the band 1559-
1610 MHz shall be limited to  70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband
signals, and  80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth.  For the purpose of
equipment authorization, a transmitter shall be tested with an antenna that is representative of the type that will
be used with the equipment in normal operation.
81.    In making this determination, we note that the issue at hand is not only the protection of GPS and
GLONASS from interference but also the future international GNSS.  As to the adequacy of our proposed
protection scheme, commenters argued that our proposed standards were either too restrictive or too lenient
to protect GNSS operations.  Some commenters believe that imposition of the NTIA standards would seriously
inhibit the use of these channels by public safety entities.  They also believe that the concerns of those
supporting stricter standards are overstated.  Although many of these commenters endorse the establishment
of a special committee of technical experts to further study the issue, we believe the record we sought to
expand by way of the Third Notice has alleviated any need for such a committee.  However, we repeat our view
that we might consider longer-term solutions at a future date.  Conversely, other commenters adamantly argued
that the NTIA limits would devastate GLONASS, result in harmful interference to the GPS frequency band
and end the continuous viability of GPS and GLONASS.  Still other commenters, such as FLEWUG,
generally view NTIA's proposed emission standards, -70 dBW/MHz for wideband emissions and -80 dBW/700
Hz for narrowband emissions, as the most realistic.
82.    The current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards define GNSS as
containing components of both GPS and GLONASS in its final configuration.  Many commenters assert that
protection for GLONASS is of minimal importance since GPS is the dominant standard in the United States
and because only the public safety wideband channels have a direct, though limited, second harmonic
relationship with GLONASS.  We do not agree with this view.  As a member of ICAO and the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), the United States has made international commitments to provide protection
from interference to GLONASS in its final configuration.  These commitments are, in effect, treaty obligations
that we must coordinate into a common policy when confronted with interference issues such as the one before
us here.  Additionally, even though GLONASS has not yet fully develop to achieve extensive practical use, we
direct attention to the fact that the use of the 1559-1610 MHz RNSS band is evolving. We, therefore, are
adopting rules that provide for the future development of GNSS systems.
83.    With regard to aviation concerns, foreign flights are likely to use combined GPS and GLONASS
receivers since GNSS consists of both GPS and GLONASS components.  We believe that requiring foreign
aircraft to use GPS exclusively creates an undue burden and is inconsistent with the treaty obligations of the
United States.  NTIA notes that GNSS is an international system affecting aviation and marine entities and the
United States has international agreements and treaty obligations involving various components of GNSS.
Specifically, we must balance the needs of competing requirements of the spectrum.  In this case, we must
balance the needs of users of GNSS and future users of the 700 MHz band.  Contrary to the contentions of
many commenters, we cannot discount the effect that emissions may have on GLONASS simply because it is
not the favored system used in this country. Rather, the treaty obligations of the United States leave us with
little discretion and we must focus on the effect to GNSS generally because of its dual components, GPS and
GLONASS.  We conclude that our proposed emission limits will be sufficient to protect critical GNSS
operations, i.e., GPS, GLONASS, and the future components of GNSS.
84.    Further, we agree with NTIA that the proposed out of band emission limits will ensure that fixed
and mobile equipment will not cause radio frequency interference to the GNSS when those systems are used
for precision approach and landing.  With regard to the separation criteria of 30 meters, as we noted in the
Third Notice, the limits proposed by NTIA, including its assumption of a separation distance of 30 meters from
the GPS or GLONASS receiver for spurious or harmonic signals are consistent with the levels recommended
by the FAA.  The field data collection of PSWN and comments of FLEWUG support our conclusion that this
assumed separation distance is appropriate for public safety operations.
85.    The proposed  70 dBW/MHz wideband emission limit is consistent with the United States'
position in the ITU-R study group activities.  Our decision in this proceeding is also consistent with the
decisions adopted on this matter internationally.  Should future actions internationally result in conflicts
between the decision we adopt here and international positions, we could then consider those differences as part
of a separate, future proceeding, if appropriate.  To this end, we would encourage continued industry dialogue
so that if a consensus based on future data is reached, we can then entertain modifications.  Absent more actual
data, our decision is based on the recommendations to date.
          A.   Interoperability Below 512 MHz
86.    In the Third Notice, we tentatively concluded that locating interoperability channels in the
700 MHz and 800 MHz bands alone would not provide a comprehensive solution to nationwide
interoperability.  Citing the PSWAC Final Report, we noted that federal, state and local public safety agencies
use a total of ten radio bands, that range from 30 MHz to over 800 MHz.  To date, the ability to operate in
these bands with a single, commercial grade radio is complicated because their individual radio systems operate
in different frequency bands.  Consequently, communications between public safety agencies is limited.  This
inability to communicate hinders cooperation and coordination among public safety agencies on a day-to-day
basis.
87.    To address these obstacles, we proposed to establish nationwide interoperability channels below
512 MHz, thereby providing for the development and use of shared interoperability systems and the building
of gateways between technically incompatible federal, state, and local public safety systems.   Accordingly,
we made proposals and invited comment on interoperability channels in (1) the existing 150-174 MHz and 450-
512 MHz public safety bands, (2) the 138-144 MHz band, and (3) the VHF maritime band at 156-162 MHz.
We also sought comment on requiring every public safety mobile radio to have the capacity to transmit and
receive on at least one nationwide interoperability channel in the band in which it is operating.  Additionally,
we requested comment on whether it is necessary to establish a nationwide interoperability band below 512
MHz.
88.    Commenters agreed with our conclusion that separate interoperability channels are needed in the
Public Safety Pool below 512 MHz.  Specifically, commenters supported our proposal in the Third Notice
to designate specific VHF and UHF channels for interoperability.  Moreover, several comments stated that
our Third Notice proposals did not adequately address the need for interoperability channels below 512 MHz
and some commenters also complained about the relatively severe operational limitations that would apply to
some of the specific channels that we set forth in the Third Notice.  While in the Third Notice we sought
comment on the need for a separate interoperability band below 512 MHz and several commenters continued
to promote this solution, no other spectrum identified is readily available.  We believe the Rules adopted today
represent a practical step toward a comprehensive solution to the issue of interoperability below 512 MHz.
As described in detail below, we adopt specific channels within the existing public safety bands (150-174 MHz
and 450-512 MHz) resulting from the Refarming proceeding for nationwide interoperability.  We also designate
the three VHF channel pairs set-aside for public safety in the VHF maritime band (156-162 MHz), which are
located generally in the Midwest region of the country, for interoperability use.  For convenience, the following
table sets forth the specific channels below 512 MHz that we are designating exclusively for interoperability
purposes.
 Table of Public Safety Interoperability Channels Below 512 MHz
                         CHANNEL (MHz)
                             LABEL
                             NOTES
                     151.1375  base/mobile
                             VTAC 1
                     not available in PR/VI
                     154.4525  base/mobile
                             VTAC 2
                     not available in PR/VI
                     155.7525  base/mobile
                             VCALL
                     158.7375  base/mobile
                             VTAC 3
                     159.4725  base/mobile
                             VTAC 4
                       157.250    mobile
                     161.850    base/mobile
                             RTAC 1
                            RTAC 1a
                    VPC Ch. 25 (25 kHz pair)
                    Available in all 33 EAs
                       157.225    mobile
                     161.825    base/mobile
                             RTAC 2
                            RTAC 2a
                    VPC Ch. 84 (25 kHz pair)
                      Available in 22 EAs
                       157.275    mobile
                     161.875    base/mobile
                             RTAC 3
                            RTAC 3a
                    VPC Ch. 85 (25 kHz pair)
                      Available in 11 EAs
                     453.2125  base/mobile
                        458.2125  mobile
                             UCALLa
                             UCALL
                     453.4625  base/mobile
                        458.4625  mobile
                            UTAC 1a
                             UTAC 1
                     453.7125  base/mobile
                        458.7125  mobile
                            UTAC 2a
                             UTAC 2
                     453.8625  base/mobile
                        458.8625  mobile
                            UTAC 3a
                             UTAC 3
               1.   Interoperability Channels in the 150-174 & 450-512 MHz (Existing Public Safety
               Bands).
89.    In the Third Notice, we proposed to designate ten channels in the existing public safety bands
below 512 MHz for nationwide interoperability.  Several commenters supported this proposal, but voiced
concerns about adjacent channel assignments and bandwidth problems. NPSTC and Arizona noted that other
VHF and UHF spectrum could be reallocated nationwide, including the wideband paired channels in the 150-
160 and 450-460 MHz bands (Improved Mobile Telephone Service which is now obsolete due to cellular and
PCS).  APCO, Motorola and others note that the specific UHF channels identified in the Third Notice are 6.25
kHz wide channels which is inconsistent with the PSWAC recommendation of 12.5 kHz for interoperability
channels.
