*Pages 1--35 from  Microsoft Word - 2712.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 The  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and 
 Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting  Federal,  State 
 and  Local  Public  Safety  Communication 
 Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010 


 Establishment  of  Rules  and  Requirements  for 
 Priority  Access  Service 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 WT  Docket  No.  96-  86 


 FOURTH  NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULE  MAKING 
 Adopted:  July  25,  2000  Released:  August  2,  2000 


 Comment  Date:  Thirty  days  after  Publication  in  the  Federal  Register 
 Reply  Comment  Date:  Forty  five  days  after  Publication  in  the  Federal  Register 


 By  the  Commission: 


 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Paragraph  No. 
 I.  INTRODUCTION  AND  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  ...................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND  .........................................................................................................................  3 
 III.  DISCUSSION  .............................................................................................................................  6 
 A.  Trunking  on  Interoperability  Spectrum  .............................................................................  6 
 B.  Administration  of  the  Interoperability  Channels  ..............................................................  10 
 C.  Channel  Designation  and  Access  Priority  .......................................................................  33 
 D.  Technical  Standards  ......................................................................................................  40 
 E.  Other  Issues  ..................................................................................................................  59 
 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS  .....................................................................................................  63 
 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ............................................................................................................  73 


 Appendix  A  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 Appendix  B  Proposed  Rules 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 2 
 I.  INTRODUCTION  AND  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
 1.  In  this  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  (Fourth  Notice),  we  consider  various 
 technical  and  operational  issues  regarding  the  use  of  interoperability  frequencies  in  the  764-  776  MHz  and 
 794-  806  MHz  frequency  bands  (the  700  MHz  band).  We  charged  the  Public  Safety  National  Coordination 
 Committee  (NCC)  to  prepare  a  report  on  the  technical  and  operational  standards  for  interoperability 
 frequencies  in  this  new  public  safety  band.  The  NCC  issued  this  report  to  the  Federal  Communications 
 Commission  (the  Commission)  on  February  25,  2000.  1  We  seek  comment  on  the  recommendations 
 contained  in  the  NCC  Report.  Given  that  we  are  seeking  comment  on  the  NCCs  recommendations,  we 
 will  defer  resolution  at  this  time  of  the  reconsideration  request  concerning  guard  channels  in  the  context  of 
 our  interoperability  plan.  2 


 2.  We  have  defined  the  term  interoperability  as  an  essential  communications  link  within 
 public  safety  and  public  service  wireless  communications  systems  which  permits  units  from  two  or  more 
 different  entities  to  interact  with  one  another  and  to  exchange  information  according  to  a  prescribed  method 
 in  order  to  achieve  predictable  results.  3  A  primary  goal  of  interoperability  in  the  new  700  MHz  public 
 safety  band  is  seamless  interaction  on  a  nationwide  basis.  4  We  believe  that  the  proposed  rules  provide  a 
 flexible  regulatory  framework  that  satisfies  this  goal  in  both  a  technology-  neutral  and  cost  effective 
 manner.  Accordingly,  we  take  the  following  actions: 


 x  Propose  that  the  Commission  not  impose  a  mandatory  trunking  requirement  on  all  thirty-  two 
 interoperability  channel  sets  under  the  current  band  plan. 


 x  Propose  a  permissive  trunking  scheme  covering  up  to  twelve  interoperability  channel  sets  on  a 
 secondary,  non-  interference  basis. 


 x  Propose  to  allow  applicants  to  aggregate  four  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  channels  to  form  25  kHz 
 channels. 


 x  Tentatively  conclude  that  states  should  administer  the  interoperability  channels. 


 x  Propose  to  have  Regional  Planning  Committees  (RPCs)  administer  the  interoperability 
 channels  if  the  states  are  unwilling  to  do  so. 


 1  Public  Safety  National  Coordination  Committees  Recommendations  to  the  Federal  Communication  Commission 
 for  Technical  and  Operational  Standards  for  Use  of  the  764-  776  MHz  and  794-  806  MHz  Public  Safety  Band 
 Pending  Development  of  Final  Rules  (Feb.  25,  2000)  (NCC  Report).  The  NCC  provided  detailed  technical 
 information  in  its  Report,  which  the  reader  should  consult  as  an  adjunct  to  this  Fourth  Notice.  A  copy  of  the  NCC 
 Report  can  be  obtained  via  the  Internet  at  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  wtb/  publicsafety/  ncc.  html,  or  from  International 
 Transcription  Services,  Inc.  (ITS),  1231  20th  Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  DC  20036,  (202)  857-  3800,  TTY  (202) 
 293-  8810,  or  faxing  ITS  at  (202)  857-  3805. 


 2  See  Petition  of  Ericsson. 


 3  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and  Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local 
 Public  Safety  Agency  Communications  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  First 
 Report  and  Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  152,  189-  90    76  (1998)  (referred  to 
 herein  as  "First  Report  and  Order"  or  "Third  Notice"  as  applicable). 


 4  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  189-  90    75. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 3 
 x  Seek  comment  on  requiring  that  each  state  form  a  State  Interoperability  Executive  Committee 
 (SIEC)  to  administer  the  interoperability  channels. 


 x  Propose  to  blanket  license  mobile  and  portable  units  operating  on  the  700  MHz  interoperability 
 spectrum. 


 x  Solicit  comment  on  requiring  the  RPCs  to  review  the  technical  parameters  of  applications  for 
 interoperability  channels  and  verify  that  such  applications  are  in  accordance  with  a  state-approved 
 plan,  as  recommended  in  the  NCC  Report. 


 x  Solicit  comment  on  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  the  RPCs  or  similar  entities  should  assume 
 responsibility  to  develop  interoperability  operational  plans  in  the  absence  of  state  action  on  the 
 matter. 


 x  Seek  comment  on  how  an  applicant  will  secure  approval  from  the  state  before  operating  a  base 
 or  control  station  on  interoperability  channels,  and  specifically  seek  comment  on  the  use  of 
 Memoranda  of  Understanding  (MOUs)  and  sharing. 


 x  Seek  comment  on  designating  channels  for  a  particular  purpose  and  naming  each 
 interoperability  channel  set  (12.  5  kHz  consisting  of  two  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  narrowband 
 channels). 


 x  Propose  to  designate  two  channels  as  nationwide  calling  channels. 


 x  Solicit  comment  on  the  effect  of  channel  labeling  and  whether  channel  labeling  would  affect 
 centralized  trunking  operations  and  25  kHz  operation. 


 x  Propose  to  reject  codifying  a  priority  scheme  for  resolving  conflicts  when  the  demand  for 
 interoperability  channels  exceeds  the  supply  of  such  channels. 


 x  Seek  comment  on  the  appropriate  digital  voice  standard  for  the  interoperability  channels. 


 x  Tentatively  conclude  to  adopt  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  at  this  time  and  that  we  should 
 develop  and  implement  a  migration  path  to  6.  25  kHz  technology. 


 x  Propose  to  retain  our  present  4.  8  kilobytes  per  second  (kbps)  per  6.  25  kHz  standard  rather 
 than  require  one  voice  channel  per  6.  25  kHz  bandwidth. 


 x  Invite  comment  on  the  appropriate  data  interoperability  standard  for  the  interoperability 
 channels. 


 x  Propose  to  reserve  two  interoperability  channels  for  data  transmission. 


 x  Tentatively  decline  to  require  that  subscriber  units  designed  for  data-  only  applications  have 
 voice  capability. 


 x  Tentatively  decline  to  require  subscriber  units  designed  for  voice-  only  applications  have  data 
 transmission  capability. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 4 
 x  Solicit  comment  on  the  establishment  of  a  single  standard  for  encrypted  communications, 
 specifically,  the  current  Federal  government  standard. 


 x  Solicit  comment  on  whether  to  mandate  receiver  standards  to  address  interference  issues  raised 
 by  the  public  safety  radio  community. 


 x  Decline  to  establish  additional  rules  to  require  Federal  sharing  of  the  interoperability  spectrum. 


 x  Decline  to  require  RPCs  to  use  a  pre-  coordination  database  developed  for  the  700  MHz 
 band,  but  seek  comment  on  whether  RPCs  should  include  a  coordination  process  between 
 interoperability  and  general  use  channels. 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 3.  The  Commission  initiated  this  proceeding  in  1996  to  develop  a  framework  to  ensure  that 
 public  safety  communications  needs  are  met  through  the  year  2010.  5  In  the  Balanced  Budget  Act  of  1997, 
 Congress  directed  the  Commission  to  reallocate  24  megahertz  of  spectrum  recovered  from  television 
 Channels  60-  69  as  a  result  of  the  digital  television  (DTV)  proceeding  for  public  safety  services.  6  In  1998, 
 the  Commission  reallocated  24  megahertz  of  spectrum  located  in  the  700  MHz  band  for  public  safety 
 services.  7  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  the  best  use  of  this  24  megahertz  of 
 spectrum.  8  This  record  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  700  MHz  band  plan  and  service  rules  contained  in  the 
 First  Report  and  Order.  9  Part  of  the  band  plan  designated  2.  6  megahertz,  or  10.  8%  of  the  band,  to 
 nationwide  public  safety  interoperability  use.  10 


 5  See  47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j)(  10)(  B)(  iv),  as  added  by  the  Omnibus  Budget  Reconciliation  Act  of  1993,  Pub. 
 L.  No.  103-  66,  Title  VI,    6002,  107  Stat.  312  (1993);  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and  Spectrum 
 Requirements  For  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local  Public  Safety  Agency  Communications  Requirements 
 Through  the  Year  2010,  Establishment  of  Rules  and  Requirements  of  Priority  Access  Service,  WT  Docket 
 No.  96-  86,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  11  FCC  Rcd  12460  (1996)  (Notice). 


 6  See  Balanced  Budget  Act  of  1997,  Pub.  L.  No.  105-  33,    3004,  111  Stat.  251  (1997).  See  also  Advanced 
 Television  Systems  and  Their  Impact  Upon  the  Existing  Television  Broadcast  Service,  MM  Docket  No.  87-  268, 
 Sixth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  10968  (1996). 


 7  See  Reallocation  of  Television  Channels  60-  69,  the  746-  806  MHz  Band,  ET  Docket  No.  97-  157,  Report  and 
 Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  22953  (1997). 
 8  See  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and  Spectrum  Requirements  For  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local 
 Public  Safety  Agency  Communications  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  Establishment  of  Rules  and 
 Requirements  of  Priority  Access  Service,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making, 
 12  FCC  Rcd  17706  (1997)  (Second  Notice). 


 9  See  First  Report  and  Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  152,  162-  64    13-  16. 
 Petitions  and  comments  that  were  filed  in  response  to  the  First  Report  and  Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking  are  available  to  the  public  electronically  and  on  hard  copy.  We  address  pertinent  petitions  and 
 comments  throughout  this  Fourth  Notice. 


 10  See  id.  at  165    20. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 5 
 4.  In  the  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  found  strong  support  for  national  planning 
 for  both  the  interoperability  spectrum  and  the  general  use  spectrum  in  the  700  MHz  band.  11  Accordingly, 
 the  Commission  chartered  the  NCC  as  an  advisory  committee  for  the  purpose  of  addressing  and  advising 
 the  Commission  on  certain  public  safety  communications  matters.  The  NCC  performs  its  functions  in 
 accordance  with  the  procedural  steps  contained  in  the  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act.  12  The  First  Report 
 and  Order  described  the  major  responsibilities  of  the  NCC  as  follows:  (1)  formulate  and  submit  for 
 Commission  review  and  approval  an  operational  plan  to  achieve  national  interoperability  that  includes  a 
 shared  or  priority  system  among  users  of  the  interoperability  spectrum,  for  both  day-  to-  day  and  emergency 
 operations,  and  recommendations  regarding  Federal  users'  access  to  the  interoperability  spectrum; 
 (2)  recommend  interoperability  digital  modulation,  trunking,  and  receiver  standards  for  Commission  review 
 and  approval;  (3)  provide  voluntary  assistance  in  the  development  of  coordinated  regional  plans;  and 
 (4)  provide  general  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on  operational  plans  of  the  public  safety 
 community.  13 


 5.  We  stated  that  we  intended  to  provide  formality  to  the  NCC  and  to  ensure  participation  by 
 representatives  of  all  elements  of  the  public  safety  community.  14  We  also  explained  that  the  operational 
 recommendations  (e.  g.,  protocols  for  prioritizing  user  access)  of  the  NCC  would  be  subject  to  Commission 
 approval.  The  NCC  Report  describes  the  participants  in  the  NCCs  decision  making  process,  the  meetings 
 that  the  NCC  conducted,  and  the  exchanges  of  information  that  occurred  in  preparation  for  the  publication 
 of  the  NCCs  recommendations  on  February  25,  2000.  15  We  discuss  and  consider  those  recommendations 
 in  this  Fourth  Notice. 


 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Trunking  on  Interoperability  Spectrum 
 6.  Mandatory  Trunking.  In  the  Second  Notice,  we  recognized  the  spectrum  efficiency 
 benefits  associated  with  trunking,  and  tentatively  concluded  that  a  trunked  system  16  is  the  best  method  to 
 achieve  in  a  large  scale  emergency  the  rapid  coordination  of  communications  among  many  personnel 
 from  different  agencies  and  regions.  17  At  the  same  time,  however,  we  noted  that  we  had  not  heretofore 
 required  the  use  of  a  specific  trunking  standard  and  asked  for  comments  as  to  whether  we  should  mandate  a 
 single  nationwide  trunking  standard  for  interoperability  spectrum.  18  Many  of  the  commenters  addressing 
 this  issue  vigorously  opposed  the  adoption  of  a  requirement  to  use  trunking  technology  on  the 


 11  See  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  196    90. 


 12  See  id.  at  197    92.  See  also  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act,  5  U.  S.  C.  App.  2  (1988). 
 13  See  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  197    92. 
 14  Id. 
 15  For  a  discussion  of  the  NCCs  activities  from  its  inception,  see  NCC  Report  at  1-  4. 
 16  A  trunked  system  utilizes  multiple  radio  frequencies  in  a  manner  that  provides  greater  spectrum  efficiency  than 
 would  be  obtained  from  the  same  number  of  frequencies  if  used  in  a  conventional  manner.  Computerized 
 trunking  technology  provides  the  ability  to  search  randomly  for  available  frequencies  and  automatically  establish 
 a  talk  path  between  a  caller  and  a  called  party.  See  Notice,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  12477  n.  30. 


