WPC$ 2HBX@ ZRomanNew Roman (TT)3|SRoman (TT)\  P@Q&P"5@^F,F\Wim,==Fq,q,`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,`0K,W`WWWWWWWWWWW\S\S\S\S\S00000000d``W`W`W`Wi`i`i`i`,SWW`\`W`W\S`W\\WW``WW\S\S\S\S``\SdSdWddSdSi`i`0```000`A`\O0OKd`d```,,`J`KWJ,,N,,A\,OWWW\,WWWWSWWWWWW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,WWtWqeeOWoo.0SW2ZWWyeCpS`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,F,F\Wim,==Fq,q,`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SWW\0\`WWWWWWW0qWW,SA,,WWWWWWOWWWWWWW\\\\\0000`d`````W`iiii\\`WWWWWWSSSSS0000W`WWWWWOW````S\HP LaserJet 4/4M II NTXPT1HPLAS4.WRSS&a\  P6G;,,G"k&P2 z X3|a  2S=FXRY&S\  P@Q&P y.K8?XqK\  P@QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2V9EuK K RomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)  P6G;\#NP&PRomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Arial (TT)nnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNIwkkճIIIkw7I7R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVņRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^IUd}}UUU}AUAF}}}}}}}}}}FFn津U_ܴ봴UFUs}Un}n}nU}}FF}F}}}}U_F}}}}nx2xUAsUUUAUUUUUU}U}FnnnnnܣnnnnnUFUFUFUF}}}}}}}}}}n}{}}}}nnnnnnnnnn}}}}}UFU}UUU}}FdUUF}}}}}ܴUUU___iFs}}}}}}봴nnn}U}_U}A}}S-SWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNZZs}Un}}}}}FP}KP}KUUnn}VV}}ZZ͌Un}K"}}}2!KK1K|K"i~'^IUd}}UUU}AUAF}}}}}}}}}}FFn津U_ܴ봴UFUs}U|pDL|pp||x2xUAsUUUAUUUUUU}U}FnnnnnܣnnnnnUFUFUFUF}}}}}}}}}}n}{}}}}nnnnnnnnnn}}}}}UFU}UUU}}FdUUF}}}}}ܴUUU___iFs}}}}}}봴nnn}U}_U}A}}S-SWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNZZs}Un}}}}}FP}KP}KUUnn}VV}}ZZ͌Un}K"}}}"i~'^IU}}UUU}AUAF}}}}}}}}}}UU}봥_}åÛôUFU}U}nnU}FUFҌ}n_U}}}nd7dUAUUUAUUUUUU}UF}}}}}nnnnn]F]F]F]F}}}}}}}}}}}}}nnnnnnn}}}Â}ÌÑ_F__U_ˌÌFqUdF}}nnn___UnnnU_U}A}}SDSWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNZZ}U}}}}}}KU}KU}KUU}}}VV}}ZZ͌U}}K"}}}"i~'^IU}}UUU}AUAF}}}}}}}}}}UU}봥_}åÛôUFU}U|Ld|pȐd7dUAUUUAUUUUUU}UF}}}}}nnnnn]F]F]F]F}}}}}}}}}}}}}nnnnnnn}}}Â}ÌÑ_F__U_ˌÌFqUdF}}nnn___UnnnU_U}A}}SDSWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNZZ}U}}}}}}KU}KU}KUU}}}VV}}ZZ͌U}}K"}}}"i~'^.6@PP}666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZFsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc6-6JP6FPFPF6PP--P-}PPPP6=-PPsPPFM MV6*VJ666*666666P6P-sFsFsFsFsFhjFcFcFcFcF6-6-6-6-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsFsPsNsPsPsPZPsFsFsFjFjFjVjFsecFcFcFcFsPsPsPsVsPsVsP6-6P666PpZVVsPc-c@c6c6c-sP^sPsPsPsPsj6j6j6Z=Z=Z=ZVcCc-cJsPsPsPsPsPsPssVcFcFcFsPc6sPZ=c6sPe*PP55WppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN:``:JP6FPPPPP-3zzP03zzPz066FFP77`PP`y:``:_ZZ6FP0"jjjjzzPz`]VPZ``P2p*KD!K#K%K%("i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN``[P[P[P[[ [[   ` ` [ P"    28MtA,$B@PD@HTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldUniversTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicUnivers BoldSymbol"*^9D]gdCDDgq3q39gggggggggg99qqq[~~vCN~sk~CCDddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYc)cN_xdxdCYdgdddddFCChhd44ddxdddvooChdF"dȇdpqqq9"qDDqqq||CRodq8f3UYd||֐Z||fqȲqqKoxoY~\xTsY80xdhvkdsqrqzdd~YYxoxxx~CdxlpxCCdddo"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd=]7{{]7%%77]77]]%777t7\[[\aee*C`a.wR]]n[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}..;]]o 77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]..aaa]ooxxofx.So]xoxofxooof...N]7]]S]].]]%%S%]]]]7S.]SxSSS8+8a}}}%]7]]7o7}}}}%%77:]7S7}}o.7]]]]+]7{>]a7{\C\777`Z.77=]fooooooxoooo....xxaxxxxoof]]]]]]S]]]]....]]]]]]]\f]]]]S]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf T`Z`Zff,gg,&,l,l,f,Z",,,&,2aZjM@.S\W @\ 2S=FXRY&S\  P@Q&P y.K8?XqK\  P@QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX~)I8.X9I2PQP IxYeX3 x\  P@Q P :`GQX2`\  P@QPxcxxxxxxxxxx8S{g]ix{S8ixSi`xlxxxxxxxxxxYxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxx{]iY]S{Y`MfGx`Y.(oS{V]x]iG`x`cYccJiMrYuxPr{{`x8irr{Y]rrz88iiii{xiiirrr{8`SJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k"5@^Q3Qkez3GGQ33peeeeeeeeee33zz[epkpkeuz8Lp[uppppe`zezekeGGGpe3ek`k`B`p88k8pekeVVLp[ze`[G)Gz333$3p8X3epeeeeeeeeeeek`k`k`k`k`88888888uppepepepezpzpzpzp3`eepkpepek`pekkeeppeek`k`k`k`ppk`u`ueuu`u`zpzp8ppp888pLpk[8[Xupuppp33pVpXeV33N33Lk3[eeek3eeee`eeeeee333333333333333eeteuu[eҁ58`e:ieeuC`oiuwu~^^{ou33333333333333333333333333333333Q3Qkez3GGQ33peeeeeeeeee33zz[epkpkeuz8Lp[uppppe`zezekeGGGpe3ek`k`B`p88k8pekeVVLp[ze`[G)Gz33333333333333333333333333333333333`eek8kpeeeeeee8ee3`L33eeeeee[eeeeeeekkkkk8888pupppppepzzzzkkpeeeeee`````8888epeeeee[epppp`kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf ZfZfZff,gg,,,l,l,f,Z",,,&, 2S=FXRY&S\  P@Q&P y.K8?XqK\  P@QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQX~)I8.X9I2PQP IxYeX3 x\  P@Q P :`GQX2`\  P@QPIxYeX3 x\  P@Q PRxdKXՄx\  P6QP .RdKX4  pQxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf ZfZfZff,gg,,,l,l,f,Z",,,&,"5@^`MeP%#YCcCyO`J`@eMmPOMPV>S>[O{``J{`mhcM`,Se[[mMVh[`b,,SSSSc`SSS[[[m,PC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx2PAGE ؃j X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:'ԍ Report and Plan for Meeting State and Local Government Public Safety Agency Spectrum Needs Through  {O'the Year 2010, Report and Plan, 10 FCC Rcd 5207 (1995) (1995 FCC Public Safety Report). Together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), we sponsored PSWAC, to provide advice and recommendations regarding the specific needs of public safety agencies.  X49. We continued our efforts to examine and address these spectrum and communica X4tions needs of public safety agencies by adopting the Public Safety Notice."L yO% 'ԍ The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 9686,  {O!'