90.    Upon review of the comments, we adopt five VHF channels (five frequencies) and four UHF
channel pairs (eight frequencies) for interoperability purposes  one calling channel and four tactical channels
in the existing VHF public safety band at 150-174 MHz, and one calling and three tactical channel pairs in the
existing UHF public safety band at 450-512 MHz.  Although some commenters indicated that we should look
elsewhere (e.g., Part 22, Improved Mobile Telephone Service) for interoperability channels, the record before
us is insufficient to justify reallocating spectrum already allocated to other services.  Moreover, we believe that
designating channels in the existing public safety bands for interoperability is a practical and necessary step
in addressing the lack of interoperability considering that a substantial number of federal, state, and local public
safety agencies operate in these bands.  While we acknowledge the difficulties associated with adjacent channel
operations, which are discussed below, the advent of 12.5 kHz "offset" channels resulting from the Refarming
proceeding presents a significant opportunity to designate channels for nationwide interoperability purposes
that we should not overlook.  We realize our decisions may adversely impact existing licensees, however we
believe that the benefits of providing for interoperability in these bands outweigh any adverse impact.  We
believe our action facilitates additional interoperability capability with minimal impact to existing licensees.
Moreover, we received no comments opposing our proposal to designate interoperability channels in the public
safety bands below 512 MHz.
91.    As an initial matter, we adopt the five VHF channels 151.1375, 154.4525, 155.7525, 158.7375,
and 159.4725 MHz as set forth in the Third Notice.  These channels were recommended by the frequency
coordinators and generally supported by commenters.  Nevertheless, their use as interoperability channels
presents serious operational challenges.  As noted by several commenters, VHF channels are spaced 7.5 kHz
apart but operations are permitted up to 12.5 kHz, and this overlap increases the potential for adjacent channel
interference.  Generally, this adjacent channel interference is minimized through prudent sharing of these
channels during frequency coordination, e.g., attempting to keep adjacent-channel VHF transmitters separated
by ten miles.  However, such coordination is not possible on nationwide interoperability channels, which by
definition cannot be restricted geographically or operationally.  Thus, adjacent channel interference will be a
serious operational challenge for VHF interoperability channels.  Nonetheless, the need for additional
interoperability capability in the VHF band outweighs these operational challenges   some VHF
interoperability capability is better than no VHF interoperability capability.  Since this is a characteristic of
the VHF band and no alternate channels were suggested in comments, we conclude that these channels
represent a viable choice based on industry views.
92.    For the UHF band, we adopt four channel pairs for interoperability purposes: 453/458.2125,
453/458.4625, 453/458.7125, and 453/458.8625 MHz.  In the Third Notice, we proposed two UHF channel
pairs (four frequencies) and sought comments on another channel pair for nationwide interoperability
purposes.  Although several commenters supported designating UHF channels for interoperability, they also
noted that the specific channels identified in the Third Notice for interoperability are 6.25 kHz wide channels
which would be inconsistent with the PSWAC recommendation of 12.5 kHz for interoperability channels.  We
agree.  Relying on our experience with the five channel pairs designated at 800 MHz for interoperability, we
believe four channel pairs are an appropriate number to facilitate interoperability in the UHF band.   Based
on a search of our database the channels we adopt today represent the least encumbered 12.5 kHz UHF
channels.  Currently, there is a freeze on the licensing of new high power stations on the 12.5 kHz "offset"
channels in the 450 470 MHz band but the freeze on the filing of these applications in the 450-460 MHz band
is to be lifted on January 29, 2001.
93.    Because our decision affects not only those licensed on the interoperability frequencies but also
those on nearby channels operating with 12.5 kHz or 25 kHz equipment, we will provide a transition period
through January 1, 2005 for implementation.  Current licensees may continue to operate on these
interoperability channels indefinitely; however, after January 1, 2005, existing users that continue to operate
on these channels will do so on a secondary basis to interoperability uses.  Prior to January 1, 2005,
interoperability use will be permitted only on a secondary basis to existing users; that is, interoperability
transmissions can be made only when the channel is clear and on a non-interference basis.  This transition
period, we believe, will provide existing licensees with sufficient time and notice to become aware of any
potential effects on their particular operations by future interoperability use.  It also provides any critical public
safety operations with ample time to identify their options and determine the best course of action. We also note
that some public safety operations may be such that they could be suspended during emergency situations.
Specifically, an existing licensee could assign noncritical traffic to the interoperability channel and instruct its
employees to use other VHF channels whenever the interoperability channel is needed for interoperability
communication.  Or, an existing licensee may anticipate that it would be a part of any interoperability event
within its jurisdiction (licensed area), in which case it would use the interoperability channel only for
interoperability communication for the duration of the interoperability event or need.  We believe the adoption
of interoperability channels in these critical public safety bands   where the majority of public safety radio
systems operate today   will make significant interoperability improvements.
94.    Under our Rules, an entity must have a license to operate a base or control station on these
interoperability channels.  Mobile operation, however, is permitted on these channels without an individual
license (i.e., a blanket licensing approach).  Public safety licensees who are eligible to hold a Part 90 license,
or who are otherwise licensed under Part 90 of our Rules, can operate mobile units on these interoperability
channels without an individual license.  Additionally, as suggested in comments, we also will require, as of
January 1, 2005, every newly certified public safety mobile radio unit to have the capacity to transmit and
receive on at least one nationwide interoperability channel (i.e., the calling channel) in the band in which it is
operating.  For licensing and administration of these interoperability channels, we will rely on the four public
safety frequency coordinators.  We envision that the four coordinators would jointly develop an
interoperability plan regarding the management and nationwide use of these interoperability channels.  This
plan could be developed in concert with the group(s) tasked with administering the interoperability channels
in the 700 MHz band.  Additionally, we would expect the frequency coordinators to work with existing
licensees experiencing harmful interference to critical public safety operations to find suitable replacement
channels.  Finally, until general interoperability provisions can be made with Canada and Mexico,
interoperability operations within the Canadian and Mexican border areas will need to be coordinated on an
individual basis with these countries in the usual manner.
               1.   Interoperability Channels in the 138-144 MHz Band (NTIA/DOD Reallocation)
95.    We also noted in the Third Notice that NTIA identified three megahertz of 138-144 MHz band
to reallocate and auction as new telecommunications services by 2008 as required by the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997.  In response to the suggestion of the PSWAC Final Report, we sought comment on the feasibility of
using the 138-144 MHz band currently used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as a separate interoperability band.  However, in the "National Defense Authorization
Act of FY 2000," Congress reclaimed this spectrum for exclusive federal use, thus rendering the issue moot.
               1.   Interoperability in 156-162 MHz Band (VHF Maritime Band)
96.    In the Maritime Third Report and Order, we designated exclusively for public safety users two
25 kHz channel pairs (either Channels 25 and 84, or Channels 25 and 85) in the VHF 156-162 MHz maritime
band in each of the thirty-three inland VHF Public Coast areas (VPCs).  We set aside Channel 25
(157.250/161.850 MHz) for public safety in each of these areas.  However, because of incumbent licensees
(whose operations were grandfathered and continue to be protected), no other single channel was available in
all thirty-three areas.  Therefore, we set aside Channel 84 (157.225/161.825 MHz) in twenty-two of the areas
and Channel 85 (157.275/161.875 MHz) in the other eleven areas.  We then stated in the Maritime Third
Report and Order that the ultimate use for these reserved frequencies, and the procedures for licensing this
spectrum, would be decided as part of the public safety proceeding.
97.    In the Third Notice, we proposed to designate these channels for interoperability operations in each
of the thirty-three VPCs.  We also proposed to require public safety licensees to use these channels in
accordance with the rules, standards and procedures formerly found in section 90.283 of our rules and be
subject to coordination of these stations with Canada and Mexico in the same manner as public coast stations.
Commenters support the proposal, but note that while the reallocation will provide significant relief to some
areas of the country, it will provide only limited relief to the basic interoperability needs facing public safety
radio systems.  They further state that the proposal has extreme geographic restrictions and does not meet one
of the primary requirements for interoperability spectrum described in the PSWAC Report.  NPSTC therefore
believes these individual areas may benefit more by licensing these channels for operational rather than
interoperability use.
98.    We adopt the proposal to designate these frequencies for interoperability in the thirty-three inland
EAs.  We agree that this action is not a comprehensive, nationwide solution to the interoperability needs
facing the public safety community, it nonetheless helps to alleviate some of the need for interoperability
capabilities.  The channel pairs (channels 25, 84, and 85) will consist of 25 kHz channel pairs and will be
available exclusively for assignment to public safety entities but only in the thirty-three EAs listed in our Rules.
We are designating these channels as primarily for interoperability purposes, which means that interoperability
communication has primary status over noninteroperability communication, which is permissible when the
channels are not needed for interoperability use.