 17  Second  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  17752. 


 18  Id. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 6 
 interoperability  channels.  19  They  argued  that  conventional,  repeated,  or  direct  unit-  to-  unit  communications 
 are  better  suited  for  most  types  of  interoperability  communications  needs.  As  a  result,  in  the  First  Report 
 and  Order,  we  asserted  that  our  tentative  conclusion  that  trunking  is  the  only  practicable  technology  for 
 interoperability  may  have  been  overstated  and  declined  to  adopt  a  requirement  mandating  trunking  on 
 interoperability  channels.  20  Instead,  we  directed  the  NCC  to  make  a  timely  recommendation  concerning 
 whether  we  should  require  trunking  on  nationwide  interoperability  spectrum.  21 


 7.  After  considering  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  requiring  the  use  of  trunking  on  the 
 interoperability  channels,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  not  mandate  trunking.  The  NCCs  conclusion 
 stems  mainly  from  operational  considerations.  Trunking  can  occur  only  when  communications  take  place 
 through  a  system  infrastructure.  The  NCC  believes,  however,  that  most  interoperability  communications 
 will  occur  at  the  scene  of  an  incident  on  a  unit-  to-  unit  basis,  not  through  an  infrastructure.  22  Accordingly, 
 only  a  few  infrastructure  interoperability  channels  are  required  in  most  cases.  23  The  NCC  therefore 
 contends  that  the  cost  of  configuring  a  small  number  of  infrastructure  channels  for  trunked  operations 
 would  not  be  justified  by  the  slight  increase  in  spectrum  efficiency  that  would  result  with  trunking.  24 


 8.  The  NCC  also  notes  that  if  we  mandate  trunking,  then  all  mobile  units  nationwide  must 
 have  trunking  capability.  25  This  capability  would  provide  a  small  benefit  at  the  expense  of  added  cost, 
 weight,  and  complexity  to  the  units.  As  noted,  most  interoperable  communications  will  be  on  a  unit-  to-  unit 
 basis  and  not  employ  trunking.  Moreover,  only  large  metropolitan  areas  would  employ  a  sufficient  number 
 of  interoperability  channels  to  justify  trunking  from  a  cost  standpoint.  The  NCC  also  notes  that  if  trunking 
 is  used  on  the  interoperability  channels,  the  ability  of  foreign  units  to  respond  to  an  emergency  would  be 
 compromised  because  those  units  would  be  required  to  be  registered  with  the  trunked  system  before  they 
 could  be  used.  According  to  the  NCC,  registration  is  a  manual  and  somewhat  time-  consuming  task,  and 
 this  process  could  cause  unacceptable  delays  in  an  emergency  situation.  26 


 9.  We  agree  with  the  NCCs  recommendation  and  tentatively  conclude  not  to  require  trunking 
 on  the  thirty-  two  interoperability  channel  sets.  27  We  are  not  convinced  that  the  additional  costs  associated 


 19  See  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  206    115. 
 20  Id.  at  207    116. 
 21  Id. 
 22  NCC  Report  at  7    17. 
 23  Id. 
 24  Id. 
 25  Id.  at  7    18. 
 26  Emergencies  tend  to  be  local  in  nature  and  are  often  difficult  to  predict.  Thus,  in  many  instances,  an  extensive 
 trunking  capability  built  at  considerable  public  cost  would  lie  dormant. 
 27  In  accord  with  the  usage  in  the  NCC  Report,  we  use  the  term  channel  set  to  refer  to  a  12.  5  kHz  channel 


 block,  which  actually  consists  of  two  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  narrowband  channels.  Accordingly,  the  current 
 channel  plan  provides  for  32  interoperability  channel  sets  for  base  stations,  which  are  paired  with  32 
 interoperability  channel  sets  for  mobile  units. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 7 
 with  trunking  justify  the  efficiencies  gained.  28  Moreover,  it  appears  that  in  the  majority  of  situations  where 
 emergency  and  disaster  response  interoperability  communications  are  required,  the  ability  to  conduct  direct 
 unit-  to-  unit  communications  at  the  site  is  more  critical  than  a  wide  area  trunked  system.  Furthermore,  as 
 we  discussed  in  the  First  Report  and  Order,  a  decision  to  mandate  trunking  would  require  a  government 
 entity  to  create  and  maintain  a  nationwide  database  of  radio  ID  numbers.  29  We  seek  comments  on  our 
 tentative  conclusions. 


 10.  Permissive  Trunking.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  permit,  rather  than  mandate, 
 trunking  on  ten  of  the  interoperability  channel  sets  on  a  secondary  basis.  30  The  NCC  believes  that 
 jurisdictions  would  likely  implement  trunked  interoperability  channel  systems  if  they  could  use  the 
 interoperability  channel  sets  as  part  of  their  general  use  systems  during  the  majority  of  the  time  when  the 
 channels  are  not  needed  for  interoperability  purposes.  31  Thus,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  permit  routine 
 (day-  to-  day)  communications  on  some  of  the  interoperability  channels  when  the  channels  are  not  being  used 
 for  emergency  communications.  32 


 11.  The  NCC  notes,  however,  that  secondary  trunking  raises  the  possibility  that  systems  might 
 fail  to  release  the  trunked  channels  immediately  when  the  channels  are  required  for  unit-  to-  unit 
 conventional  interoperability  communications.  Accordingly,  the  NCC  recommends  that  the  Commission 
 adopt  a  number  of  safeguards.  First,  to  help  ensure  that  interoperability  channels  are  always  available 
 when  necessary,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  permit  secondary  trunking  on  only  ten  of  the  thirty-  two 
 interoperability  channel  sets  that  are  designated  for  general  interoperability  use.  Trunking  would  be 
 prohibited  on  the  remaining  channel  sets.  Second,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  permit  secondary  trunking 
 only  if  a  jurisdiction  maintains  a  continuous  (twenty-  four  hours  per  day,  seven  days  per  week)  dispatch 
 facility  at  which  an  operator  can  release  the  interoperability  channels  for  conventional  (i.  e.,  non-  trunked) 
 use  on  demand,  with  no  discretion  on  the  operators  part.  33  The  NCC  further  recognizes  those  instances 
 where  the  secondarily-  trunked  channels  might  become  so  integral  to  the  jurisdictions  trunked  system  that  it 
 becomes  politically  impossible  to  release  them  when  necessary.  To  prevent  this  from  occurring,  the  NCC 
 recommends  a  third  safeguard  that  would  permit  systems  to  use  secondary  trunking  only  as  follows:  (1) 
 systems  with  ten  or  fewer  general  use  channel  sets  could  use  secondary  trunking  on  one  interoperability 
 channel  set,  and  (2)  systems  with  more  than  ten  general  use  channel  sets  could  use  secondary  trunking  on 
 two  interoperability  channel  sets.  34  Systems  with  twenty  or  more  general  use  channel  sets  could  request 
 secondary  trunking  on  more  than  two  channel  sets,  decided  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  35 


 28  This  approach  is  consistent  with  our  approach  to  the  mutual  aid  800  MHz  National  Public  Safety  Planning 
 Advisory  Committee  (NPSPAC)  channels  where  we  decided  not  to  require  trunking. 
 29  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  206    115,  n.  296  (citing  comments  by  the  National  Public  Safety 


 Telecommunications  Council  (NPSTC)). 
 30  NCC  Report  at  9    24. 


 31  Id.  at  7    20. 
 32  See  id.  at  14    44  (access  priority  number  four). 
 33  Such  a  request  would  be  part  of  a  larger  priority  scheme,  discussed  further  below,  which  would  govern 
 communications  on  the  interoperability  channels.  See  infra  at  paras.  36-  37. 
 34  NCC  Report  at  8    21. 


 35  Id. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 8 
 12.  We  observe  that  the  members  of  the  NCCs  Steering  Committee  were  not  unanimous  in 
 recommending  permissive  trunking.  36  One  Steering  Committee  member,  who  represents  the  International 
 Association  of  Fire  Chiefs,  dissented  from  this  trunking  recommendation,  believing  permissive  trunking 
 should  not  be  permitted  because  of  the  likelihood  of  disputes  arising  in  an  emergency  when  it  becomes 
 necessary  to  disassociate  an  interoperability  channel  from  a  trunked  system  and  revert  it  to  conventional 
 use.  37 


 13.  We  propose  to  allow  trunking  only  on  ten  of  the  interoperability  channel  sets  (pursuant  to 
 the  NCCs  recommendations),  38  and  then  only  on  a  strict  secondary  basis.  To  insure  that  the  primary  use 
 of  these  general  public  safety  channel  sets  is  interoperability  communications,  we  propose  that  trunked 
 operation  must  immediately  be  discontinued  whenever  any  channel  sets  are  needed  for  interoperability 
 communications  or  whenever  a  trunked  system  interferes  with  any  interoperability  communication,  e.  g., 
 communications  conducted  on  a  unit-  to-  unit  basis  or  using  conventional  repeaters.  39  Although  we 
 tentatively  conclude  that  some  limited  trunking  capability  has  merit,  we  are  not  convinced  at  this  time  that 
 we  should  establish  rules,  other  than  the  secondary  restrictions,  to  safeguard  conventional  use.  Rather,  we 
 believe  that  the  states  should  be  responsible  for  administering  the  interoperability  spectrum  and  should  set 
 any  additional  restrictions  for  trunking  interoperability  spectrum  in  their  areas.  40  Nevertheless,  we  seek 
 comment  on  all  the  NCCs  recommendations  regarding  trunking.  We  invite  specific  comment  on  whether 
 ten  channels  is  the  appropriate  number  of  channels  to  designate  for  trunking.  41 


 14.  Guard  Channels.  The  band  plan  for  the  public  safety  700  MHz  band,  as  set  forth  in  the 
 First  Report  and  Order,  designates  thirty-  two  12.  5  kHz  interoperability  channel  sets.  42  The  spectrum  on 
 both  sides  (immediately  adjacent)  of  the  12.  5  kHz  interoperability  channels  is  part  of  the  reserve  spectrum. 
 Ericsson  sought  reconsideration  of  our  decision  on  the  issue  of  our  interoperability  channel  plan.  Generally, 
 Section  90.531(  d)(  1)  of  our  Rules  43  permits  the  combining  of  two  or  four  narrowband  channels.  For 
 interoperability,  however,  the  channel  plan  provides  only  for  a  maximum  combination  of  two  6.  25  kHz 
 narrowband  channels  (to  form  12.  5  kHz  channel  sets),  instead  of  four  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  narrowband 
 channels  (to  form  25  kHz  channels).  Further,  Section  90.531(  d)  of  our  Rules  states,  in  part,  channels 
 designated  for  nationwide  interoperability  use  must  not  be  combined  with  channels  that  are  not  designated 
 for  nationwide  interoperability  use.  44 


 36  Id.  at  9    25. 


 37  Id. 
 38  The  ten  channels  are  defined  by  GTAC  5  through  GTAC  13  and  GTAC  35  through  GTAC  43.  See  Table  of 
 Interoperability  Channels  for  Specific  Uses/  Services,  NCC  Report  at  Appendix  C. 
 39  We  would  allow  6.  25  kHz,  12.  5  kHz,  and  25  kHz  trunked  operations.  Additionally,  we  would  permit  routine 


 (day-  to-  day)  communications  if  the  channel(  s)  are  not  needed  for  emergency  communications.  See  supra  at 
 paras.  10-  11. 


 40  See  infra  at  paras.  19-  21. 


 41  We  note  that  GTAC  31  and  GTAC  61  also  are  designated  for  General  Public  Safety  interoperability  use.  See 
 NCC  Report  at  Appendix  D  at  5.  See  also  infra  at  paras.  14-  18  (discussing  guard  channels  and  Ericssons 
 Petition  for  Reconsideration). 


 42  See  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  175    43. 


 43  47  C.  F.  R.    90.531(  d). 
 44  Id. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 9 
 15.  Ericsson  indicated  that  although  the  First  Report  and  Order  and  our  Rules  clearly  allow 
 aggregation  of  up  to  four  narrowband  channels,  the  interoperability  plan  permits  only  the  aggregation  of 
 two  6.  25  kHz  channels.  45  Ericsson  proposes  that  we  rearrange  the  interoperability  channel  plan  from  32 
 pairs  of  two  contiguous  6.25  kHz  channel  sets  (12.5  kHz)  to  16  pairs  of  four  contiguous  6.25  kHz  channel 
 sets  (25  kHz).  46  Ericsson  asserts  that  while  the  channels  still  could  be  used  for  6.  25  kHz  and  12.  5  kHz 
 operations,  this  grouping  would  permit  public  safety  entities  to  use  many  promising  technologies  (e.  g., 
 TETRA)  that  could  not  even  be  considered  for  application  in  the  interoperability  portion  of  the  narrowband 
 spectrum.  47 


 16.  The  NCC  supports  consideration  of  Ericssons  proposal  48  and  states  that  it  agrees  with 
 the  need  to  preserve  the  possibility  of  converting  specified  two-  channel  groups  in  the  interoperability  band 
 to  four-  channel  groups,  thereby  to  accommodate  technologies  that  require  more  than  a  12.  5  kHz 
 bandwidth.  49  The  NCC  recommends  that  if  we  do  not  adopt  Ericssons  proposal,  that  we  should  preserve 
 as  guard  channels  the  two  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  reserve  channels  immediately  below  the  ten  12.  5  kHz 
 interoperability  channel  sets  on  which  the  NCC  recommends  we  permit  secondary  trunking.  50  This 
 designation  would  allow  users  to  combine  the  guard  channels  with  certain  interoperability  channels  to  form 
 25  kHz  channel  blocks.  The  NCC  proposes  that  the  guard  channels  should  not  be  available  except  for  use 
 in  conjunction  with  secondary  trunking  on  the  interoperability  channels.  The  NCC  states  that  we  also 
 could  use  the  guard  channels  to  form  25  kHz  channel  blocks  if  we  decide  at  some  later  date  to  increase  the 
 bandwidth  of  the  interoperability  channels  to  25  kHz.  51  The  NCC  further  notes  that  if  the  Ericsson 
 proposal  is  approved,  then  guard  channels  would  no  longer  be  necessary.  52 


 17.  We  believe  that  providing  the  public  safety  community  with  the  flexible  option  of 
 conducting  25  kHz  operations  on  the  interoperability  channels  has  merit.  Pursuant  to  the  NCC 
 recommendation,  however,  we  propose  herein  to  prohibit  trunking  on  other  interoperability  channels 
 because  they  are  reserved  for  conventional  operations,  and  we  would  not  anticipate  that  entities  would 
 employ  technologies  requiring  25  kHz  bandwidths  such  as  TETRA  on  these  channels.  Additionally,  we 
 have  concerns  about  the  potential  adjacent  channel  interference  that  may  result  from  repositioning  the 
 interoperability  channels  into  groups  of  four  contiguous  channel  sets,  as  proposed  by  Ericsson.  53  For 
 example,  would  simultaneous  use  of  both  12.5  kHz  channel  sets  in  a  25  kHz  aggregated  block  be  precluded 
 in  the  same  area?  Rather  than  combine  12.  5  kHz  interoperability  channel  sets  (two  contiguous  6.  25  kHz 


 45  Ericsson  Petition  at  6. 
 46  See  ex  parte  Letter  from  Robert  J.  Speidal,  Ericsson,  to  Magalie  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC,  dated  Sept.  13,  1999 
 (Ericsson  Proposal). 
 47  Ericsson  Petition  at  6. 