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12460 (1996) (Public Safety Notice). For a list of comments and reply comments in this proceeding, with corresponding short title references, see Appendix B. In seeking to evaluate public safety needs through 2010, we sought comment on a wide variety of public safety communications needs and options. PSWAC completed its Final Report in September" 0*%%\\"  X41996,T L {Oy'ԍ See note  N3C5 , supra.T and that report was submitted to the Commission as comments in response to the  X4Public Safety Notice. We applaud the members of the public safety community for the  X4countless hours of effort and commitment they put forth in the development of the PSWAC  X4Final Report, and for the important role they played in helping us begin to explore public  X4safety communications needs in the DTV Sixth Report and Order.  X~4 10. Before turning to our discussion of goals that we seek to forge with the public safety community and other interested parties, we note that this Notice does not intend to  XP4address all the issues raised in the Public Safety Notice or the PSWAC Final Report. As we  X;4have indicated,U ;ZL {OF 'ԍ See para.  P6J7 , supra.U this Notice takes the first step toward developing and implementing a framework for public safety communications. To the extent that important issues remain, they will be addressed in future proceedings.  X 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:$L yO3'ԍ NASTD Comments at 5. > Ericsson states that the PSWAC ISC report usefully distinguishes between infrastructureindependent solutions (links directly between radios using a direct radio path) and infrastructuredependent solutions  X4(requiring equipment other than the end users' radios).B%@L yO~ 'ԍ Ericsson Comments at 12. B  X_432. Based on this general support among the commenters for these definitions we tentatively conclude that the above definitions, including the definition of mission critical, should be adopted. We seek further comment on these definitions and on any proposals for different definitions.  X 4 33. P37N  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:dL {O 'ԍ Id.2 "Mt>0*%%\\"Ԍ X4&39. The PSWAC Steering Committee recommends the immediate identification of 2.5  X4megahertz of spectrum for interoperability from new or existing allocations.H?L {Ob'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 3. H The PSWAC ISC also supports the creation of a single common public safety interoperability service in one  X4central band.>@ZL {O'ԍ Id. at 32930. > The proposal in the Public Safety Notice to designate interoperability channels has received widespread support, with many commenters expressly supporting the PSWAC  X4proposal that 2.5 megahertz of spectrum be set aside for interoperability.AL yO, 'ԍ The following commenters see merit in designating interoperability channels, without specifically mentioning the PSWAC proposal relating to the set aside of 2.5 megahertz: API Comments at 17; DOT Comments at 910; AAA/AICC Comments at 3; Hennepin Comments at 5: Nor. Cal. APCO Comments at 5; Nippon Reply Comments at 7; Owensboro Comments at 1; PG County Comments at 4; PW County Comments at 2; Richardson Comments at 2 (unpaginated); Transcrypt Comments at 2; Virginia State Police Comments at 1; Wisconsin State Patrol Comments at 2 (unpaginated). X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:D L yO%'ԍ AASHTO Comments at 8.> that obtaining new equipment" <D0*%%\\ "  X4involves additional expense;EL {Oy'ԍ See IMSA/IAFC Comments at 12; Fort Worth Comments at 4; NASTD Comments at 6 (mutual aid channels are viable and achievable but could significantly increase costs). and that difficulties exist in reconciling the differing needs,  X4resources, and demographic and geographic characteristics of public safety users.nF"L {O'ԍ IMSA/IAFC Comments at 12. See also AASHTO Reply Comments at 7.n Commenters suggest, however, that some of the perceived deficiencies with regard to this  X4option can be overcome by allocating additional spectrum for this specific purpose.GL yO 'ԍ IMSA/IAFC Comments at 12 (designating interoperability channels is ``a viable solution provided that  {O 'spectrum is available and it would not require users to vacate their frequencies''). See also ADI Comments at 3. APCO and Powell are pessimistic about using ``inexpensive software programming'' to modify  X4current mobile and portable equipment for operation on the interoperability channels.HL {OL 'ԍ APCO Comments at 9; Powell Comments at 10.  See Public Safety Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12475 (para. 36).  X_4(41. Other commenters raise questions about the application of the interoperability channels option. KansasEMC expresses concern that, during an actual emergency, if too many agencies have access to the same channel it could quickly be overloaded, thus  X 4compromising its utility.BI h L yO3'ԍ KansasEMC Comments at 3.B TexasDPS calls the interoperability channels approach unsatisfactory and costprohibitive, and maintains that it would require stockpiling radios for  X 4use in emergencies.J L yO'ԍ TexasDPS Comments at 4. TexasDPS adds that, because disasters are unpredictable, no one could know where such a stockpile should be kept.  X 4)42. The Public Safety Notice also raised the issue of the location of the  X 4interoperability channels.tK P L {O'ԍ See Public Safety Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12476 (para. 40).t One approach to providing spectrum for interoperability, favored by OhioDAS, is to identify specific channels in each of the public safety bands for  X{4interoperability.NL{L yO 'ԍ OhioDAS Comments at 5 (unpaginated).N The PSWAC ISC Report, however, suggests that the establishment of a ``Public Safety Interoperability Service'' dedicated exclusively to interoperability applications  XM4within a single band would be both possible and practical.NMMrL {Op#'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 329, 597.N It notes that this approach would"MM0*%%\\7" provide ``an absolute common technical solution to the common operating requirements of a  X4mutual aid incident,''2NL {Ob'ԍ Id.2 and would not require users' ``home systems'' to be compatible./O\ZL {O'ԍ Id. The PSWAC ISC further observes that the creation of an ``interoperability service'' would be a ``fresh and new service which could be implemented without regard to any backward compatibility  {O'requirements.'' Id. at 331, 599./  X4*43. In order to provide for an appreciable amount of interoperability spectrum in the various existing public safety bands, it would be necessary to ``free up'' sufficient channels in those bands that would be available on a nationwide basis. Given the extensive use of such  Xv4channels, this would be a difficult endeavor.Pv~L yO 'ԍ Within existing bands, we have asked the frequency coordinator to examine the possibility of reserving some channels for mutual aid. 