99.    Applicants will apply for channel pairs (depending on which permissible EA is involved) in
accordance with all relevant technical provisions under Part 90 of our Rules.  We also sought comments on
the appropriate power limit for these channels.  One of our concerns is that VHF public safety channels are
usually allowed to have maximum effective radiated power of 500 watts under Part 90 of our Rules.  Pursuant
to former Section 90.283 of our Rules, however, the public coast channels as well as those that shared these
channels under Part 90 were limited to a transmitter power of 50 watts.  No comments addressed this point.
Ideally, we would prefer to allow the public safety stations to use the same facilities and standards that we
adopted for the 700 MHz band and other Part 90 land mobile systems.  The public coast stations, which utilize
these channels, however, are limited to a transmitter output of 50 watts.  Consequently, we will limit the public
safety users to a transmitter output power of 50 watts.  This limitation will ensure proper protection to
grandfathered stations as well as public coast stations in adjoining regions.
     C.   PROCEDURAL MATTERS
101.   To better understand the nature of the Y2K problem  and the potential risks it posed to public
safety communications networks, we sought comment in the Third Notice on how best to ascertain the extent,
reach, and effectiveness of Y2K compliance initiatives undertaken by public safety entities.   We requested
information on at least three possible means to accomplish this goal and made no specific proposals.   Nine
comments and three reply comments addressing Y2K matters were filed in response to the Third Notice.  In
October 1999, in conjunction with the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council ("NRIC"), the
Commission and NRIC released its Y2K Communications Sector Report Supplements for Broadcast, Cable,
Satellite, and Emergency Communications.  We incorporated the information provided in response to our
request for information in the Third Notice into this supplement.  Accordingly, we are incorporating the
supplement into the record of WT Docket No. 96-86 and including a summary of the Y2K comments filed in
response to the Third Notice as Appendix E.
102.   Ex Parte Presentations.  The captioned proceeding is a permit-but-disclose notice and
comment rule making proceeding.  Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as
provided in Commission Rules.
103.   Paperwork Reduction Analysis.  This Third Report and Order contains modified information
collections, respectively.  As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission invites
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on
revision to the information collections contained in the Third Report and Order.  As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, public comments on the information collections contained in the
Third Report and Order are due thirty days after publication of the summary of the Third Report and Order
in the Federal Register.
104.   Comments on the modified information collections contained in the Third Report and Order
should address:  (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  These comments should
be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.  Furthermore, a copy of any such comments
should be submitted to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20503.
           Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
105.   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  604, the Commission has
prepared a Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of the rule changes
contained in the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order on small entities.  The Third Supplemental Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix A.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see
5 U.S.C.  604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact
of the rule changes contained in the Third Report and Order on small entities.  The Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is set forth in Appendix B.  The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
Center, will send a copy of this Third MO&O and Third Report and Order, including the Third Supplemental
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
     CVI. ORDERING CLAUSES
107.   Authority for issuance of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and
Order is contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.
108.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337 that Part 90 of
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 90, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix F, effective thirty days
after publication of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order in the Federal
Register.
109.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Third Report and Order, including the Supplemental Final and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  For further information, contact Peter J.
Daronco, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Policy and Rules
Branch at (202) 418-0680.
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary
                           APPENDIX A
    Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
              (Third Memorandum Opinion and Order)
     As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
("IRFA") was incorporated in Appendix A of the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Second Notice")
issued in this proceeding.  The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the Second
Notice, including comments on the IRFA.  No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.
Subsequently, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") was incorporated in Appendix A of the First
Report and Order issued in this proceeding.  A Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("First
SFRFA") was incorporated in Appendix A of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
("First MO&O") issued in this proceeding.  A Second Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
("Second SFRFA") was incorporated in Appendix A of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Second
MO&O") issued in this proceeding.  The Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("Third
SFRFA") contained in this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Third MO&O") supplements the
information contained in the FRFA, First SFRFA, and Second SFRFA and is limited to matters raised on
reconsideration or clarification with regard to the First Report and Order and addressed in this Third MO&O.
This Third SFRFA conforms to the RFA.
I.  Need for, and Objectives of, the Third MO&O
1    In this Third MO&O, we address the multiple Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed
in connection with the First Report and Order in this docket that established a band plan and adopted service
rules in the newly-reallocated public safety spectrum at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz ("the 700 MHz
band").  This Third MO&O presents our decisions in response to those various portions of the petitions that
address the:
               a.   band plan for the 700 MHz band, and
               b.   low power narrowband devices for on-scene communication.
2.     In the Third MO&O, we revise the band plan adopted in the First Report and Order to reposition
the location of the narrowband and wideband channel groups for the general use, interoperability, and reserve
spectrum.  We also modify the adopted narrowband general use channel plan by designating forty-eight
narrowband channels for low power use for on-scene communication.  These clarifications are needed in order
to promote efficient spectrum usage and flexibility.
II.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the FRFA.
3.     No comments were filed in direct response to the FRFA.
III.  Description and Estimate of Numbers of Small Entities Affected by Rule Amendment
4.     The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  The RFA generally defines
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and
"small governmental jurisdiction."  In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
"small business concern" under the Small Business Act.  A small business concern is one which:  (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").  A small organization is generally "any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."
Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.  "Small governmental
jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."  As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.  This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566,
or ninety-six  percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.  The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio
is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.  Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate
that 81,600 (ninety-one percent) are small entities.
5.     Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees.  As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical
services.  Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by 47 U.S.C.  337; there
are approximately 127,540 licensees within these services.  Non-Federal governmental entities as well as
private businesses are licensees for these services.  All governmental entities with populations of less than
50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.  The rule changes adopted in this Third MO&O could affect
public safety entities who wished to utilize frequencies in the low power pool for uses such as on-scene
firefighting communications and various other short-range communications systems which would be developed
for 700 MHz band equipment.
6.     Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers.  We anticipate that at least six radio equipment
manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding.  According to the SBA's regulations, a radio
and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that
manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have
fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small entities.
7.     Television Stations.  This proceeding will affect full service TV station licensees  (Channels 60-
69), TV translator facilities, and low power TV ("LPTV") stations.  The SBA defines a TV broadcasting
station that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.  TV broadcasting stations
consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by TV to the public, except cable
and other pay TV services.  Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other TV
stations.  Also included are establishments primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped
TV program materials.  Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped TV program materials
are classified under another SIC number.  There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992.
That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,551 operating TV broadcasting
stations in the Nation as of February 28, 1997.  For 1992 the number of TV stations that produced less than
$10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments, or approximately 77 percent of the 1,509 establishments.
There are currently 95 full service analog TV stations, either operating or with approved construction permits
on channels 60-69.
8.     In the DTV Proceeding, we adopted a Digital Television ("DTV") Table which provides only 15
allotments for digital television stations on channels 60-69 in the continental United States.  There are seven
DTV allotments in channels 60-69 outside the continental United States.  Thus, the rules will affect
approximately 117 TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered small businesses.
These estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based
do not include or aggregate revenues from non-TV affiliated companies.  We recognize that the rules may also
impact minority-owned and women-owned stations, some of which may be small entities.  In 1995, minorities
owned and controlled 37 (3.0 percent) of 1,221 commercial TV stations in the United States.  According to
the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27 (1.9 percent) of 1,342 commercial
and non-commercial TV stations in the United States.
9.     There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV stations.  Approximately 1,309 low
power TV and TV translator stations are on channels 60-69 which could be affected by policies in this proceeding.
The Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce
does not collect financial information on these broadcast facilities.  We will assume for present purposes, however,
that most of these broadcast facilities, including LPTV stations, could be classified as small businesses.  As indicated
earlier, approximately 77 percent of TV stations are designated under this analysis as potentially small businesses.
IV.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
10.    The only compliance requirement that is newly imposed by this Third MO&O is that we now require
applicants for channels which where once reserved and are now available for low power licensing to go through the
regional planning committee (RPC) process, including frequency coordination.  RPCs will be responsible for
determining the most appropriate low power application(s) on these channels and the frequency coordinators will
be responsible for providing appropriate interference protection.
V.  Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
Alternatives Considered
11.    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
12.    Channel plans  We appropriately decided to modify the narrowband and wideband interoperability
channeling plans to permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas.  This revision
lowers costs for public safety entities.  Thus, these rule changes will benefit all public safety entities, including
small entities.  On the other hand, denying these petitions was not a viable alternative because maintaining the
channel plan adopted in the First Report and Order would have increased costs for public safety entities,
including small entities, by precluding the use of combiners.  Additionally, our decision grouping the reserve
spectrum into four segments of 1.35 MHz each located between the narrowband and wideband segments offers
improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time.  These rule changes
will have future benefits for all public safety entities, including small entities.