 48  See  ex  parte  Letter  from  Kathleen  Wallman,  Chairperson,  NCC,  to  William  E.  Kennard,  Chairman,  FCC, 
 dated  Oct.  14,  1999. 
 49  NCC  Report  at  11    32. 


 50  Id.  at  App.  C  at  2-  3. 
 51  Id. 
 52  Id.  at  11    32. 
 53  See  infra  at  paras.  56-  58  (discussing  receiver  standards  and  interference  issues). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 10 
 channels)  to  form  25  kHz  channels  (four  contiguous  6.  25  kHz  channels)  as  suggested  by  Ericsson,  we 
 believe  that  a  better  approach  is  to  designate  the  two  contiguous  reserve  pool  6.  25  kHz  channels  (12.  5 
 kHz),  either  immediately  above  or  below  each  12.  5  kHz  interoperability  channel  set,  as  temporary  guard 
 channels  to  form  25  kHz  channels.  We  solicit  comments  on  the  issue. 


 18.  Accordingly,  we  seek  comment  on  how  best  to  accommodate  25  kHz  operations  on  the 
 interoperability  channels.  Specifically,  we  request  comment  on  how  we  should  allocate  the  temporary 
 guard  channels.  Among  the  options  for  the  temporary  guard  channels  are:  (1)  to  move  the  interoperability 
 channels  so  that  they  are  adjacent  to  each  other,  thereby  eliminating  the  need  for  temporary  guard  channels 
 (i.  e.,  Ericssons  proposal),  or  (2)  to  designate  those  channels  immediately  where  trunking  is  permitted  for 
 interoperability  use,  thus  permitting  the  aggregation  of  25  kHz  bandwidths  on  some  interoperability 
 channels,  or  (3)  to  allocate  all  of  the  channels  for  interoperability  use,  thereby  doubling  the  total  number  of 
 interoperability  channels.  In  particular,  we  seek  comments  on  the  potential  for  adjacent  channel 
 interference  if  the  interoperability  channels  are  reallocated  in  groups  of  four,  as  suggested  by  Ericsson. 
 Further,  we  seek  comment  on  the  need  to  provide  25  kHz  aggregated  blocks  on  all  the  interoperability 
 channels,  or  only  on  the  channels  where  secondary  trunking  is  permitted.  For  instance,  we  understand  the 
 potential  benefits  associated  with  allowing  25  kHz  aggregated  block  operations  on  those  interoperability 
 channels  where  trunking  would  be  allowed  on  a  secondary  basis.  This  would  provide  entities  with  the 
 option  to  include  interoperability  channels  in  a  trunked  system  that  employs  25  kHz  general  use  channels 
 (e.  g.,  a  TETRA  system).  We  solicit  comment  on  these  points.  Comments  should  indicate  the  recommended 
 use  of  the  interoperability  channels  as  well  as  the  temporary  guard  channels. 


 B.  Administration  of  the  Interoperability  Channels 
 19.  Administrative  Oversight.  In  the  Third  Notice,  we  sought  comment  on  how  to  administer 
 the  interoperability  spectrum.  54  Specifically,  we  sought  comment  on  whether  we  should  use  the  RPCs,  the 
 states,  or  some  other  entity  to  manage  the  interoperability  channels.  55  Some  commenters  contended  that  the 
 RPCs  should  administer  the  interoperability  channels  and  should  have  the  option  of  assigning  the  channels 
 directly  to  the  states.  56  Other  commenters  thought  that  the  NCC  should  decide  the  issue  in  the  first 
 instance.  57  With  regard  to  state  management  of  the  interoperability  channels,  the  State  of  Arizona 
 (Arizona)  does  not  wish  to  be  responsible  for  administration  of  the  interoperability  spectrum.  58  The  State 
 of  California  (California)  noted  that  while  it  has  a  strong  statewide  communication  organization,  other 
 states  may  have  insufficient  resources  available  to  adequately  manage  the  interoperability  channels.  59 


 20.  The  NCC  asserts  that  most  large-  scale  events  and  disasters  where  interoperability  will  be 
 used  are  governed  by  state  statute.  60  Further,  the  NCC  notes  that  most  wide-  area  mutual  aid  operations  are 


 54  Third  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  233. 
 55  Id.  at  234.  We  initially  received  11  comments  in  response. 
 56  See  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-  International,  Inc.  (APCO)  Comments  at  5;  State 
 of  California  (California)  Comments  at  7;  NPSTC  Comments  at  7. 
 57  See  Federal  Law  Enforcement  Wireless  Users  Group  (FLEWUG)  Comments  at  18;  Public  Safety  Wireless 


 Network  (PSWN)  Comments  at  16. 
 58  Arizona  Reply  Comments  at  8. 


 59  California  Comments  at  7. 
 60  NCC  Report  at  Appendix  E  at  1. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 11 
 managed  and  controlled  by  state-  level  organizations.  61  In  addition,  the  NCC  contends  that  in  states  where 
 there  are  multiple  RPCs,  or  where  one  RPC  covers  multiple  states,  RPC  administration  of  interoperability 
 spectrum  may  be  difficult.  62  For  these  reasons,  the  NCC  recommends  that  the  states  and  RPCs  work 
 together  at  the  state  level.  Specifically,  under  the  NCC  proposal,  administration  of  the  interoperability 
 channels  would  be  handled  by  the  states,  and  oversight  of  the  interoperability  infrastructure  would  be 
 handled  by  the  RPCs.  63  Under  this  framework,  states  would  hold  the  license  and  be  responsible  for 
 developing  statewide  interoperability  plans.  64  The  states  would  administer  the  interoperability  channels; 
 whereas  the  RPCs  will  perform  technical  reviews  of  the  applications.  For  example,  the  state  could  be 
 responsible  for  creating  and  overseeing  incident  response  protocols,  creating  chains  of  command  for 
 incident  response  and  reporting,  and  other  operating  functions.  If  a  state  were  unwilling  to  do  so,  however, 
 then  the  NCC  recommends  that  the  RPCs  would  assume  this  responsibility. 


 21.  We  agree  with  the  NCC  that  administration  of  the  interoperability  channels  should  occur  at 
 the  state  level.  As  noted  by  the  NCC,  state-  level  organizations  65  are  usually  in  charge  in  multi-  agency 
 incidents.  Further,  states  are  in  a  better  position  to  deal  with  Federal  Government  emergency  agencies. 
 Therefore,  we  propose  to  have  the  states  administer  the  interoperability  spectrum.  Under  this  approach, 
 applications  for  interoperability  spectrum  must  be  approved  by  a  state-  level  agency  or  organization 
 responsible  for  administering  state  emergency  communications.  The  state  (or  state-  level  agency)  can  be  the 
 licensee  for  all  stations  operating  on  the  interoperability  channels  or  it  could  approve  other  eligible  public 
 safety  entities  such  as  local  governments  to  be  a  licensee.  A  state  may  delegate  this  approval  process 
 for  interoperability  channels  to  another  entity,  such  as  an  RPC. 


 22.  In  addition,  the  NCC  recommends:  (a)  the  formation  of  State  Interoperability  Executive 
 Committees  (SIECs);  (b)  that  the  Commission  license  subscriber  equipment  (mobile  and  portable  units) 
 operating  on  interoperability  channels;  (c)  that  RPCs  oversee  interoperability  infrastructure;  and  (d)  the 
 adoption  of  standardized  templates  for  Memoranda  of  Understanding  between  SIECs  and  sharing 
 agreements  between  jurisdictions.  66  These  recommendations  are  discussed  separately  below. 


 23.  State  Interoperability  Executive  Committees.  Although  we  agree  with  the  NCC  that 
 administration  of  the  interoperability  channels  should  be  handled  by  the  states,  the  NCC  further  suggests 
 that  each  state  form  an  SIEC  to  handle  the  administration  of  interoperability  channels.  Under  this 
 approach,  entities  desiring  a  license  to  operate  on  the  interoperability  channels  would  have  to  enter  into  a 
 Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MOU)  with  the  pertinent  SIEC.  The  SIEC  would  be  charged  with 
 enforcement  of  the  MOUs  terms,  67  with  final  authority  vested  with  the  Commission.  The  NCC  notes  that 
 it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Commission  would  treat  such  a  recommendation  except  to  itself  encourage  the 
 formation  of  SIECs;  the  Steering  Committee  does  not  foresee  the  Commission  establishing  a  rule 


 61  Id. 
 62  Id. 
 63  Id. 
 64  Id. 
 65  State  level  entities  may  include  the  Governor  of  the  state  or  his  or  her  designee  (including  a  state  agency). 
 66  NCC  Report  at  11    33. 
 67  See  infra  at  paras.  31-  32. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 12 
 mandating  the  establishment  of  SIECs.  68  The  NCC  recommends  that  among  other  duties,  SIECs  develop 
 interoperability  operational  plans.  If  a  SIEC  or  another  state  agency  elects  not  to  oversee  development  of 
 such  plans  for  a  state,  the  NCC  recommends  that  the  RPC  do  so.  Because  we  believe  the  benefits  of 
 SIECS  are  best  determined  by  the  states,  the  decision  to  form  such  groups  or  seek  assistance  from  existing 
 groups  such  as  RPCs  should  be  determined  by  the  states  as  well.  However,  we  are  concerned  that 
 situations  may  arise  in  which  a  SIEC  or  other  state  agency  would  not  oversee  the  development  of  an 
 interoperability  plan  for  a  state.  We  invite  comment  on  whether  a  RPC  would  oversee  the  development  of 
 an  interoperability  plan  for  a  state  in  this  situation. 


 24.  Subscriber  Equipment  Licensing.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  license  subscriber 
 equipment  (mobiles  and  portables).  69  The  NCC  asserts  that  such  licensing  coupled  with  the 
 Commissions  enforcement  authority  would  forestall  abuse  of  the  interoperability  channels  in  the  700 
 MHz  public  safety  band.  70  In  support  of  its  request,  the  NCC  contends  that  we  should  take  measures  to 
 guard  against  abuses  that  allegedly  have  occurred  in  the  five  mutual  aid  channels  in  the  821-  824  MHz  and 
 866-  869  MHz  bands  (800  MHz  band).  71 


 25.  Under  our  Rules,  an  entity  must  have  a  license  to  operate  a  base  or  control  station  on  the 
 five  800  MHz  band  mutual  aid  channels.  72  Mobile  operation,  however,  is  permitted  on  these  channels 
 without  an  individual  license  by  any  entity  operating  in  accordance  with  an  approved  800  MHz  regional 
 plan  (i.  e.,  a  blanket  licensing  approach).  73  Therefore,  we  presume  that  the  NCC  is  recommending  that  we 
 require  entities  that  want  to  operate  mobile  units,  including  portables,  on  the  700  MHz  interoperability 
 channels  to  obtain  a  license. 


 26.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  current  record  in  this  docket  supports  the  NCC 
 recommendation.  The  primary  objective  in  setting  aside  interoperability  spectrum  and  requiring  all  700 
 MHz  equipment  to  be  capable  of  operating  on  these  channels  was  to  ensure  that  all  public  safety  entities 
 could  communicate  with  one  another,  especially  during  disaster  situations.  Blanket  licensing  all  public 
 safety  licensees  so  that  they  are  authorized  for  mobile  operation,  rather  than  requiring  an  individual  license, 
 seems  to  better  support  this  objective  and  achieves  the  same  effect  as  end-  user  licensing.  Further, 
 blanket  rather  than  individual  licensing  would  eliminate  many  administrative  burdens  associated  with 
 licensing  (i.  e.,  entities  would  not  have  to  apply  for  a  mobile  license,  and  the  Commission  would  not  have  to 
 process  the  applications). 


 68  NCC  Report  at  13    38. 
 69  Id.  at  12    35,  Appendix  E  at  2. 
 70  Id. 
 71  Id.  at  12    35.  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    90.16,  90.617(  a);  Development  and  Implementation  of  a  Public 
 Safety  National  Plan  and  Amendment  of  Part  90  to  Establish  Service  Rules  and  Technical  Standards  for  Use  of 
 the  821-  824/  866-  869  MHz  Bands  by  the  Public  Safety  Services,  GEN  Docket  No.  87-  112,  Report  and  Order,  3 
 FCC  Rcd  905,  908-  09  (1987)  (800  MHz  Band  Report  and  Order)  (discussing  mutual  aid  channels),  as 
 modified  by  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  3  FCC  Rcd  5391  (1988),  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  2113  (1988). 


 72  See  800  MHz  Band  Report  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  at  909    30,  33-  34;  see  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    90.16, 


 90.20,  90.603,  90.617,  90.619(  a)(  2). 
 73  Id. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 13 
 27.  In  addition,  we  are  unsure  what  abuses  the  NCC  believes  have  occurred  in  the  800  MHz 
 public  safety  band  because  it  has  not  identified  any  specific  abuses  in  its  Report.  Accordingly,  we  seek 
 comment  on  the  types  of  abuses  that  have  occurred  allegedly  as  a  result  of  not  requiring  subscriber 
 equipment  licensing.  Additionally,  because  this  Fourth  Notice  concerns  the  700  MHz  public  safety  band, 
 we  seek  comment  concerning  whether  these  alleged  abuses  would  be  problematic  in  this  band  without 
 subscriber  equipment  licensing. 