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 Assignments Policies of the Private Land Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 92235, Second Report and Order, FCC 9761, at  {O'para. 23 (released Mar. 12, 1997) (Refarming Second Report and Order). This would have some benefit, but would not satisfy a nationwide need for interoperability. Moreover, clearing sufficient spectrum in these bands to provide for high data rate and video communications would be next to impossible. The 24 megahertz within the 746806 MHz band provides, however, a large amount of relatively unencumbered spectrum that could be dedicated for nationwide interoperability.  X 4+44. P48H  We tentatively conclude that the establishment of nationwide interoperability channels will be in the public interest, and will significantly advance our goal of facilitating communication among public safety agencies. Some commenters have indicated that the 800 MHz band is not as desirable as the 150 MHz and 450 MHz bands from a propagation  X 4standpoint.?Q L yOP'ԍ AASHTO Comments at 13.? Others would prefer that the interoperability channels be located in these lower  X4bands because of their proximity to current public safety operations.rR L yO'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 12; Quantum Comments at 4; Powell Comments at 1011. r Given the difficulty, however, of clearing sufficient spectrum in the lower bands, and in light of the proposal to make available 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 746806 MHz band, we propose to dedicate a significant amount of spectrum in the 746806 MHz band solely for interoperability  X44communications.kS4L {O!'ԍ Powell notes that the PSWAC process concluded before the release of the DTV Proceeding, which indicated that spectrum used for UHF television Channels 6069 might become available for public safety. Powell Comments at 4. Powell further notes that the Channel 6069 spectrum is adjacent to the 800 MHz bands already used by some public safety agencies, and suggests that this proximity could facilitate the development of  {O%'equipment that would be capable of interoperating with some existing public safety systems. Id. k The precise amount of spectrum we devote to interoperability will reflect"4S0*%%\\" the comments and suggestions we receive in regard to the spacing and number of channels required.  X4,45. We seek comment on this proposal. If commenters believe that we should attempt to allocate spectrum for interoperability from other public safety bands or elsewhere, we request that their comments indicate which bands should be used to provide such spectrum and how channels within those bands might be cleared throughout the Nation in order to realize our goal of nationwide interoperable communications. If commenters believe that interoperability channels should be designated in more than one band, they should indicate how nationwide interoperability can be achieved using channels in different bands.  X 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. There are various factors that we may consider in attempting to determine the most appropriate spacings for voice interoperability channels. The PSWAC ORSC, in particular, discusses the need for public safety communications to achieve a minimum voice  X 4quality standard.u L yO<'ԍ This is the DAQ 3.4 voice quality standard, as developed by Telecommunications Industry Association  {O'(TIA) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). PSWAC Final Report at 15055. Although the PSWAC ORSC does not discuss this standard in the context of channel spacing, channel spacing may be a factor in attaining the level of voice quality described by the PSWAC ORSC. Another consideration is that the PSWAC ISC recommends  X4an emission of 16K0F3E for voice interoperability channels.Hv L {OQ'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 52.H The PSWAC ISC, however, does not propose a particular channel spacing to accommodate that emission. In addition, we may want to consider that the 746806 MHz band is adjacent to the 806821 MHz band, which has channels spaced 25 kilohertz apart. Providing voice interoperability channels in the 746806 MHz band with this channel spacing may enable licensees operating in the 806821 MHz band to more easily incorporate the 746806 MHz interoperability channels into their  X 4equipment.Ww L {OY'ԍ See para.  P76E72 , infra.W  X4?64. In determining the most appropriate spacing for data interoperability channels, an important consideration is that wider channels generally enable greater amounts of information to be transmitted in a given amount of time. Thus, we seek comment regarding these related issues: "0 w0*%%\\"Ԍ X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: L yO'ԍ NYCT Comments at 56.> TexasDPS calls interoperability ``the key issue'' regarding protection of life and property, and states that  Xy4interoperability ``remains a concern for all agencies within public safety.''Ay. L yOX'ԍ TexasDPS Comments at 1.A Finally, we note that many commenters agree that commercial infrastructure providers such as utilities and railroads may need access to the interoperability channels during an emergency in which their  X44facilities are directly involved.C4 L yO'ԍ DOT Reply Comments at 23.C  X4W88. We tentatively conclude that all public safety service providersN L {O#'ԍ For our proposed definition of ``public safety service provider,'' see paras.  