13.    Low Power Channels  Our decision allocating channels nationwide for low power mobile
operations offers improved flexibility for the public safety community to meet specialized, on-scene
communication requirements.  Thus, these rule changes will benefit all public safety entities, including small
entities.  Moreover, designating the twenty-four pairs as low power channels nationwide will lower costs for
equipment manufacturers and public safety users, including small entities, as will our decision to exempt these
low power devices from the interoperability capability, digital modulation, and trunking requirements.  The
regional planning and frequency coordination process that we apply to the "regional" channels and the licensing
process that we apply to all of these channels are necessary to minimize interference.  We minimized burdens
by exempting the nationwide, itinerant channels from regional planning and frequency coordination.  This
exemption benefits all public safety entities including small entities, resulting in reduced costs and improved
operational flexibility to meet on-scene communication requirements.  We also note that about half of the new
low power channels were previously general use channels and thus already subject to regional planning,
frequency coordination, and licensing under the First Report and Order.  Other alternatives were not changing
the rule and/or requiring regional planning and frequency coordination for all of the low power channels.  Our
decision reflects a balance between the need to minimize interference and the need for operational flexibility.
14.    By establishing this low power designation, we ease the economic burden, of funding
communications systems in the new 700 MHz band, on public safety agencies, including small entities, that
forego purchasing more expensive high power equipment when less expensive low-power equipment meets their
short distance communications needs.  We also ease the burden on equipment manufacturers, including small
entities, because this low power designation provides flexibility to produce high-power equipment, low-power
equipment, or both.  Moreover, exempting this low power equipment from the interoperability capability
requirement will quicken the type certification process for manufacturers of this low power equipment.
     Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order,  including
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to SBREFA.  A copy
of the Third Report and Order including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) will
also be published in the Federal Register.  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Report
and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
                           APPENDIX B
             Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                    (Third Report and Order)
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(collectively referred to as "IRFAs") were incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Public Safety
Notice"), the Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Second Notice") and the Third Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Third Notice) in Docket 96-86.  The Commission sought written public comments on the
proposals in the Public Safety Notice, Second Notice, and Third Notice, including comments on the IRFAs.
No comments on the IRFAs were received.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") conforms
to the RFA.
     I.   Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order
1    In the Third Report and Order portion of this combined item, we address technical, designation and
licensing issues for the spectrum that we reserved in the First Report and Order to be "subject to the Third
Notice."  In addition, we adopt technical criteria for 700 MHz band operations to protect satellite-based global
navigation systems ("GNSS") from harmful interference and establish measures to promote interoperability
on public safety channels below 512 MHz.  These are crucial developmental steps towards the flexible
regulatory framework needed to meet vital current and future public safety communications needs.
     II.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFAs.
3.     Based on the comments submitted generally by small entities, the Commission found that the rules
we proposed to adopt in this proceeding may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.  Therefore, the IRFAs solicited comments on alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize
the impact on small entities consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.  No comments were submitted
directly in response to the IRFAs; however, as described in Section V, we have taken into account all general
comments received which addressed the impact on small entities.
     IV.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply
5.     The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."  In addition, the term "small business"
has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.  A small business
concern is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.  A small organization is generally "any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."  Nationwide, as
of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.  "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally
means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than 50,000."  As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the
United States.  This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six
percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.  The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately
accurate for all governmental entities.  Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600
(ninety-one percent) are small entities.
6.     Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees.  As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical
services.  Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by 47 U.S.C.  337; there are
approximately 127,540 licensees within these services.  Non-Federal governmental entities as well as private
businesses are licensees for these services.  All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall
within the definition of a small entity.  The rule changes adopted in this Third MO&O could affect public
safety entities who wished to utilize frequencies in the low power pool for uses such as on-scene firefighting
communications and various other short-range communications systems which would be developed for 700
MHz band equipment.
7.     Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers.  We anticipate that at least six radio equipment
manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding.  According to the SBA's regulations, a radio
and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that
manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have
fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small entities.
8.     Television Stations.  This proceeding will affect full service TV station licensees  (Channels 60-
69), TV translator facilities, and low power TV (LPTV) stations.  The SBA defines a TV broadcasting station
that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business.  TV broadcasting stations consist
of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by TV to the public, except cable and
other pay TV services.  Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other TV
stations.  Also included are establishments primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped
TV program materials.  Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped TV program materials
are classified under another SIC number.
9.     There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992.  That number has remained fairly
constant as indicated by the approximately 1,551 operating TV broadcasting stations in the Nation as of
February 28, 1997.  For 1992 the number of TV stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue
was 1,155 establishments, or approximately 77 percent of the 1,509 establishments.  There are currently 95
full service analog TV stations, either operating or with approved construction permits on channels 60-69.
In the DTV Proceeding, we adopted a Digital Television ("DTV") Table which provides only 15 allotments
for DTV stations on channels 60-69 in the continental United States.  There are seven DTV allotments in
channels 60-69 outside the continental United States.  Thus, the rules will affect approximately 117 TV
stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered small businesses.  These estimates may
overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not include or
aggregate revenues from non-TV affiliated companies.  We recognize that the rules may also impact minority-
owned and women-owned stations, some of which may be small entities.  In 1995, minorities owned and
controlled 37 (3.0 percent) of 1,221 commercial TV stations in the United States.  According to the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27 (1.9 percent) of 1,342 commercial and non-
commercial TV stations in the United States.
10.    There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV stations.  Approximately 1,309
low power TV and TV translator stations are on channels 60-69 which could be affected by policies +in this
proceeding. The Commission does not collect financial information of any broadcast facility and the
Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these broadcast facilities.  We will assume
for present purposes, however, that most of these broadcast facilities, including LPTV stations, could be
classified as small businesses.  As indicated earlier, approximately 77 percent of TV stations are designated
under this analysis as potentially small businesses.  Given this, LPTV and TV translator stations would not
likely have revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as small businesses.
     XI.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
12.    This Third Report and Order adopts some rules that will entail additional compliance requirements.
These three additional requirements may have an effect on small entities.  First, we adopt additional technical criteria
for 700 MHz band operations.  These new requirements are enacted in order to protect satellite-based global
navigation systems from harmful interference.  Although this requirement may result in increases in manufacturing
costs, including for small manufacturing entities, and may result in higher equipment costs, including for small
entities, this modification is essential due to safety concerns related to GNSS operations.  Second, we establish
measures to promote interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz.  After January 1, 2005, applications
for equipment certification will only be granted for mobile and portable transmitters operating on public safety
frequencies in the 150-174 MHz and/or 450-470 MHz bands that are capable of operating on at least one nationwide
public safety interoperability channel designated in the band(s) in which the equipment operates.  Although this
requirement may result in increases in manufacturing costs, including for small manufacturing entities, and may
result in higher equipment costs, including for small entities, this modification is essential to improve interoperability
capabilities in existing public safety bands for public safety entities, including small entities, that operate in these
bands.  Lastly, we also require applicants for interoperability channels designated in the 156-162 MHz band (in
thirty-three inland VHF public coast areas (VPC)) to complete the frequency coordination process.  This process
requires applicants to pay fees to frequency coordinators.  These fees are generally based on the number of sites,
frequencies, and complexity of the coordination process.  The adoption of these rules is crucial in order to minimize
the potential for interference among the varied users of these channels.
     XIII.     Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
     Alternatives Considered
14.    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
15.    State License  We designate 2.4 MHz of the 700 MHz band for licensing directly to each state.
The rules we adopt will preclude all non-state entities from being licensed for the designated state license
frequencies.  Most commenters agreed that licensing states for this amount of spectrum (for state agency use)
is reasonable.  We also include provisions to ensure that this spectrum will become available for "general use"
if a given state either (1) declines to apply for a state license or (2) fails to provide or be prepared to provide
"substantial service" by certain benchmark dates. Additionally, we amend Section 90.179 to allow states to share
the use of the 2.4 MHz of spectrum with local and other public safety entities, which removes an impediment
to small entities accessing this spectrum under sharing agreements with states.  We considered a variety of
alternative approaches for the use and licensing of the reserve spectrum.  We declined to adopt an alternative
"State Licensing" approach under which states   rather than regional planning committees   would manage
state, local, and Federal use of all or most of the 8.8 MHz of spectrum reserved subject to the Third Notice.
While there were no comments specifically responding to the IRFAs, we considered numerous comments that
raised the concern that licensing states for the entire amount would designate the spectrum in a manner
deleterious to small entities.  Accordingly, we designated an appropriate amount of spectrum for state use
instead of designating all of the reserve spectrum to manage.  We also believe our decision to allocate the same
2.4 MHz nationwide will benefit small entities because they will not face the possibility of interference on a
variety of frequencies from their parent state as well as from adjoining states.
16.    GNSS Protection Criteria  The technical solutions we adopt to protect certain global navigation satellite
systems ("GNSS") will impact all manufacturers of equipment that operates in the 700 MHz public safety band.
This includes even small manufacturing entities.  However, as discussed in the Third Report and Order, these limits
are necessary to protect GNSS operations, including Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems and Global
Positioning System in accordance with international requirements.  Moreover, Congress directed the Commission
to "protect the integrity of the [GPS] frequency spectrum against interference and disruption."  Nevertheless,
we have attempted to minimize, to the extent possible, the effect of these additional technical requirements.