 28.  Although  we  are  seeking  comment  on  these  alleged  abuses,  we  believe  blanket  as 
 opposed  to  individual  licensing  does  not  diminish  our  enforcement  authority.  The  Commission  has  the 
 authority  to  penalize  entities  for  abuse.  Therefore,  we  propose  to  allow  public  safety  entities  to  operate 
 mobile  units  on  the  700  MHz  band  interoperability  channels  without  an  individual  license  if  (1)  such 
 entities  are  eligible  to  hold  a  700  MHz  band  license,  or  (2)  such  entities  otherwise  are  licensed  under  Part 
 90  of  our  Rules.  As  with  the  800  MHz  National  Public  Safety  Planning  Advisory  Council  (NPSPAC) 
 mutual  aid  channels,  base  and  control  stations  must  be  licensed  individually.  74  We  seek  comment  on  these 
 proposals,  including  the  NCCs  recommendation  for  licensing  subscriber  equipment,  as  well  as  the  issue  of 
 whether  the  NCCs  suggestions  would  require  amendments  to  Sections  90.179  and  90.421  of  our  Rules.  75 


 29.  RPC  Oversight  of  Interoperability  Infrastructure.  The  NCC  recommends  that  (1)  the 
 oversight  of  the  technical  parameters  of  the  interoperability  infrastructure  should  rest  with  the  RPCs;  (2) 
 the  RPCs  should  urge  the  states  to  jointly  develop  interoperability  operational  plans  and  failing  that  to 
 develop  such  plans  independently;  and  (3)  the  RPCs  should  request  the  states  to  hold  the  licenses  for 
 infrastructure  and  failing  that  to  have  the  licenses  held  by  the  next  highest  level  of  government.  76 


 30.  We  solicit  comment  on  whether  the  RPCs  should  review  the  technical  parameters  of 
 applications  for  interoperability  channels.  The  RPCs  already  have  the  mechanism  in  place  to  review  the 
 technical  parameters  of  the  700  MHz  general  use  spectrum.  Further,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  the 
 RPCs  should  be  responsible  to  verify  that  the  application  is  in  accordance  with  the  state-  approved  plan  for 
 interoperability  spectrum,  or  if  there  is  no  plan,  to  certify  that  the  application  has  been  approved  by  the 
 appropriate  state-  level  agency.  Under  this  approach,  RPCs  would  be  free  to  advocate  that  the  states 
 develop  interoperability  plans  or,  with  state  approval,  develop  a  plan  on  their  own.  In  addition,  as 
 discussed  above,  77  states  may  hold  the  licenses  for  interoperability  spectrum  or  approve  others  to  hold 
 licenses.  78 


 31.  Memoranda  of  Understanding  and  Sharing  Agreements.  The  NCC  has  developed  a 
 model  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MOU)  that  would  govern  the  use  of  the  interoperability  channels. 
 The  NCC  proposes  that  we  require  an  applicant  and  the  relevant  SIEC  or  other  entity  that  is  charged  with 
 administering  the  interoperability  channels  to  sign  an  MOU  before  a  license  could  be  granted.  The  model 
 MOU  requires,  inter  alia,  licensees  to  use  plain  (unencrypted)  language  on  the  interoperability  channels;  to 
 monitor  the  calling  channels  and  coordinate  use  of  the  tactical  channels;  to  limit  secondary  trunking  on  the 
 interoperability  channels  as  described  above;  and  to  follow  a  set  of  priority  levels  when  using  the 


 74  See  800  MHz  Band  Report  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  at  909    34. 
 75  47  C.  F.  R.    90.179  (Shared  use  of  radio  stations),  90.421  (Operation  of  mobile  units  in  vehicles  not  under  the 
 control  of  the  licensee). 
 76  NCC  Report  at  12    36. 


 77  See  supra  at  paras.  20-  21. 
 78  The  licenses  referred  to  here  are  for  base  and  control  stations. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 14 
 channels.  79  The  NCC  notes  that  the  SIECs  and  RPCs  may  adapt  the  model  MOU  to  their  own  needs.  80 
 The  NCC  also  has  developed  a  model  sharing  agreement  for  use  of  the  interoperability  channels.  81  The 
 NCC  contemplates  that  when  foreign  users  (i.  e.,  non-  licensees,  federal  government  agencies,  or  non-governmental 
 organizations)  respond  to  a  particular  incident,  sharing  of  the  interoperability  channels  would 
 be  done  on  the  basis  of  an  ad  hoc  virtual  sharing  agreement  that  would  begin  at  the  time  of  the  response 
 and  end  at  the  conclusion  of  the  incident.  82 


 32.  We  have  proposed  that  the  states  (or  their  designees)  administer  the  interoperability 
 spectrum.  83  In  order  to  receive  a  license  to  operate  a  base  or  control  station  on  interoperability  channels, 
 the  applicant  must  secure  approval  from  the  state.  The  exact  procedures  that  a  state  may  use  to  administer 
 its  channels  were  not  clearly  explained  by  the  NCC.  However,  at  any  rate,  we  are  not  convinced  that  our 
 Rules  should  dictate  the  specific  details  of  this  approval  process.  Further,  we  are  unclear  how  the  NCCs 
 proposals  actually  would  work  in  practice.  Nevertheless,  we  seek  comment  on  the  NCCs  proposals  on  the 
 issues  of  MOUs  and  sharing  agreements  and  how  these  proposals  would  work  in  practice. 


 C.  Channel  Designation  and  Access  Priority 
 33.  Channel  Designation.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  adopt  a  table  of  channel 
 assignments  for  the  interoperability  channels.  84  The  table  would  assign  a  particular  purpose  and  name  to 
 each  interoperability  channel  set  (two  6.  25  kHz  channels).  For  example,  Channels  23  and  24  would  be 
 assigned  for  General  Public  Safety  use  and  given  the  label  GTAC  5.  We  seek  comment  on  the  NCCs 
 proposed  table  and  assignments.  85  We  note  that  the  NCC  Report  lists  a  specific  use  or  description  for  each 
 interoperability  channel  (e.  g.,  Fire  Services).  Although  there  are  benefits  to  reserving  channels  for 
 specific  uses,  the  disadvantage  is  that  it  limits  system  flexibility.  For  example,  a  channel  designated  for 
 Fire  Services  could  not  be  used  for  Police  Services,  and  vice-  versa.  One  possible  alternative  would  be  to 
 specify  a  particular  use  for  a  channel  but  allow  other  public  safety  entities  to  use  the  channel  on  a 
 secondary  basis.  Further,  the  NCC  recommends  specific  interoperability  channel  labels  and  proposes  that 
 we  codify  those  channel  labels  in  our  Rules.  86  We  seek  comment  on  these  issues.  Commenters  in  favor  of 
 the  recommended  approach  of  designating  these  channels  in  the  Rules  should  address  the  difficulties 
 regarding  making  changes  to  a  channel  label  via  the  rulemaking  or  waiver  process. 


 34.  Display  Labeling  (Nomenclature).  Generally,  transmitters  used  under  Part  90  of  our 
 Rules  must  be  certificated  for  use.  87  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  require  mobile  units  certificated  for 
 use  under  Part  90  of  the  Rules  be  capable  of  displaying  interoperability  channel  labels  alphanumerically  if 


 79  NCC  Report  at  Appendix  E.  See  infra  at  paras.  36-  37  (discussing  access  priority). 
 80  NCC  Report  at  13    41. 
 81  Id.  at  13    37,  Appendix  E  at  5-  7. 
 82  Id.  at  13    37. 
 83  See  supra  at  para.  21. 
 84  NCC  Report  at  14    42. 
 85  See  id.  at  Appendix  D  at  5;  supra  at  note  1,  paras.  17-  18  (discussing  the  NCCs  Table). 
 86  Id.  at  14    43,  Appendix  D. 
 87  47  C.  F.  R.    90.203.  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  2,  Subpart  J. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 15 
 the  radios  are  equipped  with  alphanumeric  displays.  88  Further,  the  NCC  recommends  that  when  a  mobile 
 radio  is  operating  in  the  direct  (simplex)  mode,  89  the  letter  D  should  be  appended  to  the  end  of  the 
 displayed  channel  label.  90  The  NCC  asserts  that  adoption  of  these  rules  would  allow  the  Commission  to 
 establish  a  nationally  standardized  format  to  communicate  on  interoperability  channels,  as  well  as  to 
 eliminate  guesswork  during  a  multi-  agency  response.  91 


 35.  We  invite  comments  on  these  recommendations.  Commenters  should  address  the  costs  and 
 benefits  associated  with  these  recommendations  and  the  likelihood  that  standardized  nomenclature  (e.  g., 
 police  ten  codes)  would  be  accomplished  without  specifying  labels  in  our  Rules.  We  additionally  seek 
 comment  on  the  effect  of  channel  labeling,  if  any,  on  centralized  trunking  operations  and  25  kHz  operation. 


 36.  Access  Priority.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  adopt  a  mandatory  priority  scheme  for  the 
 use  of  the  interoperability  channels.  92  The  NCC  recommends  that  users  receive  priority  access  only  for 
 mission  critical  communications,  not  for  administrative  or  other  non-  mission  critical  communications.  93 
 Under  the  NCCs  scheme,  a  party  wishing  to  use  an  interoperability  channel  in  use  by  another  party  would 
 declare  its  level  of  priority.  The  higher  level  of  priority  would  gain  use  of  the  channel;  the  party  with  the 
 lower  priority  level  would  be  required  to  cease  its  communications  immediately.  Under  the  NCCs 
 proposal,  the  highest  level  of  priority,  Level  1,  would  be  for  disaster  and  extreme  emergency  operations  for 
 mutual  aid  and  interagency  communications.  The  next  level,  Level  2,  would  be  for  emergency  or  urgent 
 operations  involving  imminent  danger  to  life  or  property.  Level  3  would  be  for  special  event  control, 
 generally  of  a  preplanned  nature  (including  task  force  operations).  Finally,  Level  4,  the  lowest  level  (and 
 the  default  when  no  higher  priority  level  has  been  declared)  would  be  for  single  agency  secondary 
 communications.  As  stated  above,  conventional  use  of  the  interoperability  channels  always  would  have 
 precedence  over  secondary  trunked  use.  94  Within  the  same  level  of  priority,  the  NCC  recommends  giving 
 access  to  the  organization  with  the  wider  span  of  control  or  authority.  The  NCC  states  that  the  proposed 
 priority  levels  are  taken  from  the  Public  Safety  Wireless  Advisory  Committee  (PSWAC)  report  and 
 represent  the  consensus  opinion  of  experts  in  the  field.  95 


 37.  We  find  merit  in  a  priority  scheme  for  resolving  conflicts  when  the  demand  for 
 interoperability  channels  exceeds  the  supply  of  such  channels.  We  are  not  convinced,  however,  that  such 
 scheme  should  be  codified  in  our  Rules,  because  we  believe  that  the  states  (the  entities  proposed  herein  to 
 administer  the  interoperability  spectrum)  are  in  a  better  position  to  determine  priority  use  and  resolve 
 disputes.  For  example,  agreement  to  a  priority  scheme  could  be  tied  to  state  approval  of  the  application. 
 While  we  do  not  propose  at  this  time  to  add  a  priority  access  scheme  to  our  Rules,  we  nevertheless,  seek 


 88  NCC  Report  at  14    43,  Appendix  D. 
 89  In  this  case,  simplex  operation  is  mobile  to  mobile  communications  on  one-  half  of  the  channel  pair.  The 
 communications  do  not  go  through  an  infrastructure.  Simplex  operation  is  often  the  dominant  mode  of 
 communications  between  multiple  public  safety  agencies  at  the  scene  of  an  accident. 


 90  NCC  Report  at  14    43,  Appendix  D. 


 91  Id.  at  Appendix  D  at  1-  2. 
 92  Id.  at  14    44. 
 93  Id.  at  Appendix  D. 
 94  See  supra  at  para.  13. 
 95  NCC  Report  at  15    47. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 16 
 comment  on  the  NCC  recommendations  regarding  our  adoption  of  a  priority  scheme.  We  ask  commenters 
 to  address  whether  the  definitions  of  the  NCCs  recommended  priority  levels  are  sufficiently  clear  so  that 
 they  will  be  useful  in  the  field.  96  Parties  also  should  address  any  administrative  problems  that  may  arise  in 
 implementing  this  priority  scheme.  For  example,  we  note  that  the  priority  levels  are  declared  by  the  user 
 and  that  there  are  no  ready  means  of  resolving  disputes  except  after  the  fact. 


 38.  In  addition,  we  note  that  the  priority  levels  the  NCC  recommends  are  different  from  the 
 Priority  Access  Service  (PAS)  levels  we  recently  adopted  to  allow  commercial  mobile  radio  service 
 (CMRS)  providers  to  provide  PAS  for  national  and  security  and  emergency  preparedness  (NSEP) 
 personnel.  97  The  National  Communications  System  (NCS)  desired  priority  levels  that  would  be  compatible 
 with  the  priority  levels  it  had  established  for  wartime  use.  98  These  priority  levels  are  framed  in  terms  of 
 users.  The  NCCs  recommended  priority  levels  for  the  interoperability  channels  are  framed  in  terms  of  the 
 type  of  emergency.  We  recognized  that  the  underlying  purposes  for  the  PAS  and  the  700  MHz 
 interoperability  spectrum  are  different  and  that  such  difference  may  necessitate  varying  priority  levels.  As 
 a  result,  we  ask  commenters  to  discuss  whether  the  priority  levels  for  the  interoperability  channels  should 
 be  different  from  the  priority  levels  adopted  for  CMRS  providers.  In  addition,  we  seek  comment  as  to 
 whether  the  priority  levels  for  the  interoperability  channels  could  be  fashioned  so  that  they  are 
 complementary  with  those  established  for  PAS. 


 39.  Calling  Channels.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  designate  two  interoperability  channels 
 as  calling  channels  to  use  as  gateways  to  other  channels.  99  Public  safety  entities,  particularly  those  from 
 outside  the  system,  would  use  calling  channels  to  access  the  public  safety  communications  infrastructure 
 in  the  area  where  they  are  located.  For  example,  a  fire  department  responding  to  an  incident  in  another 
 county  could  use  the  calling  channels  to  find  out  the  appropriate  on-  scene  tactical  channel  or  how  to  contact 
 other  public  safety  entities  such  as  the  police.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  require  licensees  that  use  the 
 associated  interoperability  channels  to  monitor  the  calling  channels.  In  addition  to  normal  calling  channel 
 use,  the  NCC  recommends  using  the  channels  to  declare  emergencies  and  to  request  the  immediate  release 
 of  any  channels  being  used  for  secondary  trunking.  100  Finally,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  forbid  the  use 
 of  encryption  on  calling  channels.  We  seek  comment  on  the  NCCs  recommendations. 


 96  For  example,  we  could  define  the  levels  of  priority  in  the  following  manner:  (1)  a  Level  1  event  is  one  in 
 which  an  entity  is  threatened  by  grave  and  imminent  danger  and  in  need  of  immediate  assistance;  (2)  a  Level  2 
 event  is  one  in  which  there  is  a  particular  urgency  regarding  the  safety  of  an  entity;  and  (3)  a  Level  3  event  is  one 
 in  which  a  delay  in  a  communication  transmission  could  adversely  affect  the  safety  or  property  of  an  entity.  See 
 generally  47  C.  F.  R.    80.  5  (providing  definitions  for  priorities  in  the  Maritime  Services). 


 97  See  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and  Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local 


 Public  Safety  Agency  Communication  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  FCC  00- 
 242,  Second  Report  and  Order,  July  13,  2000. 


 98  Id.    6 


 99  NCC  Report  at  15    47. 
 100  Id.  at  15    45;  see  supra  at  paras.  10-  13. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 17 
 40.  We  agree  that  calling  channels  are  a  key  part  of  any  interoperability  system.  101  Therefore, 
 we  propose  to  specify  two  of  the  700  MHz  interoperability  channels  as  nationwide  calling  channels.  These 
 channels  are  not  intended  for  routine  administration  or  day-  to-  day  communications  but  are  to  be  reserved 
 for  activities  such  as  coordination  of  multiple  public  safety  entities  at  the  scene  of  an  incident  or  entities 
 outside  the  system  requesting  help  or  information.  Although  we  propose  to  prohibit  trunking  and 
 encryption  on  these  two  channels,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  adopt  monitoring  or  coverage 
 requirements  for  the  calling  channels. 