P79X75 ש P80R76 , supra.Ħ should be eligible to use all of the interoperability channels. We also tentatively conclude, however, that eligibility alone will not guarantee an entity unlimited access to these channels, but rather")0*%%\\" that use of interoperability channels will only be permitted in accordance with the plan for interoperability. We also believe that it would be consistent with the new Section 337 of the Communications Act and the intent of Congress to consider broadening the eligibility for interoperability channels in order to promote public safety. In the course of their duties, public safety service providers may need to interact with other public safety related entities, which provide services that do not fall within the definition of public safety services established by Congress in Section 337.  XH4X89. For example, public safety agencies may need to communicate with nongovernmental workers during an industrial disaster, and during the aftermath of an incident such as the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing, State and local officials may need to maintain contact with Federal officials. We therefore invite commenters to consider whether entities which are not public safety service providers should also be eligible to use the interoperability channels. If we decide that these other entities should be eligible to use the interoperability channels, we ask commenters to consider the circumstances under which they should be permitted to use them.  Xy4Y90. As noted by the PSWAC ISC, there are no formal mechanisms currently in place to enable Federal users to operate on nonFederal Government spectrum. The PSWAC ISC therefore calls for regulations ``to provide for equal access by both Federal and nonFederal  X44agencies for purposes of interoperability.''I4L {O'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 313.I As we discuss above, we tentatively agree that public safety service providers will need to communicate with their Federal counterparts, and we therefore seek comment regarding not only how the interoperability channels should be made available to Federal users, but also how the Table of Allocations may need to be revised to permit Federal use. Again, we also seek comment regarding whether rules permitting such use by Federal agencies would be consistent with congressional objectives in amending Section 337 of the Communications Act.  X|4Z91. Unlike Federal agencies, and unlike those governmental agencies not solely or principally devoted to the protection of public safety, nongovernmental organizations, under the terms of Section 337 of the Communications Act, may be considered to provide public safety services if they are so authorized by a government agency whose primary mission is  X 4the provision of such services. ZL {O+!'ԍ See Section 337(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii), as added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,  3004. We propose, therefore, that authorized nongovernmental  X 4providers should not be treated as guest entities on the interoperability channels, but should instead be treated as being among the public safety service providers for whom the interoperability channels are specifically intended."*0*%%\\k"Ԍ X4ԙ[92. Nevertheless, we tentatively conclude that orderly and effective use of these  X4channels would require that all users " State, local and Federal; governmental and non-governmental; those entities that are eligible by definition and those entities that may be  X4eligible as guests " should be entitled to use the interoperability channels only in accordance with the interoperability plan. We further tentatively conclude that, in formulating such plans, the planners should have the latitude to restrict the use by any entity of any or all of the interoperability channels as much or as little as they judge necessary to ensure that these channels are put to effective use. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X54\93. We further ask commenters to address the question of whether the plans governing access to the interoperability channels should be designed by the individual regions, either through the regional planning committees or through regional committees established specifically to address interoperability, or whether at least some of these rules should be prescribed at the national level, either by the Commission or through a national interoperability planning committee. We ask commenters to consider the possibility that the rules determining access to some of the interoperability channels, such as the mutual aid channels or the task force channels, might be formulated by the Commission, while regional committees or other regional groups might formulate the rules governing access to the channels designated for daytoday use. We also ask commenters to consider whether access by Federal agencies (if we conclude that such access is consistent with the terms of Section 337) should be regulated at the national level, with the rules governing access by other entities to be set at the regional level. Finally, we invite comment regarding whether standards and procedures should be adopted to ensure that the interoperability plans are reasonable, effective, and fair.  X4]94. We also solicit comment regarding whether we should dedicate channels to specific services. Some of the voice interoperability channels could be made available solely for fire department and EMS licensees, for example, or reserved for State agencies, or placed at the disposal of a federation or other association of user groups. We ask commenters to discuss whether at least some channels should be designated for particular services on a nationwide basis, or whether all eligible entities should have access to all the channels within a given category. We ask commenters to include in their discussion whether the decisions regarding the provision of certain channels for particular services should be made by the regions individually, either through the regional planning committees or through regional committees established specifically to address interoperability; by a national interoperability planning committee; or by the Commission. We also remind commenters to consider the option of the Commission deciding these issues for some, but not all, of the interoperability channels.  