17.    Interoperability below 512 MHz  We establish measures to promote interoperability on public safety
channels below 512 MHz by designating specific channels in each band for nationwide interoperability purposes
We did this because the record demonstrated the need for improved interoperability capabilities below 512
MHz.  This designation requires that existing licensees on these channels operate on a secondary basis to
interoperability communication.  In order to minimize the impact of these rules, we "grandfathered" these
licensees on a secondary basis only to interoperability communication rather than ordering them to vacate the
channels or use them exclusively for interoperability purposes.  We also provide these licensees a transition
period, until January 1, 2005.  We selected the "least licensed channels" in each band to minimize the economic
impact arising from the need to designate interoperability channels in these existing public safety bands.
Additionally, after January 1, 2005, applications for equipment certification will only be granted for mobile and
portable transmitters operating on public safety frequencies in these bands that are capable of operating on at least
one nationwide public safety interoperability channel designated in the band(s) in which the equipment operates.  We
provide a similar transition period for equipment manufacturers in order to minimize the impact of these rules.
This transition period will allow small manufacturing entities, in particular, an opportunity to plan for this new
requirement.  The alternative of not adopting this interoperability capability requirement was not acceptable
because of the need to improve public safety interoperability below 512 MHz.  Lastly, we also require applicants
for interoperability channels designated in the 156-162 MHz band (in thirty-three inland VHF public coast areas
(VPC)) to complete the frequency coordination and licensing process.  We briefly considered the alternative of not
requiring frequency coordination for these channels.  This was unacceptable because of the potential for
interference among the varied users of these channels.
18.    As discussed in the Third Report and Order, we note that one reason for establishing measures to
promote interoperability below 512 MHz is to assist public safety entities, including small entities, that cannot
afford to or do not want to purchase equipment in the new 700 MHz public safety band, wherein 2.6 megahertz
of spectrum is designated for nationwide interoperability.  We also attempted to minimize burdens on public
safety entities, including small entities, by not requiring that existing public safety licensees apply-for and be
licensed to operate mobile and portable transmitters on the nationwide interoperability channels in the existing
public safety bands below 470 MHz.
     Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of the Third Memorandum Opinion and
Order, including the Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to SBREFA.  A copy of the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order including the Third
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order,
including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
                           APPENDIX C
                        List of Parties
              (Third Memorandum Opinion and Order)
The following is a list of parties filing petitions and responsive pleadings in response to the First
Report and Order in The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT
Docket No. 96-86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 152,
164 228 (1998).
Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification were filed by:
 1.  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
     Forestry Conservation Communications Association,
     International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,
     International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
     International Municipal Signal Association, and
     National Association of State Foresters  ("AASHTO")
 2.  American National Standards Institute ("ANSI")
 3.  Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. ("APCO")
 4.  Dataradio Group of Companies ("Dataradio")
 5.  Ericsson, Inc. ("Ericsson")
 6.  Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group ("FLEWUG")
 7.  King Communications U.S.A. Inc. ("King")
 8.  Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")
 9.  National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC")
10.  New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation ("NYSTEC")
11.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("Pennsylvania")
12.  John Powell ("Powell")
13.  Project 25 Steering Committee ("Project 25")
14.  Safety Tech Industries ("STI")
15.  State of California ("California")
16.  State of Florida ("Florida")
17.  Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA")
Oppositions and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration were filed by:
 1.  AASHTO
 2.  APCO
 3.  API
 4.  California
 5.  Dataradio
 6.  Ericsson
 7.  Florida
 8.  Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minnesota DOT)
 9.  Motorola
10. Pennsylvania
11.  STI
12.  UTC, The Telecommunications Association ("UTC")
                      APPENDIX C (cont'd)
Comments/Reply Comments on First Report and Order Issues were filed by:
 1.  APCO Canada ("APCO Canada")
 2.  Daniels Electronics Ltd. ("Daniels")
 3.  Simoco International Limited ("Simoco")
 4.  Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR")
 5.  DuPage Public Safety Communications ("DuPage")
 6.  Illinois Chapter of APCO ("Illinois APCO")
 7.  Northwest Central Dispatch System ("NWCDS")
 8.  City of Chicago OEC ("Chicago")
 9.  State of Nebraska ("Nebraska")
10. Elk Grove Village Fire Department ("Elk Grove")                           APPENDIX D
                       List of Commenters
                    (Third Report and Order)
The following is a list of parties filing comments and reply comments in response to the Third Notice
of Proposed Rule Making in The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for
Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010,
WT Docket No. 96-86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 152,
228 246 (1998).
Comments
     Air Travelers Association, American Airlines, The General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Outreach,
     Stanford University (The GPS Research Program), the U.S. GPS Industry Council, and United
     Airlines (collectively, "GPS Commenters")
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO"), Forestry Conservation
     Communications Association ("FCCA"), International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. ("IAFC"),
     International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ("IAFWA"), International Municipal
     Signal Association ("IMSA"), and National Association of State Foresters ("NASF") (collectively,
     "Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al.")
     American Petroleum Institute (API)
Association of Public safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO)
Vanu G. Bose (Bose)
State of California (California)
Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)
State of Florida (Florida)
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)
National League of Cities and the City and County of San Francisco (collectively, "Cities")
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWN)
Region 20 800 MHz Public Safety Review Committee
     Legislative/Regulatory Affairs Committee (Region 20)
State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation (Tennessee DOT)
Dr. Michael C. Trahos, D.O., NCE, CET (Trahos)
UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Information Technology
     (Virginia Dept. of Info Technology) (Late or Ex Parte)
State of Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
Reply Comments
Airtouch Communications, Inc., Iridium LLC, Iridium U.S., L.P.,
     L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P.
     Air Travelers Association, American Airlines, The General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Outreach,
     Stanford University (The GPS Research Program), the U.S. GPS Industry Council, and United
     Airlines (collectively, "GPS Commenters")
     American Petroleum Institute (API)
State of Arizona (Arizona)
Association of Public safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO)
State of California (California)
Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Coast Guard(NOAA/USCG)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWN)
Region VI Northern California NPSCPAC Review and Revision Committee (Region 6)
Dr. Michael C. Trahos, D.O., NCE, CET (Trahos)
UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)                           APPENDIX E
            Summary of Y2K Comments to Third Notice
1    APCO states that some of the procedures we presented are unlikely to be effective and could add
unnecessary burdens on public safety communications personnel.  APCO argues that: (1) RPCs are not the
appropriate vehicle to gather this information because most 800 MHz RPC members will also be part of the
700 MHz RPC process and will soon be engrossed in that activity, leaving little or no time for additional
responsibilities; (2) RPCs do not have the funding to undertake such substantial information gathering and
reporting activities; (3) 800 MHz RPCs will only reach a small percentage of public safety agencies, as the
majority of state and local governments are not licensed in the 800 MHz band and; (4) local government
personnel involved in Y2K compliance will be in information technology departments generally separate from
agencies with radio communications responsibility.  FLEWUG agrees with APCO, stating that trying to collect
information through the existing 800 MHz RPCs will only yield information on systems operating at 800 MHz,
and a more comprehensive approach is needed.  FLEWUG adds that 800 MHz RPCs could operate in region
as a forum for identifying problems and solutions.
2.     California states that unlike our oversight on how common carriers provide service to their
customers, we have no responsibility in law, regulation, or tradition on how public safety communications
systems are operated.  The Y2K problem is not an issue of how the radio spectrum is utilized, but rather is an
issue of how public safety systems will be impacted operationally by software failures of the equipment it uses.
California indicates that most of the equipment potentially affected is not radio equipment for which we might
claim some peripheral responsibility, but rather is associated equipment such as dispatch consoles, computer-
aided dispatch systems, logging recorders, and other devices for which we have claimed no historical interest.
3.     FLEWUG states that it supports the need for additional information regarding Y2K preparedness
of public safety radio systems and encourages us to pursue such a course of action.  FLEWUG indicates that
it perceives Y2K as having both a computer software and firmware problem and a security problem.
Accordingly, FLEWUG states that contingency plans and other security measures should be put in place to
minimize risks posed by the Y2K problem to public safety radio systems.  FLEWUG thus urges the
implementation of sufficient safeguards to ensure system-specific information is not revealed if we choose to
collect information regarding the Y2K problem.  FLEWUG also believes frequency coordinators provide
convenient collection points for information, and collecting information through the frequency coordinators
instead of from the licensees directly might be more efficient.  FLEWUG asserts that if frequency coordinators
collect such information, we should ensure they do not try to charge additional fees to their public safety
customers or raise fees for coordination services because the public safety community should not realize fee
increases due to Y2K data collection efforts.  FLEWUG contends that another option would be for the
Commission to survey all public safety agencies, with the survey structured to yield statistically significant
results to ascertain both the current state of Y2K readiness and the progress and range of compliance
initiatives.  The information sought likely could be collected via, e.g., a short two-page survey, but any survey
must be completed quickly and with a sufficient response rate from the community, given the imminent nature
of the year 2000 problem.