 D.  Technical  Standards 
 41.  Narrowband  Digital  Voice  Standards  for  Interoperability  Channels.  In  the  First  Report 
 and  Order,  we  discussed  digital  modulation  standards  for  the  narrowband  interoperability  channels.  102 
 We  noted  that  to  achieve  interoperability  on  these  channels,  a  single  standard  would  ensure  equipment 
 compatibility.  103  We  considered  adopting  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  (also  referred  to  as  the  TIA/  25 
 standard).  104  However,  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  requires  a  12.  5  kHz  bandwidth.  We  anticipated  the 
 development  of  more  spectrum-  efficient  equipment  that  would  require  only  a  6.  25  kHz  bandwidth  for  one 
 voice  channel.  Accordingly,  we  declined  to  adopt  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  in  the  First  Report  and 
 Order  and  instructed  the  NCC  to  recommend  a  set  of  voluntary  technical  standards  for  digital  modulation 
 for  use  on  the  interoperability  spectrum  in  the  700  MHz  band.  105  We  designed  the  700  MHz  public  safety 
 band  channel  plan  based  on  6.  25  kHz  channel  spacing  to  accommodate  spectrum-  efficient  equipment.  106 
 We  recognized,  however,  that  there  might  be  a  delay  in  the  implementation  of  spectrum-  efficient 
 technology  and,  accordingly,  provided  that  two  adjacent  6.  25  kHz  channels  could  be  combined  to 
 accommodate  equipment  that  required  a  12.  5  kHz  bandwidth,  depending  upon  the  standard  chosen.  107 


 42.  Numerous  commenters  requested  reconsideration  of  our  decision  declining  to  adopt  the 
 TIA/  25  standard.  108  Specifically,  they  assert  that  immediate  acceptance  of  the  TIA/  25  standards  will  avoid 


 101  See  800  MHz  Band  Report  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  at  908    27-  30. 
 102  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  205    113. 
 103  Id.  at  204    111.  We  also  note  at  least  one  other  instance  where  the  Commission  has  mandated  equipment 
 compatibility  standards  to  promote  interoperability.  For  example,  ships  operating  under  the  provisions  of  the 
 Global  Maritime  Distress  and  Safety  System  (GMDSS)  must  be  equipped  with  VHF  radios  capable  of  operating 
 on  various  prescribed  frequencies  that  are  dedicated  for  certain  purposes.  47  C.  F.  R.    80.1085.  Ship  radios  must 
 have  a  dedicated  channel  capable  of  continually  monitoring  the  transmission  of  distress  alerts.  47  C.  F.  R.   
 80.1085(  a). 


 104  Project  25  Phase  I  is  a  12.  5  kHz  Frequency  Division  Multiple  Access  (FDMA)  standard  that  the  public  safety 


 community  developed  and  is  an  American  National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI)  standard.  Project  25  Phase  II  is  a 
 6.  25  kHz  FDMA  standard. 


 105  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  205    113. 


 106  Id. 
 107  Id. 
 108  Twenty  filings  were  received  on  the  issue  of  digital  standards.  Petitions  and  comments  supporting  the 
 immediate  adoption  by  the  Commission  of  the  TIA/  25  digital  standard  were  filed  by  APCO,  NPSTC,  New  York 
 State  Technology  Enterprise  Corporation  (NYSTEC),  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  (UPRR),  FLEWUG, 
 Motorola,  State  of  California,  Project  25  Steering  Committee  (Project  25),  State  of  Florida,  APCO  Canada, 
 Daniels  Electronic,  Ltd.  (Daniels),  King  Communications  U.  S.  A.,  Inc.,  Illinois  APCO,  Northwest  Central 
 (continued.) 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 18 
 a  substantial  delay  while  the  NCC  proceeds  with  its  work.  109  Moreover,  APCO  contends  that  the  TIA/  25 
 Phase  I  standard  permits  equipment  to  exceed  the  channel  efficiency  requirement  we  adopted  for  the  700 
 MHz  band.  110  APCO  states  that  because  Project  25  Phase  II  will  be  a  6.  25  kHz  standard,  and  will  be 
 backwards  compatible  to  Phase  I  equipment,  there  is  no  reason  to  prohibit  immediate  use  of  digital 
 equipment  meeting  the  TIA/  25  Phase  I  standard  in  the  700  MHz  band.  111 


 43.  On  the  other  hand,  some  commenters  agree  with  our  approach  in  the  First  Report  and 
 Order.  Both  Ericsson  and  AASHTO  oppose  the  immediate  adoption  of  an  interoperability  digital 
 standard.  112  Ericsson  argues  that  regardless  of  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  narrowband  standard  in  this 
 new  spectrum,  the  700  MHz  band  will  not  be  available  for  public  safety  use  in  any  appreciable  amount,  or 
 in  areas  where  it  is  truly  needed,  until  2006  at  the  earliest.  Ericsson  further  asserts  that  the  existence  of  a 
 narrowband  standard  will  not  cause  TV  stations  in  congested  areas  to  exit  this  spectrum  any  sooner  than 
 the  DTV  date.  113  AASHTO  maintains  that  we  should  wait  for  the  forthcoming  Project  25  Phase  II  6.  25 
 kHz  standard  because  it  will  be  compliant  with  the  requirements  and  standards  adopted  in  the  First  Report 
 and  Order.  114 


 44.  The  NCC  considered  three  digital  voice  standards:  Project  25  Phase  I,  Project  25  Phase  II, 
 and  the  European  Technical  Standards  Institute  (ETSI)  392  TETRA  system  (TETRA).  115  The  NCC 
 recommends  that  we  adopt  Project  25  Phase  I  as  the  digital  voice  standard  for  interoperability  channels.  116 
 As  discussed  above,  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  is  based  on  12.  5  kHz  channels.  It  meets  our  minimum 
 data  rate  of  4800  bps  per  6.25  kHz  bandwidth.  It  does  not,  however,  meet  the  spirit  of  our  6.25  kHz  band 
 plan  (i.  e.,  one  voice  channel  per  6.  25  kHz  bandwidth).  According  to  the  NCC  Report,  the  Project  25  Phase 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Dispatch  System  (NWCDS),  DuPage  Public  Safety  Communications,  City  of  Chicago  OEC,  State  of  Nebraska, 
 and  Elk  Grove  Village  Fire  Department.  While  NPSTC  did  not  specifically  mention  that  it  supported  the  existing 
 TIA/  25  standard,  it  requested  reconsideration  of  our  decision  on  digital  standards,  arguing  that  the  decision  will 
 cause  an  unacceptable  delay  in  the  use  of  the  700  MHz  band.  Petition  of  NPSTC  at  6.  Comments  opposing  the 
 immediate  adoption  of  the  TIA/  25  standard  were  filed  by  Ericsson  and  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  (collectively  AASHTO). 


 109  See,  e.  g.,  APCO  Petition  at  5-  13,  Motorola  Petition  at  5-  13,  NPSTC  Petition  at  7,  NYSTEC  Petition  at  3-  9, 


 UPRR  Comments  at  1-  2. 
 110  APCO  Petition  at  5-  13.  We  allow  12.5  kHz  operation  in  the  700  MHz  band  if  the  9.6  kbps/  12.5  kHz  channel 


 efficiency  requirement  (i.  e.,  4.8  kbps/  6.  25  kHz)  is  met.  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  173    38;  47 
 C.  F.  R.    90.535(  b). 


 111  APCO  Petition  at  11-  12. 


 112  Opposition  by  Ericsson  to  the  Petitions  for  Reconsideration  to  the  First  Report  and  Order  filed  by  UPRR, 
 Daniels,  APCO  Canada,  NYSTEC,  California,  Project  25,  Motorola,  APCO,  and  FLEWUG  at  3-  8. 
 113  Id.  at  3. 


 114  AASHTO  Joint  Reply  Comments  at  3.  Project  25  Phase  II  also  is  an  official  ANSI  standard,  however,  it  has  not 
 been  implemented  in  commercially  available  equipment  in  any  band. 


 115  TETRA  is  a  four-  slot  Time  Division  Multiple  Access  (TDMA)  standard  in  which  four  voice  channels  are 
 realized  within  a  25  kHz  bandwidth.  TETRA  is  currently  not  an  ANSI  standard. 
 116  NCC  Report  at  17    54. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 19 
 I  standard  was  preferred  because  it  has  been  implemented  successfully  in  other  bands  (e.  g.,  the  800  MHz 
 public  safety  band),  and  radio  equipment  could  be  available  in  the  very  near  future.  117  The  NCC  did  not 
 recommend  Project  25  Phase  II,  in  part,  because  of  perceived  delays  (approximately  five  years)  in  the 
 availability  of  Phase  II  technology.  118  The  NCC  did  not  recommend  TETRA  primarily  because  of  the  low 
 power  of  its  handheld  units  119  and  the  fact  that  it  is  not  an  ANSI  standard.  120  Moreover,  the  Project  25 
 Phase  I  standard  is  the  only  common  denominator  between  several  technologies  in  development,  whereas 
 the  Project  25  Phase  II  standard  may  never  provide  such  a  benefit.  121 


 45.  We  observe  that  the  members  of  the  NCCs  Steering  Committee  were  not  unanimous  in 
 recommending  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard.  122  One  Steering  Committee  member,  who  represents  the 
 International  Association  of  Fire  Chiefs,  disfavored  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  because  of  perceived 
 spectrum  inefficiency  and  lack  of  competition.  123  This  Steering  Committee  member  proposed  the  use  of 
 analog  FM  technology  pending  the  development  of  a  more  spectrum-  efficient  digital  technology.  124 
 Additionally,  we  observe  that  the  NCC  reported  that  Nokia  also  opposed  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard.  125 


 46.  We  invite  parties  to  comment  on  the  issue  of  what  digital  voice  standard  should  be  adopted 
 for  usage  on  the  interoperability  channels  in  the  700  MHz  public  safety  band.  Although  we  still  intend  to 
 require  spectrum  efficient  6.  25  kHz  technology  on  the  700  MHz  interoperability  channels,  we  recognize 
 that  a  substantial  delay  in  the  use  of  this  band  could  result  if  we  have  no  alternative  standard  for  the  present 
 use  of  the  band.  As  a  result,  we  tentatively  conclude  that  we  should  adopt  the  NCCs  recommendation  of 
 the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  at  this  time  and  that  we  should  develop  and  implement  a  migration  path 
 to  6.  25  kHz  technology.  We  solicit  comment  on  our  tentative  conclusion.  In  seeking  comment  on  this  issue, 
 parties  should  be  cognizant  of  the  dual  goals  of  (1)  encouraging  the  development  and  usage  of  the  most 
 spectrum-  efficient  technology,  and  (2)  providing  public  safety  entities  access  to  the  700  MHz 
 interoperability  channels  on  a  near-  term  basis  in  a  cost-  effective  manner. 


 47.  We  note  that  we  anticipate  the  NCCs  future  recommendations  for  transitioning  from  a 
 12.  5  kHz  standard  to  a  more  spectrum-  efficient  6.  25  kHz  standard.  To  avoid  even  the  specter  of  delay,  we 
 tentatively  conclude  that  we  should  incorporate  a  migration  path  to  a  6.  25  kHz  standard  in  our  Rules 
 while  we  continue  to  foster  spectrum  efficient  6.  25  kHz  technology.  Commenters  who  advocate  a  specific 
 technical  standard  should  offer  recommendations  regarding  a  clear,  timely  and  realistic  migration  path  to 


 117  Id. 
 118  According  to  the  NCC,  the  technology  readiness  obstacles  associated  with  Project  25  Phase  II  are  battery  size, 
 weight  and  oscillator  stability.  NCC  Report  at  18    55-  56. 
 119  The  NCC  notes  that  the  lower  power  results  in  reduced  coverage  and  building  penetration  relative  to  Project 


 25  Phase  I  radios.  The  inferior  building  penetration,  in  particular,  was  thought  to  be  an  important  safety 
 concern,  especially  for  police  and  fire  operations.  NCC  Report  at  18-  19    57-  58. 


 120  NCC  Report  at  19    58. 


 121  See  id.  at  Appendix  G. 
 122  Id.  at  22    69. 
 123  Id. 
 124  Id. 
 125  Id.  at  Appendix  B,  Minutes  of  NCCs  Sixth  Meeting,  Jan.  28,  2000,  at  iii. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 20 
 spectrum  efficient  6.  25  kHz  technology  in  the  future.  Additionally,  we  request  comments  concerning  what 
 technical  challenges  must  the  industry  overcome  to  migrate  to  a  6.  25  kHz  standard  and  how  will  these 
 challenges  affect  the  length  of  the  migration.  What  equipment  compatibility  issues  must  the  industry 
 resolve?  Furthermore,  can  the  industry  develop  equipment  that  is  both  forward  and  backwards  compatible? 


 48.  In  addition  to  comments  concerning  technology  and  equipment  issues,  we  seek  comment  on 
 the  development  of  a  specific  migration  path  from  the  Project  25  Phase  I  standard  to  a  6.  25  kHz  standard. 
 Specifically,  what  is  an  appropriate  length  of  time  to  migrate  to  the  6.  25  kHz  standard.  126  Commenters 
 should  address  the  advantages  as  well  as  the  disadvantages  of  a  particular  migration  path.  Should  we 
 require  a  migration  period  that  ends  in  the  year  2010,  approximately  ten  years?  This  date  corresponds  to 
 the  date  by  which  Congress  directed  the  Commission  to  develop  a  framework  to  ensure  that  public  safety 
 communications  needs  are  met. 


 49.  As  an  adjunct  to  the  length  of  the  migration  period,  we  seek  comment  on  several  additional 
 migration  issues.  Primarily,  should  we  limit  the  time  period  for  the  type  acceptance  of  12.  5  kHz 
 equipment?  For  example,  in  the  Refarming  proceeding,  we  require  equipment  certified  after  January  1, 
 2005  to  meet  the  6.25  kHz  requirements  in  the  150-  174  MHz  and  421-  512  MHz  refarmed  bands.  127  Are 
 there  alternative  approaches  for  migration  other  than  type  acceptance?  Furthermore,  some  thought  should 
 also  be  given  to  whether  the  migration  period  should  be  completed  in  stages.  If  so,  what  time  periods 
 would  be  appropriate  and  what  occurrences  should  mark  the  beginning  and  ending  of  the  time  periods? 
 Should  we  have  a  date  certain,  or  should  we  determine  these  time  periods  based  upon  the  DTV  transition? 
 What  would  be  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  a  date  certain  versus  a  less  certain  date.  Commenters 
 should  also  address  the  cost  to  public  safety  entities  to  migrate  to  the  6.  25  kHz  standard  from  a  12.  5  kHz 
 standard. 