X#4^95. P100L  We also invite comment regarding how the voice, data, image/hsd, and video  Xl$4interoperability channels should be assigned to licensees. In the NPSPAC Report and Order,"l$+0*%%\\"" we decided that licensees would have to obtain authorizations for base and control transmitters  X4operating on the five mutual aid channels,L yOb'ԍ Base station operations on the mutual aid channels were to be in accordance with the mutual aid  {O*'provisions of the licensee's regional plan. NPSPAC Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 (para. 34). but that public safety entities could operate mobile units and portables on the mutual aid channels without separate authorization as long as they were operating in accordance with an approved regional plan for the mutual aid  X4channels.d"L {Ow'ԍ NPSPAC Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 (para. 34).d We request comment regarding whether we should adopt this same approach for the licensing of all interoperability channels, or whether we should adopt an alternative approach, such as giving the regions more authority for the interoperability channels and allowing each region to authorize individual agencies to operate base stations without the need  XH4for separate station authorizations.HL yO 'ԍ The PSWAC ISC recommends that the Commission and NTIA ``freely license [interoperability]  {Ou'frequencies to all eligible public safety/service providers . . . .'' PSWAC Final Report at 289.  X 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: 0*%%\\"  X4many of each type of channel " e.g., voice, data, image/hsd, or video " should be designated for assignment.  X4141. One approach to this issue (herein Approach 1) would be to give the regions the flexibility to decide how many of each type of channel should be made available for assignment in the respective regions. If we decide that the regions will determine the channel  Xx4spacings for the channels to be assigned in each region,wxL {O'ԍ See the discussion of Option 1 in para. P139J134, supra.w then the regions, under Approach 1, would essentially be given complete authority to develop their own ``band plans'' for the assignment of the 746806 MHz general use public safety spectrum. The only requirement that we would propose to place on regions in developing their band plans would be that they provide what we would consider to be a reasonable amount of spectrum for each of the types  X 4of communication that we decide should be made available for public safety use. ZL yO'ԍ We would determine the reasonableness of the amount of spectrum provided by the regions for each type of communication through the regional plan approval process. This will ensure that no type of communication will be precluded in any region and individual licensees in each region will have a reasonable opportunity to obtain licenses to provide such communications.  X4142. For example, if we decide, based on the comments received in this proceeding,|L yO'ԍ Comments regarding types of communication would be pertinent to this determination.|  X{4that we should provide for some quantity of image/hsd spectrum for public safety users, then we would expect each region to provide a reasonable amount of such spectrum for its licensees from among the available spectrum. The advantage to affording regions this extensive flexibility in assigning the spectrum is that they could develop a band plan that is best suited to the needs of their communities. In this way, a region that might have a particular need for voice communications could minimize the assignment of video channels and use that spectrum for voice channels; while a region that has less of a requirement for voice communications but needs spectrum for video transmissions could create several full motion video or slow motion video channels from the available spectrum.  X4143. If we decide in Section II.C.3.b., supra,aBL {O 'ԍ Paras.  P90132 שP144Y139, supra.a that we (and not the regions) should determine the appropriate channel spacings for all of the types of communications (either under Option 3, where we would designate the specific channel spacing for each type of communication, or Option 2, where we would designate an assortment of channel spacings for each type of communication), we propose to require each region to designate some reasonable number of channels for each type of communication using all designated channel spacings. "$?0*%%\\" This would, once again, ensure that even if the majority of licensees in a particular region wish to operate a particular type of communication or employ a particular technology, there would be sufficient spectrum available for those individual licensees in the region who wish to operate a different type of communication or employ a different technology.  X4144. Under Approach 1, the regions would make the determination as to how many of each type of communications channel should be designated for assignment in the respective regions. In developing their band plans, regions would have the flexibility to locate particular channels anywhere within the available spectrum (except that, if adopted, regions would be  X14constrained by our proposals|1L {O 'ԍ See Section II.F., infra, paras. P179G170שP177T171.