4.     Florida states that within its state government, the effort to address the Y2K problem has been
ongoing for several years.  Florida expresses doubt that the RPCs or frequency coordinators will be able to
provide any substantial information on Y2K compliance among public safety agencies.
5.     IACP states that Y2K efforts are primarily a local, state, and federal public safety agency issue
and that our primary function should only be to alert these agencies to potential Y2K communications related
problems.  IACP also does not believe it is appropriate to burden either the RPCs or the Public Safety
coordinators with Y2K responsibilities because neither is funded or expertly staffed to provide this service.
IACP believes that our most effective action would be a directive to each licensee detailing the Y2K problem
in simple, understandable terms and providing a list of resources for the licensee to use.  PSWN agrees with
IACP that it is not appropriate to burden either the RPCs or the public safety coordinators with Y2K
responsibilities.
6.     NPSTC states that Y2K will impact many computer aided dispatch systems and that trunked radio
systems also may be affected.  Additionally, NPSTC believes that the Global Position System ("GPS")
equipment used in automatic vehicle location and other high technology systems also may experience date/time
problems.  NPSTC also states that it is difficult to visualize how this serious problem can be addressed within
the scope of this proceeding, particularly considering the time element involved.  NPSTC contends that direct
notices from the Commission to every licensee would carry more weight and reach more Public Safety agencies
than any other means.  NPSTC further states that the Commission's notices should contain specific information
regarding recognition of the problem, how it might affect Public Safety equipment and systems, and Internet
web sites where further information may be obtained.  Joint Comments were filed by NPSTC members;
AASHTO, FCCA, IAFC, IAFWA, IMSA and NASF ("Joint Commenters") to "supplement" NPSTC's
comments.  As for our suggestion that frequency coordinators could provide Y2K notification, NPSTC
observes that the coordinators generally are in contact with public safety agencies only during the time of the
coordination process.  The Joint Commenters add that while there might be an organizational element regarding
the appropriateness of the frequency coordinators serving as a conduit for Y2K information, i.e., the
coordinators generally deal with communications system management personnel.  However, in many
organizations, Y2K issues are administered by a management information department, which might be part of
a different branch within the public safety service or even a different branch of the broader governmental entity
than those responsible for communications services.
7.     Cities state that San Francisco's departments are currently engaged in efforts to seek Y2K
compliance from vendors.  The Cities recommend that we obtain detailed information on Y2K compliance
efforts directly from individual licensees.  The Cities also suggest that we assist licensees by requiring
equipment manufacturers to provide more comprehensive information regarding their efforts to resolve potential
Y2K problems with their products.  To assist local governments and licensees in obtaining uniform results, The
Cities state that we should also formulate criteria for testing procedures and set standards for defining "Year
2000 compliance" as it relates to telecommunications technologies.  Opposition to this suggestion was
expressed by Motorola.
8.     PSWN states that there are likely to be a number of public safety radio systems with Y2K
problems because the average age of public safety systems is approximately ten years.  Thus, PSWN states
that it is advisable for us to attempt to ascertain the extent of the problem and degree of readiness.  PSWN adds
that the data collection approaches we suggested would be overly burdensome (especially on frequency
coordinators and RPCs) and would establish a precedent  for coupling other issues with spectrum management.
PSWN suggests that we issue a short, two page, statistical survey, perhaps using cover letters or other
introductory materials from organizations and associations well known and regarded by the community to
improve the likelihood of a sufficient response.
9.     Motorola views the Y2K problem as an important business issue that can affect all parts of its
business as well as its suppliers and customers. Accordingly, it has engaged all Motorola business units to
identify and address Y2K issues.  From a practical perspective, Motorola states that it is unlikely that we can,
beginning in the middle of the first quarter of 1999, propose, hear comments on, and develop regulation which
will address the Y2K problem with sufficient speed to have any actual effect before the year 2000 arrives.
Motorola avers that market forces are appropriately encouraging manufacturers to address the Y2K readiness
of their equipment, and that we are taking the appropriate route by fostering an awareness of the Y2K issue
and by promoting dialog between manufacturers and users of equipment.  Motorola urges us to continue in this
role and to eschew suggestions of regulation in this area.                           APPENDIX F
                          Final Rules
              Third Memorandum Opinion and Order
                              and
                    Third Report and Order
Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
  2. Section 90.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b), to read as follows:
 90.1  Basis and purpose.
*  *  *  *  *
     (b)  Purpose.  This part states the conditions under which radio communications systems may be
licensed and used in the Public Safety, Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and Radiolocation Radio Services.
These rules do not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States.
*  *  *  *  *
  3. Section 90.7 is amended by adding definitions for Interoperability and State to read as follows:
 90.7  Definitions
* * * * *
     Interoperability.  An essential communication link within public safety and public service wireless
communications systems which permits units from two or more different entities to interact with one
another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable
results.
* * * * *
     State.  Any of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
* * * * *
  4. Section 90.20 is amended by revising the numbers in the "Limitations" column for 53 of the existing
  entries in the table in paragraph (c)(3), and by adding new paragraphs (d)(80), (81), (82), and (83), and
  by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
 90.20  Public Safety Pool.
*  *  *  *  *
     (c)  *  *  *
       (3)     *  *  *
     PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE
Frequency or band
Class of station(s)
Limitations
Coordinator
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
151.130
151.1375
151.145
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
28, 81.
27, 28, 80.
28, 81.
PH
PH
PO
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
154.445
154.4525
 ..do
 ..do
28, 81.
27, 28, 80.
PF
PF
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
155.745
155.7525
155.760
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
27, 80, 83.
81.
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
158.730
158.7375
158.745
 ..do
 ..do
Base or mobile
81.
27, 80.
81.
PP
PP
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
159.465
159.4725
 ..do
 ..do
81.
27, 80.
PO
PO
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
453.200
453.20625
453.2125
453.21875
453.225
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80, 83.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
453.450
453.45625
453.4625
453.46875
453.475
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
453.700
453.70625
453.7125
453.71875
453.725
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
453.850
453.85625
453.8625
453.86875
453.875
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
458.200
458.20625
458.2125
458.21875
458.225
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80, 83.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
458.450
458.45625
458.4625
458.46875
458.475
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
458.700
458.70625
458.7125
458.71875
458.725
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
458.850
458.85625
458.8625
458.86875
458.875
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
 ..do
81.
44, 82.
27, 80.
44, 82.
81.
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
     (d)  *  *  *
     (80)  After [effective date] this frequency is available primarily for public safety interoperability
     only communications.  Stations licensed prior to [effective date] may continue to use this
     frequency on a co primary basis until January 1, 2005.  After January 1, 2005, all operations will
     be secondary to co channel interoperability communications.
     (81)  After [effective date] new stations will only be licensed with an authorized bandwidth not to
     exceed 11.25 kHz.  Licensees authorized prior to [effective date] may continue to use bandwidths
     wider than 11.25 kHz on a co primary basis until January 1, 2005.  After January 1, 2005, all
     stations operating with an authorized bandwidth greater than 11.25 kHz will be secondary to
     adjacent channel interoperability operations.
     (82)  This frequency is reserved for assignment only in support of, and on a secondary basis to,
     nationwide interoperability use.
     (83)  This interoperability frequency is dedicated for the express purpose of nationwide
     interoperability calling.
*  *  *  *  *
     (g)  Former public correspondence working channels in the maritime VHF (156-162 MHz) band
allocated for public safety use in 33 inland Economic Areas.
     (1)  We define service areas in the marine VHF (156-162 MHz) band by forty two geographic
areas called VHF Public Coast Service Areas (VPCSAs).  See  80.371(c)(1)(ii) of this chapter (Public
correspondence frequencies).  VPCSAs are based on, and composed of one or more of, the U.S.
Department of Commerce's 172 Economic Areas (EAs).  See 60 Fed Reg. 13114 (Mar. 10, 1995).  You
may inspect and copy maps of the EAs and VPCSAs at the FCC Reference Center, Room CY A-257, 445
12th St., S.W., Washington, DC 20554.  These maps and data are also available on the FCC website at
www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/.  We number public correspondence channels in the maritime VHF
(156-162 MHz) band as channels 24 to 28 and channels 84 to 88.  Each channel number represents a
channel pair.  See  80.371(c) of this chapter.
     (2)  We allocated two contiguous 25 kHz public correspondence channels in the maritime VHF
(156-162 MHz) band for public safety use in 33 VPCSAs that are not near major waterways.  These 33
VPCSAs are located in an inland region stretching from the western Great Plains to eastern California and
Oregon.  Each of these 33 inland VPCSAs corresponds to a single EA.  Channel pairs 25, 84, and 85 are
paired 25 kHz bandwidth channels as set forth in Table A below.  In each of the 33 inland VPCSAs/EAs
listed in Table B below, two of these three channel pairs are allocated for public safety use by entities
eligible for licensing under paragraph (a) of this section.