 50.  Channel  Efficiency  Standards  Narrowband  Channels.  We  established  a  channel 
 efficiency  standard  (data  throughput)  of  4.  8  kilobits  per  second  (kbps)  per  6.  25  kHz  for  the  narrowband 
 channels.  128  Ericsson  requests  that  we  modify  the  efficiency  standard  for  narrowband  channels  (general  use 
 and  interoperability)  to  include  a  requirement  that  transmitters  for  voice  communications  in  the  narrowband 
 segment  of  the  700  MHz  band  meet  a  spectrum  efficiency  standard  of  one  voice  channel  per  6.25  kHz  of 
 channel  bandwidth,  regardless  of  the  data  rate  supplied.  129  Ericsson  contends  that  it  is  entirely  possible  that 
 a  digital  voice  transmitter,  even  though  it  meets  the  data  requirement  now  specified  in  our  Rules,  would 
 provide  only  one  voice  path  in  a  12.  5  kHz  channel.  130  Therefore,  Ericsson  asserts  that  a  requirement  for 
 voice  efficiency,  as  currently  exists  for  channels  in  the  150-  174  MHz  and  421-  512  MHz  bands,  is  also 
 needed.  131  Furthermore,  Ericsson  contends  that  refusal  to  adopt  complimentary  voice  spectrum  efficiency 


 126  In  the  Refarming  proceeding,  we  adopted  a  conversion  period  of  10  years.  See  Replacement  of  Part  90  by  Part 
 88  to  Revise  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services  and  Modify  the  Policies  Governing  Them  and  Examination 
 of  Exclusivity  and  Frequency  Assignment  Policies  of  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  PR  Docket  No.  92-235, 
 Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  10  FCC  Rcd  10,076  (1995). 


 127  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.203(  5). 


 128  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  173    38  and  Appendix  E;  see  47  C.  F.  R.    90.535(  b). 
 129  Ericsson  Petition  at  8. 
 130  Id. 
 131  Id. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 21 
 requirements  will  seriously  undermine  the  adequacy  of  the  spectrum  needs  identified  in  the  PSWAC  Final 
 Report.  132 


 51.  APCO  and  Motorola  oppose  Ericsson's  suggestion  to  require  a  voice  channel  efficiency 
 standard  of  one  voice  channel  per  6.  25  kHz.  APCO  contends  that  Ericsson's  proposal  appears  to  favor  its 
 own  proprietary  TDMA  2-  slot  technology,  which  is  not  an  ANSI  standard.  133  APCO  further  states  that  at 
 this  time  there  is  no  ANSI-  approved  technology  that  provides  one  voice  channel  per  6.  25  kHz  of  channel 
 bandwidth,  and  that  several  technologies  are  under  consideration  as  part  of  the  Project  25  Phase  II,  6.  25 
 kHz  standard  now  in  development.  134  APCO  also  argues  that  to  mandate  that  equipment  be  capable  of 
 supporting  one  voice  channel  per  6.25  kHz  would  unnecessarily  and  prematurely  favor  TDMA  technology 
 and  undermine  the  public  safety  communitys  support  for  the  existing  TIA/  25  standard.  135  Motorola  argues 
 that  adoption  of  the  one  voice  channel  per  6.  25  kHz  of  channel  bandwidth  would  accelerate  public  safety 
 requirements  ahead  of  those  established  for  business  and  industrial  applications,  and  would  require  public 
 safety  users  to  assume  responsibility  for  funding  the  development  of  new  technologies.  136 


 52.  As  stated  above,  we  invite  comment  on  the  appropriate  digital  voice  standard  for  the 
 interoperability  channels  in  the  700  MHz  public  safety  band.  Ericssons  recommendation  would  result  in  a 
 negation  of  the  NCCs  recommendation  to  use  the  Project  25  Phase  I  (TIA/  25)  standard.  Because  we  are 
 reluctant  to  negate  the  NCCs  recommendation,  we  will  not,  at  this  juncture,  alter  our  present  4.  8  kbps  per 
 6.  25  kHz  standard.  We  seek  comment  on  this  issue. 


 53.  Narrowband  Low  Speed  Data  Transmission  Standard  and  Channel  Reservation.  The 
 NCC  recommends  that  we  reserve  two  interoperability  channels  for  data  transmission.  137  The  NCC 
 recognizes  that  although  time-  critical  information,  such  as  safety  of  life  messages,  requires 
 communication  by  voice  radio,  low  speed  data  transmission  also  can  be  used  to  manage  specific  incident 
 command  system  operations.  138  For  example,  narrowband  data  transmission  can  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
 keyboard  messages  or  the  uploading  and  downloading  of  short  files.  139  Pursuant  to  the  NCCs 
 recommendation,  we  propose  to  reserve  two  interoperability  channels  for  data  transmission. 


 54.  Just  as  an  interoperability  standard  is  needed  for  digital  voice,  a  standard  is  also  needed  for 
 narrowband  data  transmissions  on  interoperability  channels.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  adopt  the  data 
 interoperability  standard  that  is  incorporated  in  the  Project  25  suite  of  standards  and  is  defined  by  one 
 ANSI  standard  and  four  TIA/  EIA  standards.  140  This  data  interoperability  standard  requires  use  of  a  12.  5 


 132  Ericsson  Reply  to  Motorola  and  APCO  at  2. 
 133  APCO  Response  to  Petitions  at  5-  6. 
 134  Id.  at  6-  7. 
 135  Id.  at  7. 
 136  Motorola  Comments  to  Petitions  at  7. 
 137  NCC  Report  at  20    63,  Appendix  I. 
 138  Id.  at  Appendix  H  at  1. 
 139  Id.  at  20    62. 
 140  Id.  at  21    64,  Appendix  I. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 22 
 kHz  channel  the  same  channel  size  recommended  by  the  NCC  for  voice  transmission.  141  The  NCC 
 asserts  that  using  the  same  channel  size  for  voice  transmission  will  reduce  the  complexity  and  cost  of 
 equipment.  The  NCC  notes  that  the  data  rate  meets  our  spectrum  efficiency  requirement  of  9600  bps  for  a 
 12.  5  kHz  channel.  We  solicit  comment  on  the  appropriate  standard  for  narrowband  data  transmissions  on 
 interoperability  channels.  As  stated  earlier,  commenters  who  advocate  a  specific  technical  standard  should 
 offer  recommendations  regarding  a  clear,  timely,  and  realistic  migration  path  to  more  spectrum-  efficient 
 technology  in  the  future.  142 


 55.  Additionally,  we  propose  that  subscriber  units  designed  for  data-  only  applications  not  be 
 required  to  have  voice  capability.  Conversely,  subscriber  units  designed  for  voice-  only  applications  need 
 not  have  data  transmission  capability.  We  tentatively  support  the  NCC  recommendations  above  and  solicit 
 comment  on  these  issues,  with  particular  regard  to  matters  of  spectrum  efficiency  and  any  changes 
 necessary  in  our  Rules. 


 56.  Encryption.  The  NCC  notes  that  public  safety  entities  increasingly  are  using  encryption. 
 The  NCC  recommends  that  we  require  a  standard  encryption  algorithm  if  we  decide  to  permit  licensees  to 
 use  encryption  on  the  interoperability  channels.  143  Otherwise,  the  ability  to  use  the  channels  for 
 interoperability  will  be  compromised.  We  agree  with  the  NCC  that  there  is  an  increasing  use  of  encryption 
 by  public  safety  entities.  Because  we  anticipate  that  the  Federal  government,  which  normally  encrypts  its 
 communications,  will  be  using  the  channels,  the  NCC  recommends  that  we  adopt  the  latest  Federal 
 standard.  144  We  believe  that  encryption  should  be  permitted  on  the  700  MHz  band  public  safety  spectrum, 
 except  for  the  calling  channels.  Further,  we  invite  comments  on  the  NCCs  recommendation  that  if 
 encryption  is  permitted  on  the  interoperability  channels,  a  single  standard  is  needed.  We  understand  that 
 the  Federal  government  currently  uses  an  encryption  standard  known  as  2xDES  but  soon  will  adopt  a 
 new,  more  secure  standard  potentially  FIPS  46-  3,  which  operates  on  12.  5  kHz  channels.  We  seek 
 comment  on  whether  this  Federal  standard  should  be  adopted,  and  if  so,  the  best  method  for  updating  the 
 encryption  standard  in  the  future. 


 57.  Receiver  Standards  and  Interference.  In  the  First  Report  and  Order,  we  observed  that  we 
 traditionally  have  adopted  rules  only  as  necessary  to  limit  interference  between  communications  systems 
 and  have  not  specified  performance  or  quality  standards  for  receivers.  145  We  further  recognized  that  while 
 receiver  standards  may  be  appropriate  in  certain  public  safety  circumstances,  the  balance  between  the 
 quality  and  the  cost  of  receivers  is  one  best  left  to  the  market.  146  Accordingly,  for  general  use  channels,  we 
 required  RPCs  to  establish  reference  values  for  adjacent  channel  selectivity,  spurious  response  attenuation, 


 141  Id.  at  21    65,  Appendix  I. 
 142  See  supra  at  para.  46. 
 143  NCC  Report  at  15    46. 
 144  Id. 
 145  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  208    118.  But  see  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    80.1081  (prescribing  the 
 functional  requirements  for  GMDSS  ship  stations),  80.874  (specifying  technical  parameters  for  marine  VHF 
 receiver  sensitivity,  audio  output,  and  reception  capability). 


 146  See  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  208    118. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 23 
 and  intermodulation  rejection  in  their  plans.  147  For  interoperability,  we  charged  the  NCC  with 
 recommending  the  parameters  (e.  g.,  sensitivity,  selectivity,  dynamic  range,  durability  characteristics)  to 
 include  in  the  receiver  standards.  148  The  NCC  has  included  this  matter  in  its  second  year  work-  plan. 


 58.  In  the  Second  MO&  O,  we  declined  to  adopt  receiver  standards  absent  additional 
 information  from  the  public  safety  community  regarding  the  advantages,  disadvantages,  and  feasibility  of 
 mandating  receiver  standards  for  the  700  MHz  band.  149  We  noted  that  to  the  extent  that  receiver  standards 
 could  improve  the  reliability  of  interoperability  communications  systems  used  in  critical  safety  of  life  and 
 property  circumstances,  such  standards  may  be  appropriate.  150  Recently  we  have  received  an  increasing 
 number  of  interference  complaints  from  public  safety  licensees  in  the  800  MHz  public  safety  band.  Many 
 of  these  licensees  note  several  instances  where  public  safety  mobile  and  portable  radios  operating  on  the 
 800  MHz  band  either  have  failed  to  function  properly,  or  have  failed  to  function  at  all,  especially  in  areas 
 located  near  towers  operated  by  commercial  mobile  radio  service  (CMRS)  systems.  There  are  indications 
 that  some  incidents  of  interference  may  be  caused  at  least  in  part  by  receivers  that  are  too  susceptible  to 
 interference  from  nearby  public  safety  or  commercial  operations.  These  incidents  of  interference  are 
 difficult  to  resolve  because  the  adjacent  licensees  may  be  operating  within  the  terms  of  their  licenses,  while 
 public  safety  operators  may  lack  the  resources  to  replace  radio  systems  that  are  susceptible  to  interference 
 with  more  robust  equipment.  We  therefore  seek  comment  on  whether  the  interests  of  public  safety  and 
 commercial  licensees  in  the  700  MHz  band  would  be  served  by  establishing  interference  standards  for 
 receivers  operating  on  public  safety  frequencies. 


 59.  Specifically,  we  invite  comment  on  whether  we  should  mandate  receiver  standards  to 
 address  interference  issues  raised  by  public  safety  radio  operators.  151  Furthermore,  assuming  that 
 interference  experienced  by  public  safety  radio  operations  is  caused  by  CMRS  systems,  what  is  the  specific 
 cause  of  this  interference?  For  example,  can  this  interference  be  attributable  to  out-  of-  band  emissions,  the 
 poor  quality  of  some  public  safety  radio  receivers,  or  some  other  factor?  Do  we  need  to  revisit  our  current 
 rules  on  out-  of-  band  emissions  by  radio  transmitters?  Could  higher  filtering  standards  solve  most 
 interference  problems?  Is  interference  caused  primarily  by  transmissions  from  adjacent  channels  or  non-adjacent 
 channels?  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  equipment  manufacturers  to  label 
 equipment  to  indicate  the  interference  level  that  a  customer  might  expect  with  a  given  receiver.  We 
 additionally  invite  comment  on  whether  public  safety  operations  in  the  700  MHz  band  might  be  less 
 susceptible  to  interference  than  public  safety  operations  in  the  800  MHz  band  due  to  the  various  differences 
 in  channelization  plans  and  the  use  of  guard  channels  in  the  700  MHz  band. 


 147  Id.  at  211-  12    132.  We  noted  that  this  approach  will  allow  public  safety  entities  to  avail  themselves  of 
 competitive  market  choices  while  establishing  a  "reference  receiver,"  thereby  assisting  all  parties,  including  the 
 Commission,  in  resolving  interference  disputes.  Id. 


 148  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  208    121. 


 149  Development  of  Operational,  Technical  and  Spectrum  Requirements  for  Meeting  Federal,  State  and  Local 
 Public  Safety  Agency  Communications  Requirements  Through  the  Year  2010,  WT  Docket  No.  96-  86,  Second 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  FCC  00-  264,    23  (Aug.  1,  2000)  (Second  MO&  O). 


 150  Id. 


 151  See,  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.    80.257,  80.259,  80.269,  80.271  (addressing  equipment  authorizations  for  compulsory 
 ships  using  stations  in  the  maritime  services),  80.1101(  c)  (addressing  equipment  standards  for  the  GMDSS). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 24 
 E.  Other  Issues 
 60.  Federal  Use  of  the  Interoperability  Spectrum.  The  NCC  recommends  sufficient  flexibility 
 in  our  Rules  to  allow  state  and  local  authorities  to  enter  contractual  agreements  with  Federal  authorities.  152 
 In  these  agreements,  Federal  users  would  have  equal  rights  to  the  spectrum,  and  no  user  would  have 
 priority  over  another  user  unless  otherwise  specified  in  the  contract.  As  the  NCC  observes,  Section 
 2.103(  b)  of  our  Rules  153  already  offers  flexibility  in  this  regard.  In  the  Second  MO&  O,  we  concluded  that 
 there  is  no  impediment  to  federal  use  of  the  700  MHz  band  through  the  use  of  sharing  agreements.  154  Thus, 
 we  tentatively  conclude  that  an  additional  rule  is  not  necessary  to  facilitate  Federal  sharing  of  the 
 interoperability  spectrum.  We  seek  comment  on  our  tentative  conclusion. 