| to require all channels for basetomobile communications to be placed in television Channels 63 and 64 and all channels for mobiletobase communications to be placed in television Channels 68 and 69, and to require that when providing for paired base/mobile communications, base frequencies in Channel 63 must be paired with mobile frequencies in Channel 68 and base frequencies in Channel 64 must be  X 4paired with mobile frequencies in Channel 69).CX ZL yO'ԍ If we do not adopt this proposal and instead decide, for example, that basetomobile channels are to be located in television Channels 68 and 69 and mobiletobase channels are to be located in television Channels 63 and 64, then regions would have to comply with this requirement.C  X4145. We tentatively conclude that such flexibility will not be problematic from a technical standpoint. That is, it is our tentative view that manufacturers will be able to produce equipment that will be capable of operating anywhere within the required spectrum bands, and that it will not be necessary for all regions to locate particular channels in the  X44same location in the spectrum.X4zL yO_'ԍ For example, if all regions designate a 500 kilohertz mobiletobase full motion video channel, we do not believe that it is necessary for every region to place that channel in the identical location within the 794806 MHz band.  We also believe that if we adopt our proposal to require base frequencies in Channels 63 and 64 to be paired with mobile frequencies in Channels 68 and 69, respectively, then regions providing for such paired base/mobile communications will have adequate separation between base transmit and mobile transmit frequencies. However, to  X4ensure that equipment manufactured in accordance with a region's band plan will be available to the region's licensees, we tentatively conclude that we should require regions developing their own band plans to include in their regional plans affidavits from any interested equipment manufacturers attesting to the fact that equipment can be designed and produced in accordance with the band plan. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  XP4146. A second, more conventional approach (herein Approach 2) for determining how the general spectrum should be designated for assignment would be for the Commission to"9@0*%%\\" adopt a common band plan that would be used uniformly by all regions. This band plan would: (1) provide for all of the various types of communication that we decide are appropriate and necessary for public safety; (2) employ the channel spacings that we believe are best for the operation of each of these types of communication; and (3) provide the number of channels for each type of communication that we believe should be designated for licensing in each region. This approach would not give regions any flexibility in deciding how many of each type of channel will be available for assignment. We seek comment on this approach.  X14147. To retain the basic thrust of Approach 2, but still afford regions some degree of flexibility to adjust the Commissiondesigned band plan to meet their particular needs, we seek comment on a third approach (herein Approach 3), which would allow each of the regions to ``aggregate'' and ``disaggregate'' the various channels in the Commission band plan to formulate a band plan that contains the type and number of channels it requires. For example, if the Commission band plan contains a single 500 kilohertz video channel, regions would have the flexibility to divide that channel into 40 12.5 kilohertz voice channels; or if our band plan provides for five contiguous 25 kilohertz voice channels, regions would have  Xy4the flexibility to combine those channels into a single 125 kilohertz image/hsd channel. In affording the regions this flexibility, however, we would continue to require that they designate a reasonable amount of spectrum for each of the required types of communication. We seek comment on these different approaches to determining how many channels will be  X4made available for assignment to public safety licensees. &  X4148. Whether it is decided that we or the regions determine the number and  X4configuration of voice, data, image/hsd, and video channels to be assigned, we believe that certain factors must be taken into consideration. For instance, the actual spectrum we designate as the 24 megahertz of 746806 MHz spectrum for public safety use will be an important factor in determining how the spectrum will be made available for the various  X|4different types of public safety communications.X|L yO'ԍ If, for example, television Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 are dedicated for public safety use, we have proposed that all basetomobile communications be on Channels 63 and 64, and all mobiletobase communications be on Channels 68 and 69. Also, as discussed in a previous section,i|L {O'ԍ See paras.  P72B68 ש P74R70 , supra.i there may be a particular need only for certain ``oneway'' forms of public safety communications. And if this is the case, then paired channels could result in various amounts of basetransmit or mobiletransmit spectrum that may be assigned, but not effectively utilized. For example, if there is a need for a mobiletobase channel for full motion video communication, but no corresponding need for a basetomobile video channel, and we assign the 24 megahertz in pairs " with the lower pairs used for basemobile communication and"Az0*%%\\t" the higher pairs for mobilebase communications " then the higher video channels would be actively used, but the corresponding portions of the lower spectrum would lie fallow.  X4 149. On the other hand, if there is a need for a particular amount of spectrum for  X4oneway, basetomobile communications of one type (e.g., image/hsd communications), and there is a need for an approximately equal amount of spectrum for oneway, mobiletobase  Xx4communications of a different type (e.g., full motion video), the public safety spectrum could be used efficiently by assigning blocks of basetransmitonly and mobiletransmitonly spectrum for such types of uses. Thus, the asymmetry of one use might be compensated for by the asymmetry of a different use.  