Table A - List of Channel Numbers and Corresponding Center Frequencies, and Certified Coordinators
Channel Number
Mobile Station Transmit
Center Frequency in MHz
Base Station Transmit
Center Frequency in MHz
Coordinator
25
157.250
161.850
PX
84
157.225
161.825
PX
85
157.275
161.875
PX
Table B - List of Channels Allocated for Public Safety Use in 33 Inland VPCSAs/EAs
VHF Public Coast
Service Area
Name
Economic Area
Public Safety
Channel Pairs
10
Grand Forks
110
25, 84
11
Minot
111
25, 84
12
Bismarck
112
25, 84
13
Aberdeen
114
25, 84
14
Rapid City
115
25, 84
15
North Platte
121
25, 84
16
Western Oklahoma
126
25, 85
17
Abilene
128
25, 85
18
San Angelo
129
25, 85
19
Odessa-Midland
135
25, 85
20
Hobbs
136
25, 85
21
Lubbock
137
25, 85
22
Amarillo
138
25, 85
23
Santa Fe
139
25, 84
24
Pueblo
140
25, 84
25
Denver-Boulder-Greeley
141
25, 84
26
Scottsbluff
142
25, 84
27
Casper
143
25, 84
28
Billings
144
25, 84
29
Great Falls
145
25, 84
30
Missoula
146
25, 84
31
Idaho Falls
148
25, 85
32
Twin Falls
149
25, 85
33
Boise City
150
25, 84
34
Reno
151
25, 84
35
Salt Lake City-Ogden
152
25, 85
36
Las Vegas
153
25, 84
37
Flagstaff
154
25, 84
38
Farmington
155
25, 84
39
Albuquerque
156
25, 84
40
El Paso
157
25, 85
41
Phoenix-Mesa
158
25, 84
42
Tucson
159
25, 84
     (3)  The channels pairs set forth in Table B above are designated primarily for the purpose of
interoperability communication.
     (4 )  Channel pairs 25, 84, and 85 as listed in Table B above were formerly allocated and assigned
(under  80.371(c) (1997) of this chapter) as public correspondence working channels in the maritime VHF
156-162 MHz band; these channels were also shared (under former  90.283 (1997) of this chapter) with
private land radio mobile stations including grandfathered public safety licensees).  Thus, there are
grandfathered licensees nationwide (maritime and private land mobile radio stations, including by rule
waiver) operating on these channels both inside and outside of the 33 EAs listed in Table B above.
     (5)  All applicants and licensees under this paragraph must comply with the relevant technical
sections under this part unless otherwise stated in this paragraph (g) using the following standards and
procedures:
     (i)  Provide evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with  90.175.  Public safety
coordinators except the Special Emergency Coordinator are certified to coordinate applications for the
channels pairs set forth in Table B above (i.e., letter symbol PX under paragraph (c)(2) of this section).
     (ii)  Station power, as measured at the output terminals of the transmitter, must not exceed
50 Watts for base stations and 20 Watts for mobile stations, except in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (vi).  Antenna height (HAAT) must not exceed 122 meters (400 feet) for base stations and
4.5 meters (15 feet) for mobile stations, except in accordance with paragraph (vi).  Such base and mobile
channels shall not be operated on board aircraft in flight.
     (iii)  Frequency protection must be provided to other stations in accordance with the following
guidelines for each channel and for each area and adjacent area:
     (A)  Protect coast stations licensed prior to July 6, 1998, by the required separations shown in
Table C below.
     (B)  Protect stations described in paragraph(g)(4), by frequency coordination in accordance with
 90.175 of this part.
     (C)  Protect public safety stations granted under this paragraph (g), by frequency coordination in
accordance with  90.175 of this part.
     (D)  Where the Public Safety designated channel is not a Public Safety designated channel in an
adjacent EA:  Applicants shall engineer base stations such that the maximum signal strength at the
boundary of the adjacent EA does not exceed 5 dBmV/m.
     (iv)  The following table, along with the antenna height (HAAT) and power (ERP), must be used to
determine the minimum separation required between proposed base stations and  co-channel public coast
stations licensed prior to July 6, 1998 under Part 80 of this chapter.  Applicants whose exact ERP or
HAAT are not reflected in the table must use the next highest figure shown.
Table C - Required Separation in Kilometers (Miles) of Base Station From Public Coast Stations
Base Station Characteristics
HAAT
ERP (watts)
Meters (feet)
400
300
200
100
50
15 (50)
138 (86)
135 (84)
129 (80)
129 (80)
116 (72)
30 (100) . . . .
154 (96)
151 (94)
145 (90)
137 (85)
130 (81)
61 (200) . . . .
166 (103)
167 (104)
161 (100)
153 (95)
145 (90)
122 (400)  . . .
187 (116)
177 (110)
183 (114)
169 (105)
159 (99)
     (v)  In the event of interference, the Commission may require, without a hearing, licensees of base
stations authorized under this section that are located within 241 kilometers (150 miles) of a co-channel
public coast, I/LT, or grandfathered public safety station licensed prior to July 6, 1998, or an international
border, to reduce power, decrease antenna height, and/or install directional antennas.  Mobile stations must
be operated only within radio range of their associated base station.
     (vi)  Applicants seeking to be licensed for stations exceeding the power/antenna height limits of the
table in paragraph (iv) must request a waiver of that paragraph and must submit with their application an
interference analysis, based upon an appropriate, generally-accepted terrain-based propagation model, that
shows that co-channel protected entities, described in paragraph (iii), would receive the same or greater
interference protection than the relevant criteria outlined in paragraph (iii).
  4. Section 90.35 is amended by revising the numbers in the "Limitations" column for the existing entry
  [frequency 159.480] in the table in paragraph (b)(3), and by adding a new paragraph (c)(82) to read as
  follows:
 90.35  Industrial/Business Pool.
*  *  *  *  *
     (b)  *  *  *
     (3)  *  *  *
     INDUSTRY/BUSINESS POOL FREQUENCY TABLE
Frequency or band
Class of station(s)
Limitations
Coordinator
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
159.480
 ..do
8, 82.
IP
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
     (c)  *  *  *
     (82)  After [effective date] new stations will only be licensed with an authorized bandwidth not to
     exceed 11.25 kHz.  Licensees authorized prior to [effective date] may continue to use bandwidths
     wider than 11.25 kHz on a co primary basis until January 1, 2005.  After January 1, 2005, all
     stations operating with an authorized bandwidth greater than 11.25 kHz will be secondary to
     adjacent channel public safety interoperability operations.  (See  90.20(c)(3)).
*  *  *  *  *
  5. Section 90.175(i) amended by adding paragraphs 15 and 16 to read as follows:
 90.175  Frequency coordination requirements.
*  *  *  *  *
     (i)  * * *
     (15) Applications for a state license under  90.529.
     (16)  Applications for narrowband low power channels listed for itinerant use in  90.531(b)(4).
* * * * *
  6. Section 90.179 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
 90.179  Shared use of radio stations.
*  *  *  *  *
     (g)   Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, licensees authorized to operate radio systems
on Public Safety Pool frequencies designated in  90.20 may share their facilities with Federal Government
entities on a non-profit, cost-shared basis.  Such a sharing arrangement is subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this section.  State governments authorized to operate radio systems under 
90.529 may share the use of their systems (for public safety services not made commercially available to
the public) with any entity that would be eligible for licensing under  90.523 and Federal government
entities.
*  *  *  *  *
  7. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
 90.203  Certification Required
* * * * *
     (j) * * *
     (1) Applications for certification received on or after January 1, 2005, for mobile and portable
transmitters designed to transmit voice on public safety frequencies in the in the 150-174 MHz band will be
granted only if the mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the nationwide public safety
interoperability calling channel in the 150-174 MHz band.  (See  90.20(c), (d) of this part.)  Applications
for certification received on or after January 1, 2005, for mobile and portable transmitters designed to
transmit voice on public safety frequencies in the in the 450-470 MHz band will be granted only if the
mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the nationwide public safety interoperability calling
channel in the 450-470 MHz band.  (See  90.20(c), (d) of this part.)
  8. Section 90.529 is added to read as follows:
 90.529  State License
     (a)  Narrowband channels designated as state channels in  90.531 are licensed to each state (as
defined in  90.7) as follows:
     (1)  Each state that chooses to take advantage of the spectrum designated as state channels must
file an application for up to 2.4 megahertz of this spectrum no later than December 31, 2001.  For purposes
of this section, the elected chief executive (Governor) of each state, or his or her designee, shall be deemed
the person authorized to apply for the State License.