 61.  Pre-  coordination  Database.  The  NCC  recommends  that  we  require  RPCs  to  use  a 
 regional  planning  pre-  coordination  database,  which  will  be  developed  for  the  700  MHz  public  safety 
 band.  The  NCC  recommends  requiring  RPCs  to  choose  interoperability  channels  from  this  pre-coordination 
 database  in  order  to  avoid  co-  channel  and  adjacent  channel  interference.  155  According  to  the 
 NCC,  the  National  Law  Enforcement  and  Corrections  Technology  Center  (NLETC)  will  provide  and 
 maintain  a  real-  time  database  of  interoperability  assignments,  including  pre-  application  assignments.  The 
 National  Institute  of  Justice  will  fund  the  database.  156  RPCs  would  submit  pre-  application  information  to 
 NLETC  concerning  anticipated  use  of  interoperability  channels.  When  planning  systems,  RPCs  could 
 check  the  database  to  see  how  adjacent  regions  were  planning  to  use  interoperability  spectrum  and  thus 
 eliminate  potential  interference  problems  in  the  early  stages  of  system  development. 


 62.  We  are  aware  of  and  support  the  benefits  of  a  real-  time  common  database  for  planning 
 purposes  and  in  minimizing  interference.  Nonetheless,  just  as  we  decline  to  micromanage  frequency 
 coordination  in  the  700  MHz  regional  planning  spectrum  in  the  Second  MO&  O,  157  we  similarly  decline  to 
 micromanage  pre-  coordination  of  interoperability  channels.  158  We  believe  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  require 
 by  rule  the  use  of  a  pre-  coordination  database. 


 63.  Based  on  the  record  before  us,  we  tentatively  conclude  that  the  decision  to  require 
 applicants  for  interoperability  channels  to  use  a  common  pre-  coordination  database  is  best  left  to  the 
 entities  tasked  with  administering  the  interoperability  spectrum.  In  any  event,  we  solicit  comment  from 
 parties  favoring  the  NCCs  recommendation  for  requiring  the  use  of  a  pre-  coordination  database.  We  also 
 solicit  comment  on  whether  the  RPCs  should  include  in  their  regional  plans  a  coordination  process  between 
 interoperability  and  general  use  channels.  We  also  seek  comment  on  what  alternative  systems  of  channel 
 coordination  RPCs  could  employ  in  their  planning  process.  Do  commenters  envision  the  use  of  a  pre-coordination 
 database  if  the  states  or  SIECs  are  the  entities  to  manage  the  interoperability  spectrum? 
 Moreover,  we  invite  commenters  to  propose  how  they  envision  coordination  between  various 


 152  NCC  Report  at  22    72,  Appendix  J. 


 153  47  C.  F.  R.    2.103(  b). 
 154  Second  MO&  O,    46-  53. 
 155  NCC  Report  at  23-  24    74,  Appendix  K  (Letter  from  Marilyn  Ward,  Chair,  National  Public  Safety 
 Telecommunications  Council,  to  Kathleen  Wallman,  Chairperson,  NCC,  dated  Apr.  22,  1999). 
 156  NCC  Report  at  24    74. 


 157  Second  MO&  O,    80. 
 158  See  Second  MO&  O,    79-  84. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 25 
 interoperability  entities  (i.  e.,  SIECs  in  different  states,  or  SIECs  or  RPCs  managing  the  interoperability 
 channels  for  the  same  region).  We  also  solicit  comment  on  any  other  pertinent  issues  that  would  facilitate 
 the  successful  implementation  of  the  pre-  coordination  database. 


 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS 
 64.  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act 
 (RFA)  of  1980,  159  we  have  prepared  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible 
 significant  economic  impact  on  small  entities  of  the  policies  and  rules  proposed  by  this  Fourth  Notice  of 
 Proposed  Rule  Making.  The  IRFA  is  set  forth  in  Appendix  A.  We  request  written  public  comment  on  the 
 IRFA. 


 65.  Comments  must  be  filed  in  accordance  with  the  same  filing  deadlines  as  comments  filed  in 
 this  rulemaking  proceeding,  they  must  have  a  separate  and  distinct  heading  designating  them  as  responses 
 to  the  IRFA.  The  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  shall  send  a  copy  of  this 
 Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  including  the  IRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Small  Business 
 Administration,  in  accordance  with  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act. 


 66.  Paperwork  Reduction  Analysis.  This  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  contains 
 proposed  information  collections.  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  the  proposed  revisions  to  the  information  collections  contained  in  this  Fourth 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  which  is  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995,  Pub.  L.  No. 
 104-  13. 


 67.  Public  and  agency  comments  are  due  at  the  same  time  as  other  comments  on  this  Fourth 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.  OMB  comments  are  due  sixty  days  from  the  date  of  publication  of  this 
 Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  the  Federal  Register.  In  addition  to  filing  comments  with  the 
 Secretary,  a  copy  of  any  comments  on  the  information  collections  contained  herein  should  be  submitted  to 
 Judy  Boley,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445  Twelfth  St.,  S.  W.,  Room  1-  C804,  Washington, 
 D.  C.  20554,  or  via  the  Internet  to  jboley@  fcc.  gov,  and  to  Virginia  Huth,  OMB  Desk  Officer,  10236 
 NEOB,  725  17th  St.,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20503,  or  via  the  Internet  to  vhuth@  omb.  eop.  gov. 
 Comments  should  address:  (a)  whether  the  proposed  collection  of  information  is  necessary  for  the  proper 
 performance  of  the  functions  of  the  Commission,  including  whether  the  information  shall  have  practical 
 utility;  (b)  the  accuracy  of  the  Commission's  burden  estimates;  (c)  ways  to  enhance  the  quality,  utility,  and 
 clarity  of  the  information  collected;  and  (d)  ways  to  minimize  the  burden  of  the  collection  of  information  on 
 the  respondents,  including  the  use  of  automated  collection  techniques  or  other  forms  of  information 
 technology. 


 68.  Ex  Parte  Presentations.  For  purposes  of  this  permit-  but-  disclose  notice  and  comment 
 rulemaking  proceeding,  members  of  the  public  are  advised  that  ex  parte  presentations  are  permitted,  except 
 during  the  Sunshine  Agenda  period,  provided  they  are  disclosed  under  our  Rules.  160 


 69.  Comment  Dates.  Pursuant  to  Sections  1.415  and  1.419  of  our  Rules,  161  interested  parties 
 may  file  comments  on  or  before  thirty  days  after  publication  of  the  Fourth  Notice  in  the  Federal 


 159  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603. 


 160  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    1.202,  1.203,  1.206(  a). 
 161  47  C.  F.  R.    1.415,  1.419. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 26 
 Register;  2000,  and  reply  comments  on  or  before  forty  five  days  after  publication  of  the  Fourth  Notice  in  the  Federal  Register.  Comments  may  be  filed  using  the  Commissions  Electronic  Comment 
 Filing  System  (ECFS)  or  by  filing  paper  copies.  162  All  relevant  and  timely  comments  will  be  considered  by 
 the  Commission  before  final  action  is  taken  in  this  proceeding.  To  file  formally,  interested  parties  must  file 
 an  original  and  four  copies  of  all  comments,  reply  comments,  and  supporting  comments.  If  interested 
 parties  want  each  Commissioner  to  receive  a  personal  copy  of  their  comments,  they  must  file  an  original 
 plus  nine  copies.  Interested  parties  should  send  comments  and  reply  comments  to  the  Office  of  the 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445  12th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  DC  20544. 


 70.  Comments  filed  through  the  ECFS  can  be  sent  as  an  electronic  file  via  the  Internet  to 
 <http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  e-  file/  ecfs.  html>.  Generally,  only  one  copy  of  an  electronic  submission  must  be  filed. 
 In  completing  the  transmittal  screen,  commenters  should  include  their  full  name,  Postal  Service  mailing 
 address,  and  the  applicable  docket  or  rulemaking  number.  Parties  may  also  submit  an  electronic  comment 
 by  the  Internet  e-  mail.  To  get  filing  instructions  for  e-  mail  comments,  commenters  should  send  an  e-  mail  to 
 ecfs@  fcc.  gov,  and  should  include  the  following  words  in  the  body  of  the  message,  get  form  <your  e-  mail 
 address>.  A  sample  form  and  directions  will  be  sent  in  reply. 


 71.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  by  paper  must  file  an  original  and  four  copies  of  each  filing.  If 
 more  than  one  docket  or  rulemaking  number  appears  in  the  caption  of  this  proceeding,  commenters  must 
 submit  two  additional  copies  for  each  additional  docket  or  rulemaking  number.  All  filings  must  be  sent  to 
 the  Commissions  Secretary,  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Office  of  the  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission,  445  12th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  DC  20554. 


 72.  For  further  information  concerning  this  proceeding,  contact  Nancy  Zaczek,  Public  Safety 
 and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  at  (202)  418-  0759  or 
 nzaczek@  fcc.  gov. 


 73.  Alternative  formats  (computer  diskette,  large  print,  audio  cassette,  and  Braille)  are 
 available  to  persons  with  disabilities  by  contacting  Martha  Contee  at  (202)  418-  0260,  TTY  (202)  418- 
 2555,  or  via  e-  mail  to  mcontee@  fcc.  gov.  This  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  can  be 
 downloaded  at  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  Wireless/  Orders/  2000/  fcc00-  271.txt. 


 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 74.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  these  actions  ARE  TAKEN  pursuant  to  Sections  1, 
 4(  i),  7,  301,  302,  303,  and  337  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    151, 
 154(  i),  157,  301,  302,  303,  337. 


 75.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  NOTICE  IS  HEREBY  GIVEN  of  the  proposed 
 regulatory  changes  described  above,  and  that  comment  is  sought  on  these  proposals. 


 76.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  is  hereby 
 ADOPTED. 


 77.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commissions  Consumer  Information  Bureau, 
 Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making, 


 162  See  Electronic  Filing  of  Documents  in  Rulemaking  Proceedings,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  21517  (1998),  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  11322  (1998). 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 27 
 including  the  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small 
 Business  Administration. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 A-  1 
 APPENDIX  A 
 INITIAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 


 As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  163  the  Commission  has  prepared  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible  significant  economic  impact  on  small  entities  of  the 
 policies  and  rules  proposed  in  this  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  (Fourth  Notice).  Written  public  comments  are  requested  regarding  this  IRFA.  Comments  must  be  identified  as  responses  to  the 
 IRFA  and  must  be  filed  by  the  deadlines  for  comments  on  the  Fourth  Notice  provided  in  the  item.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  Fourth  Notice,  including  this  IRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for 
 Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  164  In  addition,  the  Fourth  Notice  and  IRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  165 


 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Proposed  Rules 
 In  the  Fourth  Notice,  we  continue  our  evaluation  of  rules  applicable  to  the  use  of  public  safety  spectrum  in  the  frequencies  at  764-  776  MHz  and  794-  806  MHz  (the  700  MHz  band).  Specifically,  the 
 Fourth  Notice  summarizes  and  seeks  comment  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Public  Safety  National 
 Coordination  Committee  (NCC)  concerning  technical  and  operational  standards  for  public  safety  interoperability  frequencies  in  the  700  MHz  band.  We  seek  comment  on  a  number  of  issues  including: 


 primary  and  secondary  trunking  on  the  interoperability  channels;  establishment  and  role  of  Regional  Planning  Committees  (RPCs)  and  State  Interoperability  Executive  Committees  (SIECs);  administration  of 
 the  interoperability  channels  by  state  or  local  entities;  licensing  of  end-  users;  standardized  display  labeling  for  interoperability  units;  access  priority  scheme  for  the  interoperability  channels;  designation  and  use  of 
 calling  channels;  use  of  encryption  on  the  interoperability  channels;  digital  voice  standards  and  efficiency  standards  for  the  interoperability  channels;  digital  data  standards  and  channel  reservation  for  the 
 interoperability  channels;  federal  use  of  the  interoperability  spectrum;  and  use  of  a  pre-  coordination  database  to  assign  the  interoperability  channels.  The  proposed  rules  and  actions  should  help  achieve  our 
 goal  of  seamless  interoperability  on  a  nationwide  basis,  thereby  improving  critical  public  safety  communications.  166 


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


 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  Which  the  Proposed  Rules  Will  Apply 
 The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.  167  The  RFA  defines  the 
 163  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601  et  seq.,  has  been  amended  by  the  Contract  With  America 
 Advancement  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  847  (1996)  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the 
 Small  Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA). 


 164  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a). 


 165  See  id. 
 166  See  supra  at  paras.  31-  32 
 167  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3). 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 A-  2 
 term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  business  concern  under  Section  3  of  the  Small  Business  Act.  168  A  small  business  concern  is  one 
 that:  (1)  is  independently  owned  and  operated,  (2)  is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation,  and  (3)  satisfies  any  additional  criteria  established  by  the  Small  Business  Administration.  169  Nationwide,  as  of  1992,  there 
 were  approximately  275,801  small  organizations.  170  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.  171  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  such  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States.  172  This  number  includes  38,978  counties,  cities,  and  towns;  of  these,  37,566,  or  ninety-  six 
 percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  173  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of  the  85,  006  governmental  entities,  we 
 estimate  that  81,600  (ninety-  one  percent)  are  small  entities.  Below,  we  further  describe  and  estimate  the  number  of  small  entity  licensees  and  regulatees  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted. 


 Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  Licensees.  As  a  general  matter,  Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees 
 include  police,  fire,  local  government,  forestry  conservation,  highway  maintenance,  and  emergency  medical 
 services.  174  Spectrum  in  the  700  MHz  band  for  public  safety  services  is  governed  by  47  U.  S.  C.    337. 
 Non-  Federal  governmental  entities,  as  well  as  private  businesses,  are  licensees  for  these  services.  As 
 indicated  above,  all  governmental  entities  with  populations  of  less  than  50,  000  fall  within  the  definition  of  a 
 small  entity.  175  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  definition  of  small  businesses  directed 
 specifically  toward  public  service  licensees.  Therefore,  the  applicable  definition  of  small  business  is  the 
 definition  under  the  SBA  rules  applicable  to  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies.  This  provides  that  a 
 small  business  is  a  radiotelephone  company  employing  no  more  than  1,  500  persons.  176  According  to  the 


 168  Id.    601(  b)(  3). 
 169  Id.    632. 
 170  1992  Economic  Census,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Table  6  (special  tabulation  of  data  under  contract  to 
 Office  of  Advocacy  of  the  U.  S.  Small  Business  Administration). 
 171  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5). 