X 4 150. If it is decided that regions will have the flexibility to identify and locate channels for assignment, they will have to take these factors into consideration in devising their band plans. If it is decided that we will devise the band plan to be used by all regions, we seek comment regarding the number of channels that should be designated for each of the following proposed uses:  X}4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:HL yO 'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  202.<  X 4189. P16C  We also believe that the record developed thus far regarding the NCS Petition does not furnish us with an adequate basis at this time for making more comprehensive proposals on issues relating to priority access. In our view, more comment is required to consider various issues relating to priority access. These include the following, which are discussed in the following sections: the priority levels for priority access; the spectrum capacity of commercial carriers and its relationship to the need for priority access; costs that  X4wireless carriers may face in developing and offering priority access services;Y?zL {O'ԍ See para. P216G211, infra.Y the existence of technical limitations on priority access, and related technical issues; and the question of the classes of carriers to which priority access should apply. Based on the comments we receive with respect to these and other related issues, we will determine how to proceed further in establishing priority access rules.  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:[a|L {O 'ԍ Id. at ii, 11. > According to NCS, service providers electing to provide priority access would have to ensure that at all times a  X34reasonable portion of cellular spectrum would be made available for public use.\3L {O'ԍ Id. at 11 n.8. This rule requirement, NCS maintains, is consistent with the Commission's TSP rules. See  {O'also id., App. B at 9. Such providers, however, would have discretion in implementing priority access, including the amount  X 4of spectrum assigned and service charges for the offering.] j L {O 'ԍ See AT&T Reply Comments at 67 (referring to NCS Petition); see note N281B283, supra, and accompanying text. The NCS proposal provides for the option to discontinue, but the carrier must provide notice that it is discontinuing the  X 4service.C^ L yOL'ԍ NCS Petition, App. B at 9.C  X 4209. Several commenters strongly concur that the provision of priority access service  X4should be voluntary._T L yO'ԍ CTIA Comments at 35; Vanguard Comments at 2; AT&T Reply Comments at 56; SBMS Reply Comments at 4. NENA asserts, however, that the NCS Petition does not discuss why the adoption of emergency call precedence should be at the discretion of cellular carriers who  Xd4hold radio licenses in the public interest.<`dL yO!'ԍ NENA Comments at 4.< NENA suggests that if carriers are concerned that implementation of PACA would be too costly to pay for itself commercially, the answer would be to limit the cellular carrier's ability to refuse the requests of customers " especially Federal, State, and local government agencies " who are ready, willing, and able"X<`0*%%\\ " to pay for the PACA handset and network costs, either through service rates or by other  X4funding mechanisms.:aL {Ob'ԍ Id. at 45.:  X4210. We seek comment regarding whether CMRS providers should be permitted to provide priority access services on a voluntary basis. As a general matter, we believe it is sound public policy to pursue market solutions to communications needs because, in our view, reliance on market forces ensures that customer demands are met efficiently and quickly  X_4through the provision of costbased services.b. _ZL {Oj 'ԍ  Cf., e.g., Rulemaking To Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules To Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.530.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Petitions for Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the Commission's Common Carrier PointtoPoint Microwave Radio Service Rules, CC Docket No. 92297, Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer Preference, PP22, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 9782, released Mar. 13,  {O'1997, recon. pending, appeal pending sub nom. Melcher v. FCC, Case Nos. 93110, et al. (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 8, 1993), at para. 157 (``[W]e are of the view that competitive markets are the most direct and reliable means for ensuring that consumers receive the benefits described in the Communications Act . . .''); Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act " Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1420 (para. 19) (1994) (``Success in the marketplace . . . should be driven by technological innovation, service quality, competitionbased pricing decisions, and  {O'responsiveness to consumer needs " and not by strategies in the regulatory arena.''), recon. pending. We ask commenters to address whether, in this case, it is reasonable to expect that competitive forces will prompt CMRS providers to respond to market demand by developing and offering priority access services that meet the needs of Federal, State, and local government agencies.  X 4211. P216G  In addition, whether CPAS is voluntary or mandatory may dictate the necessity for cost recovery or funding mechanisms. Under the NCS proposal, the service user, as the ``costcausative user'' is to be responsible for the charges of providing the priority access  X 4service.Lc P L yO'ԍ NCS Petition at 1213, App. B at 8.L Some commenters submit, however, that with mandatory rules a funding  X4mechanism would have to established.dL {O!'ԍ See AT&T Reply Comments at 6; NENA Reply Comments at 2.  