     (2)  What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied for by December 31, 2001,
will revert to General Use and be administered by the relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of states that
encompass multiple RPCs).
(b)  Each state license will be granted subject to the condition that the state certifies on or before
each applicable benchmark date (see below) that it is:
(1) providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to one-third of their population or
territory by January 1, 2012, i.e., within five years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to
relocate to other portions of the spectrum;
(2)  providing or prepared to provide "substantial service" to two-thirds of their population or
territory by January 1, 2017, i.e., within ten years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to
relocate to other portions of the spectrum.
(c)  The Commission will deem a state "prepared to provide substantial service" if the licensee
certifies that a radio system has been approved and funded for implementation by the deadline date.
"Substantial service" refers to the construction and operation of 700 MHz facilities by public safety entities
providing service which is sound, favorable , and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just
might minimally warrant renewal.
(d)  If a state licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the state license is modified
automatically to the frequencies and geographic areas where the state certifies that it is providing
substantial service.
     (e)  Any recovered state license spectrum will revert to General Use.  However, spectrum licensed
to a state under a state license remains unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until the
Commission's database reflects the parameters of the modified state license.
  9. Section 90.531 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
 90.531  Band plan.
     (b)  Narrowband segments.  There are four band segments that are designated for use with
narrowband emissions.  Each of these narrowband segments is divided into 480 channels having a channel
size of 6.25 kHz as follows:
Frequency Range
Channel Numbers
764 - 767 MHz
1 - 480
773 - 776 MHz
481 - 960
794 - 797 MHz
961 - 1440
803 - 806 MHz
1441 - 1920
     (1)  Narrowband interoperability channels.  The following narrowband channels are designated
for nationwide interoperability licensing and use:  23, 24, 39, 40, 63, 64, 79, 80, 103, 104, 119, 120,143,
144, 159, 160, 183, 184, 199, 200, 223, 224, 239, 240, 263, 264, 279, 280, 303, 304, 319, 320, 641, 642,
657, 658, 681, 682, 697, 698, 721, 722, 737, 738, 761, 762, 777, 778, 801, 802, 817, 818, 841, 842, 857,
858, 881, 882, 897, 898, 921, 922, 937, 938, 983, 984, 999, 1000, 1023, 1024, 1039, 1040, 1063, 1064,
1079, 1080, 1103, 1104, 1119, 1120, 1143, 1144, 1159, 1160, 1183, 1184, 1199, 1200, 1223, 1224,
1239, 1240, 1263, 1264, 1279, 1280, 1601, 1602, 1617, 1618, 1641, 1642, 1657, 1658, 1681, 1682,
1697, 1698, 1721, 1722, 1737, 1738, 1761, 1762, 1777, 1778, 1801, 1802, 1817, 1818, 1841, 1842,
1857, 1858, 1881, 1882, 1897, 1898.
     (2)  Narrowband reserve channels.  The following narrowband channels are undesignated and
reserved pending further Commission action in WT Docket No. 96-86 (proceeding pending):  21, 22, 37,
38, 61, 62, 77, 78, 101, 102, 117, 118, 141, 142, 157, 158, 181, 182, 197, 198, 221, 222, 237, 238, 261,
262, 277, 278, 301, 302, 317, 318, 643, 644, 659, 660, 683, 684, 699, 700, 723, 724, 739, 740, 763, 764,
779, 780, 803, 804, 819, 820, 843, 844, 859, 860, 883, 884, 899, 900, 923, 924, 939, 940, 981, 982, 997,
998, 1021, 1022, 1037, 1038, 1061, 1062, 1077, 1078, 1101, 1102, 1117, 1118, 1141, 1142, 1157, 1158,
1181, 1182, 1197, 1198, 1221, 1222, 1237, 1238, 1261, 1262, 1277, 1278, 1603, 1604, 1619, 1620,
1643, 1644, 1659, 1660, 1683, 1684, 1699, 1700, 1723, 1724, 1739, 1740, 1763, 1764, 1779,1780, 1803,
1804, 1819,1820, 1843, 1844, 1859, 1860, 1883, 1884, 1899, 1900.
     (3)  Narrowband low power channels subject to regional planning.  The following narrowband
channels are designated for low power use for on-scene incident response purposes using mobiles and
portables subject to Commission-approved regional planning committee regional plans.  Transmitter power
must not exceed 2 watts (ERP):  Channels 1-8 paired with Channels 961-968, and Channels 949-958
paired with Channels 1909-1918.
     (4)  Narrowband low power itinerant channels.  The following narrowband channels are
designated for low power use for on-scene incident response purposes using mobiles and portables.  These
channels are licensed nationwide for itinerant operation.  Transmitter power must not exceed 2 watts
(ERP):  Channels 9-12 paired with Channels 969 972 and Channels 959-960 paired with Channels 1919-
1920.
     (5) Narrowband state channel.  The following narrowband channels are designated for direct
licensing to each state (including U.S. territories, districts, and possessions):  25-36, 65-76, 105-116, 145-
156, 185-196, 225-236, 265-276, 305-316, 645-656, 685-696, 725-736, 765-776, 805-816, 845-856, 885-
896, 925-936, 985-996, 1025-1036, 10651076, 1105-1116, 1145-1156, 1185-1196, 1225-1236, 1265-
1276, 1605-1616, 1645-1656, 1685-1696, 1725-1736, 1765-1776, 1805-1816, 1845-1856, 1885-1896.
     (6)   Narrowband general use channels.  All narrowband channels established in paragraph (b),
other than those listed in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4) and (b)(5) are designated for assignment to public
safety eligibles subject to Commission-approved regional planning committee regional plans.
     (c)  Wideband segments.  There are two band segments that are designated for use with wideband
emissions.  Each of these wideband segments is divided into 120 channels having a channel size of 50 kHz
as follows:
Frequency Range
Channel Numbers
767 - 773 MHz
1 - 120
797 - 803 MHz
121 - 240
     (1)  Wideband interoperability channels.  The following wideband channels are designated for
nationwide interoperability licensing and use:  28-30, 37-39, 46-48, 73-75, 83-84, 91-93, 148-150, 157-
159, 166-168, 193-195, 202-204, 211-213.
     (2)  Wideband reserve channels.  The following wideband channels are reserved:  1-27, 94-120,
121-147, 214-240.
     (3)  Wideband general use channels.  All wideband channels established in paragraph (c), except
for those listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), are designated for assignment to public safety eligibles
subject to Commission-approved regional planning committee regional plans.
* * * * *
  10.     Section 90.535 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:
 90.535  Modulation and spectrum usage efficiency requirements.
     Transmitters designed to operate in the 764 776 MHz and 794 806 MHz frequency bands must
meet the following modulation standards:
     (a)  All transmitters in the 764 776 MHz and 794 806 MHz frequency bands must use digital
modulation.  Mobile and portable transmitters may have analog modulation capability only as a secondary
mode in addition to its primary digital mode.  Mobile and portable transmitters that only operate on the low
power channels designated in Sections 90.531(b)(3), 90.531(b)(4), are exempt from this digital modulation
requirement.
* * * * *
  11.     Section 90.537 is revised to read as follows:
 90.537 Trunking requirement.
     All systems using six or more narrowband channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz
frequency bands must be trunked systems.  Nationwide interoperability channels listed in Section
90.531(b)(1), and the narrowband low power channels listed in Sections 90.531(b)(3), 90.531(4), are not
counted as narrowband channels for the purposes of this trunking requirement.
  12.     Section 90.541 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
 90.541 Transmitting power limits
* * * * *
     (d) Transmitters operating on the narrowband low power channels listed in Sections 90.531(b)(3),
90.531(b)(4), must not exceed 2 watts (ERP).
  13.     Section 90.543 is revised to add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
 90.543  Emission limitations
* * * * *
     (e) For operations in the 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz bands, all emissions including
harmonics in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be limited to  70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP) for wideband signals, and  80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth.  For the purpose of equipment authorization, a transmitter shall be tested with an antenna that
is representative of the type that will be used with the equipment in normal operation.
(f) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the
Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
  14.     Section 90.547 is revised to read as follows:
 90.547 Interoperability channel capability requirement.
     Mobile and portable transmitters operating in the 764 776 MHz and 794 806 MHz frequency
bands must be capable of operating on all of the designated nationwide narrowband interoperability
channels pursuant to standards adopted by the Public Safety National Coordination Committee and
approved by the Commission.  Mobile and portable transmitters that only operate on the low power
channels designated in Sections 90.531(b)(3), 90.531(b)(4), are exempt from this interoperability channel
capability requirement.
                           APPENDIX G
                 700 MHz Public Safety Band
              Segmentation & Channelization Tables
                   Base Channels (former TV Channels 63 and 64)
                   Mobile Channels (former TV Channels 68 and 69)
                                

                                                                        APPENDIX H
              Interoperability frequencies in the
                    Inland VPCs (Nos. 10-42)