 172  U.  S.  Dept  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Governments. 
 173  Id. 
 174  See  subparts  A  and  B  of  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    90.1-  90.22.  Police  licensees 
 include  26,608  licensees  that  serve  state,  county,  and  municipal  enforcement  through  telephony  (voice), 
 telegraphy  (code),  and  teletype  and  facsimile  (printed  material).  Fire  licensees  include  22,677  licensees 
 comprised  of  private  volunteer  or  professional  fire  companies,  as  well  as  units  under  governmental  control. 
 Public  Safety  Radio  Pool  licensees  also  include  40,512  licensees  that  are  state,  county,  or  municipal  entities  that 
 use  radio  for  official  purposes.  There  are  also  7,325  forestry  service  licensees  comprised  of  licensees  from  state 
 departments  of  conservation  and  private  forest  organizations  that  set  up  communications  networks  among  fire 
 lookout  towers  and  ground  crews.  The  9,480  state  and  local  governments  are  highway  maintenance  licensees 
 that  provide  emergency  and  routine  communications  to  aid  other  public  safety  services  to  keep  main  roads  safe 
 for  vehicular  traffic.  Emergency  medical  licensees  (1,460)  use  these  channels  for  emergency  medical  service 
 communications  related  to  the  delivery  of  emergency  medical  treatment.  Another  19,478  licensees  include 
 medical  services,  rescue  organizations,  veterinarians,  handicapped  persons,  disaster  relief  organizations,  school 
 buses,  beach  patrols,  establishments  in  isolated  areas,  communications  standby  facilities,  and  emergency  repair  of 
 public  communications  facilities. 


 175  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5). 


 176  13  C.  F.  R.  121.201,  SIC  code  4812. 
 (continued.) 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 A-  3 
 Bureau  of  the  Census,  only  twelve  radiotelephone  firms  from  a  total  of  1,  178  such  firms  which  operated 
 during  1992  had  1,000  or  more  employees.  177  Therefore,  even  if  all  twelve  of  these  firms  were  public 
 safety  licensees,  nearly  all  would  be  small  businesses  under  the  SBA's  definition,  if  independently  owned 
 and  operated. 


 Radio  and  Television  Equipment  Manufacturers.  We  anticipate  that  at  least  six  radio  equipment 
 manufacturers  will  be  affected  by  our  decisions  in  this  proceeding.  According  to  the  Small  Business  Administrations  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.  178  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.  179  We  do  not  have  information  that  indicates  how  many  of  the  six 
 radio  equipment  manufacturers  associated  with  this  proceeding  are  among  these  778  firms.  Motorola  and  Ericsson,  however,  are  major,  nationwide  radio  equipment  manufacturers,  and  thus,  we  conclude  that  they 
 would  not  qualify  as  small  businesses. 
 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements 
 The  Fourth  Notice  proposes  a  number  of  rules  and  solicits  comments  that  will  entail  reporting,  recordkeeping,  and/  or  third-  party  consultation.  The  Commission  believes,  however,  that  these  requirements 
 are  the  minimum  needed.  The  licensing  methods  under  consideration  in  the  Fourth  Notice  include  the  possibility  of  imposing  recordkeeping  and  reporting  requirements  on  applicants  for  public  safety  licenses 
 that  may  be  required  to  make  submissions  to  planning  committees  justifying  their  request  for  spectrum.  These  entities  will  be  required  to  submit  applications  for  spectrum  licenses  on  Form  601. 


 The  Fourth  Notice  also  seeks  comment  on  recommendations  to  employ  Memoranda  of  Understanding  (MOUs)  and  model  sharing  agreements  to  govern  use  of  interoperability  channels.  Entities 
 would  be  responsible  for  gathering  the  information  necessary  to  complete  an  MOU  or  sharing  agreement.  180 


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


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


 178  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  (SIC)  Code  3663. 


 179  U.  S.  Dept  of  Commerce,  1992  Census  of  Transportation,  Communications  and  Utilities  (issued  May  1995), 
 SIC  category  3663. 
 180  See  supra  at  paras.  31-  32. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 A-  4 
 The  NCC,  comprised  of  representatives  from  government,  the  public  safety  community,  and  the  communications  equipment  manufacturing  industry,  was  chartered  by  the  FCC  as  a  Federal  Advisory 
 Committee,  effective  February  25,  1999.  The  NCC  made  recommendations  concerning  various  issues  addressed  in  this  Fourth  Notice.  We  note  that  in  several  instances,  to  benefit  all  entities,  including  small 
 entities,  we  did  not  propose  a  particular  recommendation.  For  instance,  see  the  discussion  in  paragraphs  25-  28  and  60-  62,  supra. 


 In  formulating  the  proposals  in  the  Fourth  Notice,  we  have  reduced  economic  burdens  wherever  possible.  The  regulatory  burdens  that  we  have  proposed  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  public  receives  the 
 pubic  safety  benefits  of  innovative  new  services  in  a  prompt  and  efficient  manner.  For  example,  we  have  proposed  technical  and  operational  rules  that  should  promote  competition  in  the  equipment  market.  We 
 believe  that  the  rules  we  adopt  must  be  as  competitively  and  technologically  neutral  as  possible,  in  order  to  allow  for  competing  equipment  designs  and  to  avoid  hindering  future  innovative  technological 
 developments.  We  note  that  tighter  technical  specifications  generally  allow  more  intense  spectrum  use,  but  may  result  in  higher  equipment  costs.  Conversely,  although  wider  tolerances  may  allow  manufacturers  to 
 use  less  costly  component  parts  in  transmitting  equipment,  they  also  may  result  in  less  efficient  spectrum  use.  With  these  considerations  in  mind,  we  believe  that  the  technical  regulations  we  propose  herein  provide 
 a  reasonable  balance  of  these  concerns. 
 Under  the  regional  planning  process,  frequency  coordination  is  competitive.  Frequency  coordination  is  the  process  by  which  a  private  organization  recommends  to  the  Commission  the  most 
 appropriate  frequencies  for  private  land  mobile  radio  service  applicants.  181  Frequency  coordinators  provide  a  valuable  service  to  the  Commission  by  eliminating  common  application  errors,  thereby  improving  the 
 quality  of  the  applications  and  resolving  potential  interference  problems  at  the  source.  We  continue  to  believe  that  the  encouragement  of  competition  among  coordinators  promotes  cost-  based  pricing  of 
 coordination  services  and  provides  incentives  for  enhancing  service  quality.  Therefore,  we  will  continue  to  allow  any  of  the  certified  public  safety  coordinators  to  provide  coordination  in  the  700  MHz  band. 


 Recognizing  the  budgetary  constraints  that  public  safety  entities  face  as  a  matter  of  course,  we  have  proposed  rules  that  encourage  broad-  based  efforts,  such  as  projects  on  the  state  and  regional  level,  to 
 coordinate  and  consolidate  operations  that  are  critical  to  meeting  the  needs  of  public  safety  with  cost  effective,  spectrally-  efficient  radio  systems.  For  example,  we  have  proposed  trunking  on  certain  public 
 safety  channels  in  the  700  MHz  band.  Trunked  systems  would  provide  service  to  many  governmental  entities  in  a  specific  geographic  area  and  offer  a  higher  degree  of  efficiency  than  some  smaller,  non-  trunked 
 systems.  A  difficulty  in  establishing  these  types  of  shared  systems  is  that  they  require  individual  agencies  to  surrender  some  autonomy  in  return  for  the  efficiencies  and  better  coverage  of  a  larger  system.  In 
 addition,  the  funding  required  to  develop  the  infrastructure  necessary  to  support  some  of  the  newer  technologies  is  often  too  great  to  permit  small  public  safety  agencies  to  participate  in  new,  sophisticated, 
 spectrum  efficient,  wireless  radio  systems.  These  same  agencies,  however,  might  be  able  to  participate  in  a  county-  wide  or  state-  wide  system.  For  these,  and  other,  reasons,  we  encourage  the  use  of  shared  systems  in 
 the  public  safety  community.  182 


 181  See  Frequency  Coordination  in  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services,  PR  Docket  No.  83-  737,  Report  and 
 Order,  103  FCC  2d  1093  (1986). 
 182  Area-  wide  licenses  often  encourage  the  rapid  development  and  deployment  of  innovative  services  and 


 facilitate  interoperability  and  operational  standards,  while  allowing  economies  of  scale  that  encourage  the 
 development  of  low  cost  equipment.  See,  e.  g.,  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  Part  27,  the 
 Wireless  Communications  Service,  GN  Docket  No.  96-  228,  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  10785,  10814 
 (1997). 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 A-  5 
 We  believe  that  flexible  licensing  policies  are  necessary  to  encourage  the  use  of  the  most  spectrally  efficient  technology  to  meet  user-  defined  needs.  Recognizing  the  budgetary  constraints  that  small  public 
 safety  entities  face,  the  Fourth  Notice  seeks  comment  on  a  variety  of  proposals  regarding  the  interoperability  spectrum  in  the  700  MHz  public  safety  band.  Any  significant  alternatives  presented  in 
 comments  will  be  considered. 
 F.  Federal  Rules  that  May  Duplicate,  Overlap,  or  Conflict  with  the  Proposed  Rules 
 None. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 B-  1 
 APPENDIX  B 
 PROPOSED  RULES 


 Part  90  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  90  is  revised  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  Secs.  4,  251-  52,  303,  309,  332  and  337,  48  Stat.  1066,  1082,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  154, 
 251-  52,  303,  309,  332  and  337,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


 2.  A  new  Section  90.524  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
   90.524  Administration  of  interoperability  channels. 
 (a)  States  are  responsible  for  administration  of  the  interoperability  channels  in  the  764-  776  MHz 
 and  794-  806  MHz  frequency  bands.  Base  and  control  stations  must  be  licensed  individually.  A  public 
 safety  entity  may  operate  mobile  or  portable  units  on  the  interoperability  channels  in  the  764-  776  MHz  and 
 794-  806  MHz  frequency  bands  without  an  individual  license  if  (1)  the  entity  is  eligible  to  hold  a  license  in 
 the  764-  776  MHz  and  794-  806  MHz  frequency  bands,  or  (2)  the  entity  otherwise  is  licensed  under  part  90 
 of  these  Rules.  All  persons  operating  mobile  or  portable  units  are  responsible  for  compliance  with  part  90 
 of  these  Rules  and  other  applicable  federal  laws. 


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


 3.  Section  90.531  is  amended  by  adding  paragraphs  (i)  through  (iv)  in  subsection  (b)(  1),  to  read  as 
 follows: 


   90.531  Band  plan. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (b)(  1)  Narrowband  nationwide  interoperability  channels.  The  following  categories  of 
 narrowband  channels  are  designated  for  nationwide  interoperability  licensing  and  use: 


 (i)  Primary  narrowband  interoperability  channels.  The  following  channels  are  designated  as 
 primary  narrowband  interoperability  channels.  [Note:  channels  dependent  upon  guard  band 
 decision]. 


 (ii)  Narrowband  data  interoperability  channels.  The  following  channels  are  dedicated  for  the 
 express  purpose  of  nationwide  data  transmission  only.  [Note:  channels  dependent  upon  guard 
 band  decision]. 


 (iii)  Narrowband  calling  interoperability  channels.  The  following  channels  are  dedicated  for  the 
 express  purpose  of  nationwide  interoperability  calling  only  [Note:  channels  dependent  upon  guard 
 band  decision].  Trunking  and  encryption  are  prohibited  on  the  two  designated  calling  channel  sets. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 B-  2 
 (iv)  Narrowband  trunking  interoperability  channels.  The  following  channels  are 
 available  for  nationwide  interoperability  trunking  purposes.  [Note:  channels  dependent  upon 
 guard  band  decision]. 


 *  *  *  *  * 
 4.  Section  90.537  is  amended  by  adding  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  sentences  of  the  paragraph,  to  read 
 as  follows: 


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


 (b)  Interoperability  channels.  Trunking  is  permitted  on  ten  of  the  channels  designated  for 
 nationwide  interoperability  use,  as  designated  in    90.  531(  b)(  1)(  iv).  The  following  requirements  apply  to 
 interoperability  channels  where  trunking  is  permitted,  but  not  required:  trunked  use  must  be  conducted  on  a 
 strict  secondary,  non-  interference  basis;  6.  25  kHz,  12.  5  kHz,  and  25  kHz  trunked  operations  are  permitted; 
 and  routine  (day-  to-  day)  communications  are  permitted  if  the  channel(  s)  are  not  needed  for  emergency 
 communications.  Trunking  is  prohibited  on  the  remainder  of  the  interoperability  channels,  including  any 
 channels  reserved  as  calling  channels,  because  such  channels  are  reserved  for  conventional  operations. 


 5.  Section  90.547  is  revised  to  read  as  follows: 
   90.547  Interoperability  channel  capability  requirement. 
 (a)  Mobile  and  portable  transmitters  designed  pursuant  to  standards  adopted  by  the  National 
 Coordination  Committee  to  operate  in  the  764-  776  MHz  and  794-  806  MHz  frequency  bands  must  be 
 capable  of  operating  on  any  of  the  designated  nationwide  narrowband  interoperability  channels,  approved 
 by  the  Commission.  Subscriber  units  designed  for  data-  only  applications  are  not  required  to  have  voice 
 capability.  Subscriber  units  designed  for  voice-  only  applications  are  not  required  to  have  data  transmission 
 capability. 


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


 (i)  Transmitters  designed  for  voice  operation  within  a  12.  5  kHz  or  6.  25  kHz  bandwidth  shall 
 conform  to  the  following  standards:  ANSI/  TIA/  EIA102.BAAA-  1  (common  air  interface); 
 ANSI/  TIA/  EIA102.BABA  (vocoder). 


 (ii)  Transmitters  designed  for  data  transmission  within  a  12.  5  kHz  or  6.  25  kHz  bandwidth  shall 
 conform  to  the  following  standards,  as  applicable:  ANSI/  TIA/  EIA  102.BAEA  (data  overview); 
 ANSI/  TIA/  EIA  102.BAEB  (packet  data  specification);  ANSI/  TIA/  EIA102.BAEC  (circuit  data 
 description);  ANSI/  TIA/  EIA  102.BAEA  (radio  control  protocol);  and  ANSI/  TIA/  EIA  102.BABA 
 (vocoder). 


 (c)  Copies  of  the  standards  listed  in  this  Section  90.547  that  are  incorporated  by  reference  can  be 
 purchased  from  the  American  National  Standards  Institute,  Washington,  DC  Headquarters,  1819  L  Street, 
 NW,  6th  Floor,  Washington,  DC  20036. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  271 
 B-  3 
 (d)  Copies  of  the  standards  listed  in  this  Section  90.547  that  are  incorporated  by  reference  may  be 
 inspected  at  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445  12th  Street,  SW,  Washington,  DC  (Reference 
 Information  Center)  or  at  the  Office  of  the  Federal  Register,  800  North  Capitol  Street,  NW,  Suite  700, 
 Washington,  DC. 
35