See generally GTEM Comments at 6. NENA observes that if priority access is mandatory, there may have to be considerations of prescribed cost recovery, whereas a voluntary scheme is amenable to each carrier's business judgment as to whether price will cover costs plus a  XK4return on investment.BeKrL yOn#'ԍ NENA Reply Comments at 3.B In this regard we seek further comment concerning the means of funding that would result in the most effective implementation of priority access. We also"4Ye0*%%\\" invite comment on whether a flexible, nonprescriptive approach to funding, as we concluded we should apply to the deployment of wireless E911 services, would be advisable in order to allow carriers and government officials the latitude to develop cost recovery solutions that  X4address particular needs for priority access.fL {O4'ԍ See Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling  {O'Systems, CC Docket No. 94102, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (E911 Report  {O'and Order), 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18722 (paras. 8990) (1996), recon. pending. Certain rules adopted by the  {O'Commission in the E911 Report and Order were subsequently stayed through November 30, 1997. #X\  P6G;ɒP#Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94102, Order, DA 972119 (Wireless Telecom. Bur.), released Sept. 30, 1997.  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:}, L yO 'ԍ GTEM Comments at 45.> Accordingly, SBMS submits that adopting specific requirements of priority access for cellular carriers would be contrary to the actions by the Commission in implementing the Congressional intent of this legislation, and there should be regulatory  X4symmetry pertaining to priority access.>~ L yO%'ԍ SBMS Comments at 34.> Otherwise, SBMS asserts, requiring cellular carriers"]L ~0*%%\\(" that elect to offer priority access to abide by rules and requirements prescribed by the Commission, while allowing other wireless providers the freedom to craft customized solutions without regard to those rules and requirements, would place cellular carriers at a  X4competitive disadvantage.:L {O4'ԍ Id. at 14.: X(#  X4224. We generally agree with the contentions of these commenters and thus we tentatively conclude that priority access rules should apply to all CMRS providers, including cellular carriers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. For example, although priority access could be provided by PCS and SMR carriers in the near term, it may not be technically feasible for carriers with GSMbased systems to offer priority access. Such matters depend on the progress of a standards process in developing a technical standard that would accommodate those systems under a priority access scheme.  X 4225. We also seek comment on whether priority access should be applicable to Mobile Satellite Systems (MSS) that are treated as CMRS under Part 20 of the Commission's  X 4Rules. ZL {O'ԍ See Sections 20.7(c) and 20.9(a)(10) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  20.7(c), 20.9(a)(10).ģ DISA #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#notes that many of the PCS providers and MSS providers have suggested  X4several types of priority systems.NL {O-'ԍ See DISA Letter, Mar. 14, 1997.N Generally in this regard, we also seek comment on whether the applicability of priority access rules to CMRS carriers should parallel the same CMRS services as are subject to E911 requirements. We request comment on whether there is a technical or operational basis to apply priority access to the same CMRS services as those  X44covered by E911 requirements.v4~L {Oc'ԍ See E911 Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1871618 (paras. 8084).v  X4226. P234A  In addition, NCS proposes in its Petition that priority access service providers would not include resellers and agents, because only licensees can control the software with  X4the capability to offer CPAS.?L yO'ԍ NCS Petition at 1112.? We request that commenters address the role of resellers of CMRS in offering priority access, particularly focussing on the issue of nondiscrimination in  X4resale."L {O!'ԍ See, e.g., Section 20.12(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  20.12(b), providing that ``[e]ach carrier subject to this section must permit unrestricted resale of its service.'' This requirement applies to the providers of PCS, cellular, and SMR service specified in Section 20.12(a) of the Commissions Rules. 47 C.F.R.  20.12(a). Finally, we seek comment on whether priority access should be applied in the case"^ 0*%%\\" of any newly reallocated spectrum that is made available to CMRS providers who may desire to provide priority access as part of their new service offerings.  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: L yO| 'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603(a).>  X 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:v O yOG 'ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(5).>  X_4There are approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the Nation.|_O yO 'ԍ 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.| This number includes such entities as States, counties, cities, utility districts, and school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this number have populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns, and, of those, 37,566, or 96  X 4percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.2 @O {O'ԍ Id.2 The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the approximately 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 96 percent, or 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules. We solicit comment on this estimate.  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:. ZO yO"'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  22.99.> Accordingly, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone  X4companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.J/O yO$'ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 4812.J There are approximately"sz/0*%%\\" 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: