WPCq 2  BP urier 10cpi3|m le)CG Times Bold (Scalable)PCG Times (Scalable) room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @Hm$uX@2-< ZL<H3|a HP LaserJet IIISi in room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSX\  P6G;Hm$uPxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;#R&P#08-03-98 10:48a  0CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)CG Times Bold Italic (Scalable)Courier 10cpiF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2K K K)Kt"i~'^+2RII{222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII22RRRIjajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjja2)2UI2IRARA2IR)2R){RIRRA82RIjIIA; ;L2&LU222&222222I2R)jIjIjIjIjIjjAaAaAaAaA6)6)6)6)jRrIrIrIrIjRjRjRjRjIjIjRqIrIjIjIYRjIjIjIjAjAjLjAjmaAaAaAaArIrIrIrLrIrRrU8)8R828RwRLLrRa)aBa2a;a)jRjjRjRrIrIjjAjAjAR8R8R8RLaKa2aUjRjRjRjRjRjRjjLaAaAaAjRa2jRR8a2jIk&II1(1WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5NI2IIIIII,2ooI,2mmIo,22III22XIIXo5XX5\xxRR2II{,"aaaaooIoXWOIRXXI"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>jajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjjaI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>jaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[X%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^@KXnnKKKn{9K9>nnnnnnnnnn>>{{{aʞ{KTž{{ϞK>KenKananaKnn>>n>nnnnKT>nnnnaj,jwK9weKKK9KKKKKKnKn>aaaaaaaaaaK>K>K>K>nnnnnnnnnnanlnnn{naaaaawaaaaannnwnwnK>KnKKKn{wwn>XKK>nnnnnžKKK{T{T{T{w\>ennnnnnϞwaaanKn{TKn9nnI(IWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOenKannnnn>FnBFnBKKaanKKnn؄O܄O{{KanB"n܄wn{؄n2KK<KK"i~'^@K{nnܹKKKn{9K9>nnnnnnnnnnKK{{{nϞTnϞ{ܞK>KnKn{a{aKn{>K{>{n{{aTK{nnnaX0XrK9rKKK9KKKKKKnK{>nnnnnܞaaaaaQ>Q>Q>Q>{nnnn{{{{nn{nnnn{nnnaaraaaaannnrn{T>T{TKT{{rr{>cKX>{{{nnڞaaa{T{T{T{rpK{{{{{{ܞraaa{K{{TKn9nnI;IWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOunKnnnnnnBKnBKnBKKnnnKKnn܄O܄O{{KnnB"n܄wn{؄n"i~'^+2;II{r222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII))RRRAjaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[2)2CI2AIAIA2II))I)rIIII28)IIjIIAFFO2&OC222&222222I2I)jAjAjAjAjA_aA[A[A[A[A2)2)2)2)jIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjAjIjHjIjIjIRIjAjAjAaAaAaOaAj\[A[A[A[AjIjIjIjOjIjOjI2)2I222IgROOjI[)[;[2[2[)jIWjIjIjIjIja2a2a2R8R8R8RO[>[)[CjIjIjIjIjIjIjjO[A[A[AjI[2jIR8[2jI\&II11WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIXo5XX5WxxRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72C&KOKZ!F"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>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""IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7k(N1+,N\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X1P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP2H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X2/u&%+"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8"Sh5^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\DG3\\\\QQ\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3QQQQQz~QsQsQsQsQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\i\\\\~\~\~\\s\s\s\s\\\\\\\\\3\\\\f\\\s\s\u7r3j\\\\z\z\cFb\b\s\s\s\\\\\\uQ=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====ńpsfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q=21>04g9?$"Sh5^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zznGXznfzz===\\=\fQfQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\nf\\\\\\fz\z\z\z\\\\\\ff\3\f\\i\\fz\z\zGz3ff\\ψ\\fGf\f\z\z\z\ffff\zQ=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====ńpzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q="Sh5^+1DIIx111I1111IIIIIIIIII11IjbjjbXrr9GrbjrXrjQbjjjjb111II1IQAQA4IQ)1Q)xQIQQA91QIjIIAIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIQ)jIjIjIjIjIjjAbAbAbAbA9)9)9)9)jQrIrIrIrIjQjQjQjQjIjIjQrIrIjIjIXQjIjIjIjIjIjIjQbIbIbIbIrIrIrIrIrIrQrQI)IQIITIIrQbIbIb9b)ujQjQrIrImjIjIQ9QIQIbIbIbIjQjQjQjQjjIbA1II111WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNjjjIII1I>>IIIIII4IIII411TTI&&IIZZoIIjI\zzQQ1TI4"jjIjTjjI傂I11jZjjjjjjjjjjx1IjIQIjbI1IjAITjrdjjjjjjjjjjGjjjjjjbZrj>WjjjjjjjIjjjjjjjIjjjjIjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj1jjj1jjj1jjj1jjjjjjjjjjjjjjZbQZQbAb9bArAjA9)rAbQQjAbIrAjZZIZIIbAjAbZjQrZZZjbr9IrjjZAZZZZ11IIIIjrIIIjjjZ1ZIA1"m+O6^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zznGXznfzz===\\=jbjjbXrr9GrbjrXrjQbjjjjb\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\Q3jjjjjjzbzbzbzbG9G9G9G9jrrrrjjjjjjjrrjjnXjjjjjjjzbzbzbzbrrrrrrr\I\I\I\IrzbzbzbzbjjrrϦjjfQfQfQzbzbzbjjjjjzbzYYYzYYYfYzYYYYYY=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====ńjzbpZzbzbzbrjG9rzbjzbrjpZpZzbjzbjrpZzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=2X> c>> GP\U"`H2 : ^AIfnnIIInIIIInnnnnnnnnnIIbIV~vIIInnIbnbnbInn==n=nnnnQV=nnnnbbnbnnnnnnInnnnnnnnn=bbbbbbbbbbI=I=I=I=nnnnnnnnnnbnnnnn~nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn=nnnnznnnnnB>nnnnnnwTvnvnnnnnnnnnaInnIIIWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNnnnIbZZnnnnnnMnnnnMIIrrn99nnnnnzzIrn M"nrnnIIxInnznnInbn~f^nbbIIIIzzbVbnbI=bzzbnb~nnnbbzInbIInnnnnnnI~nbI"`H2 : ^AIfnnIIInIIIInnnnnnnnnnIInVjzIIInnInzbzbMnz=Iz=znzzbVIznnnbnnnnnnnnnInnnnnnnnz=nnnnnbbbbbV=V=V=V=znnnnzzzznnznnnnznnnnnnznnnnnnnnnzzn=nznn~nnznnV=zznnnnzVznznnnnzzzznbInnIIIWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNnnnIn^^nnnnnnMnnnnMII~~n99nnnnnzzI~nM"n~nnIIxInnznnInbn~j^nnnIIIIzzbVbbbV=bzzbnbnnnbbzVnbIInnnnnnnInbI"Sh5^+1DIIr111I1111IIIIIIIIII11Aj\dm\Wjm19g\mjTjbO\mjjj_111II1AIAIA1II))I)rIIII69)IIjIIAAIAIIIIII1IIIIIIIII)jAjAjAjAjAbdA\A\A\A\A1)1)1)1)mIjIjIjIjImImImImIjIjAmIjIjIjImITIjIjIjIdIdIdImI\I\I\I\IjIjIjIjIjImImII)IIIIkQIIgI\I\I^,[)UmImIjIjIjbIbIO8OIOI\I\I\ImImImImIjjI^A1II111WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNjjjIII1A<WjjjjjjjIjjjjjjjAjjjjAjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj1jjj1jjj1jjj1jjjjjjjjjjjjjjZ\QZQbA\9_AmIjA1)gAbQQmAbIjAjZTIZII\AjAbZjQrZZZj\m1IjjjZAZZZZ11IIIIjmIIIjjjZ1TIA1x/c81,c P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P 2p=6,A&p_ p^7&j)Y1+,Y_ p^72p=6,A&p_ p^7&>IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7j)W1+,ۦW P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P&1k=6,-W &k&_ x$&7&X2GgY ] b"m+O6^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=j\dm\Wjm19g\mjTjbO\mjjj_Q\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\I3jjjjj~ds\s\s\s\=1=1=1=1mjjjjmmmmjjmjjjmiTjjj~d~d~dms\s\s\s\jjjjjmm\I\I\Ik\Igs\s\u^r[mmjjzbzbcObObOs\s\s\mmmmju^wWWWsWWWbWsWWWWWW=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====ńjs\pZzbs\w_mj=1gzbmzbjjiTpZs\jzbjrpZs=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q="Sh5^6=X\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\nnzni=Qzfznn\fnnff===\\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QzQQFQ\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3n\n\n\n\n\zzQnQnQnQnQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQn\\\\fQ\n\n\n\n\z\z\z\\n\n\n\n\\\\\\\\\3\\\\\\\z\f\f\g3g3nz\z\\\zn\n\\F\\\\f\f\f\\\\\zf\gF=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\UU\\\\\\@\\\\@==\\\33\\pp\\\b\\=\\@"\[\塡\==px=\p\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====pppfpfzQpGfQ\Q=3zQzffzQz\Qpp\p\\fQfQzppfppppp=\ffpQpppp==\\\\p\\\fffp=i\Q="Sh5^!%377bV%%%7b%%%%7777777777%%nbn1bOEKQEAOQ%+MEdQO?OI;EQOhOOG%%%77%17171%777V7777)+77O771171n777777%777777777O1O1O1O1O1bIK1E1E1E1E1%%%%Q7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7Q7Q7O7O1Q7O7O7O7Q7?7O7O7O7K7K7K7Q7E7E7E7E7O7O7O7O7O7Q7Q777777P=77M7E7E7F!D@Q7Q7O7O7bOI7I7;*;7;7E7E7E7Q7Q7Q7Q7hOO7F0%77%%%WnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOO777%1--77a777bb7'7777b'%%997bnn77CCTn7n7O7A\\==b%97h'"nnnnOOnnn7Onn9OObbnnn7bbnnnb7%%nnnnnOCnbOOOOOOOOOOx%n7O7=7bnOnI7%7O17?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn3nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnn\ICVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCE=C=I1E+G1Q7O1%M1I=d=Q1I7O1OC?7C77E1O1ICO=VCCCOEQ%7OOOC1CCCC%%7777OQ777OOOC%?71%n27u^yg k px/c81,c P7P 3m=6,#R&m P7&P 2p=6,A&p_ p^7&j)Y1+,Y_ p^72p=6,A&p_ p^7&>IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7j)W1+,ۦW P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P&1k=6,-W &k&_ x$&7&XOA%!,JA P7JPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7X"Sh5^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H2H2H2E2E2E2J2?2?2?2?2H2H2H2H2H2J2J222222I822F2?2?2@>:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ82و iuzy)"Sh5^6F_\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zzzznF\znnzfnzznn===\\=\\Q\Q@\f33\3f\\\FF3fQz\QF\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3z\z\z\z\z\zQzQzQzQzQF3F3F3F3f\\\\ffffpQz\\\\nQ\n\z\z\z\z\z\z\\z\z\z\z\\\\\\ff\3\\\\b\\z\n\n\n>n3ff\\ňz\z\gFf\f\n\n\n\ffffzn\nF=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\F\QQ\\\\\\=\\\\===bb\33\\pp\\\iii=b\="\s\塡\==px=\z\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====zpzfpfzQzGpQQQG3zQzffQz\Qpp\p\\pQpQzpzfpppzzG\pppQpppp==\\\\z\\\pppp=p\Q="Sh5^(,>CCwh,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,w;w`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``V,,,CC,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC14%CC`CC;;C;CCCCCC,CCCCCCCCC%`;`;`;`;`;wY[;T;T;T;T;,%,%,%,%cC`C`C`C`CcCcCcCcC`C`;cC`C`C`CcCMC`C`C`C[C[C[CcCTCTCTCTC`C`C`C`C`CcCcCC%CCCCaJCC^CTCTCU(S%McCcC`C`Cw`YCYCH3HCHCTCTCTCcCcCcCcC~``CU;,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,;66CCuCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,EECw##CCQQeCC`COooJJw,EC~/"``C`E``wwCwwwC,,`Qw``````````x,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`hV``````````>``````oYQh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QTJQJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`QMCQCCT;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Tc,C```Q;QQQQ,,CCCC`cCCC```Q,MC;,8wC;,[AXw P7XPy.f81,f_ p^7"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ82 b~"Sh5^!%577aV%%%7a%%%%7777777777%%nan7aBBIOB?OO%1I=ZIOBOB7=OBZB==%%%77%77171771O7777**71I11*171n777777%777777777B7B7B7B7B7aII1B1B1B1B1%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7=1B7O7O7O7=1O7B7B7B7B7I7I7I7O7B7B7B7B7O7O7O7O7O7O7O777777Z777I7=7=7>>BI7I7O7O7hIB7B77*7777=7=7=7O7O7O7O7ZI=7>*%77%%%WnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOO777%73377`777aa7'7777a'%%777bnn77CCTn7n7O7;TT77b%77b'"nnnnOOnnn7Onn7OObbnnn7aannna7%%nnnnnOCnaOOOOOOOOOOx%n7C7=7anOnI7%7O17?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn3nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnn\ICVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOCCC=C=I1C+=1O7O1%I1I=\=I1I7O1OCC7C77=1=1ICC=VCCCCCO%7O==C1CCCC%%7777CO777===C%?71%nx/c81,c P7P 3m=6,#R&m P7&P 2p=6,A&p_ p^7&j)Y1+,Y_ p^72p=6,A&p_ p^7&>IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7j)W1+,ۦW P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P&1k=6,-W &k&_ x$&7&X OA%!,JA P7JPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xd/m=6,H&m*0 xM7&8wC;,[AXw P7XPy.f81,f_ p^7&P@%!,-gJ@&_ x$&7JX`%O,(,{O P7Px/c81,c P7P "m+O6^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``VJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSC.x`x`x`x`x`wr[iTiTiTiT8,8,8,8,{cx`x`x`x`{c{c{c{cx`x`{cx`x`x`{c`Mx`x`x`r[r[r[{ciTiTiTiTx`x`x`x`x`{c{cSCSCSCzaSCu^iTiTkUgS{c{cx`x`woYoYZHYHYHiTiTiT{c{c{c{c~x`kUlOO{OiO{OOYOiOxOOOOO8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxx`iTfQoYiTlV{cx`8,u^oYy{coYx`x``MfQiTx`oYx`hfQxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82d D> }> x/c81,c P7P 3m=6,#R&m P7&P 2p=6,A&p_ p^7&j)Y1+,Y_ p^72p=6,A&p_ p^7&>IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7j)W1+,ۦW P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P&1k=6,-W &k&_ x$&7&X OA%!,JA P7JPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xd/m=6,H&m*0 xM7&8wC;,[AXw P7XPy.f81,f_ p^7&P@%!,-gJ@&_ x$&7JX`%O,(,{O P7Px/c81,c P7P ?xxx,h^x6X@8;X@gzm,L P7LP ezm,L_ p^7L"`H2 : ^mzFzzzFzzzzzzoFoF  zM   Z  zzzzzffff ozf     Fzfzfzfzf                 f ng  F Z  zzzzWooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN   zBFFFzzF__oooo 22FzZ"oooo  ooo oo  FFoooFFooo0Fzzooooo oF          xzo Fo oz  oo          oooooo    ooooooooooooooooooo  oooooo2o ooo    oooooo     o  ooo                                                   z   z   z   z               zfM     z   zz    zzo"`H2 : ^mzF-zzzFzzzzzzoFoF   Z    o  zzzzfzf-z ozf     |  ffff                 fMf$        o  zzzzWooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN   zfFFFzzF__oooo 22FzZ"oooo  ooo oo  FFoooFFooo0Fzzooooo oF          xzo Fo oz  oo          oooooo    ooooooooooooooooooo  oooooo?o ooo    oooooo     o  ooo                                                   z   z   z   z               fZ       zz    zzo2 > +fi> `"`H2 : ^R\\\\\\\\\\z\k\\\\zzz\LLLfkLzzz\Lzzzzzzzzzz\L\L\L\LzLSMiy\\\\WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\zppaa\\GG\Ka"$\\x\\zuzz\\\\zkzz\Lzzzzz\z\\\z\x/c81,c P7P 3m=6,#R&m P7&P 2p=6,A&p_ p^7&j)Y1+,Y_ p^72p=6,A&p_ p^7&>IA,k  P7P=IA,_ p^7j)W1+,ۦW P7P3m=6,#R&m P7&P&1k=6,-W &k&_ x$&7&X OA%!,JA P7JPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xd/m=6,H&m*0 xM7&8wC;,[AXw P7XPy.f81,f_ p^7&P@%!,-gJ@&_ x$&7JX`%O,(,{O P7Px/c81,c P7P ?xxx,h^x6X@8;X@gzm,L P7LP ezm,L_ p^7LM\R,u9 P79PL\R,un9_ p^79B  B  B  B  B.  B  B  B BBBB B  B  "`H2 : ^R\\\\\\\\\\k\\\\zzaL\Lzk\z\LzzzzzkLkLkLkLLkL7kz\\\\WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\uu aa\\GG\Aa"$\\x\\zu\\\\zkzzzkLzzzzzkz\\\z\2?΢ 44  ,,""" """ """ """ """ " " " """ """" " "" " "" " " "" " " " """" " """ " "" " " "" "  " " "" " " " " "" "" "" " "" "" "" " "" " " "" "" " " " " " " "" " " " """" " " " "" " " """" " " " " " "  "  """" " " " """""" " "  " " " "" """ " "  " " ""  " " " "" """ "" " " "" "  "  """ " "    """"""    "" "" """ "  "  " """   "" "" """"" " " " "" " " "  " """  "" " " " "" " " "" """" "  "   " "" " " """ "" "" "  " "  " " " " "" ""  "   " " " "" """" "" """ " " "  "" " "  """"""" " ""  " " """" "  "   "  "" ""  """"  "  "  " " " "  """  "   " """ " """ " """ " " "  " " "  """"" " " "  " " """" "  "   "  "" "" """"  "  "  " " " "  ""  "   " "" """" " "" " " "  " " "  """"" "" " """"" " "  "   "  "" " " """"  " ""  " " " "  ""  "   " "" """ " " " " " " "  " " "  """"""   " "" """"""" "  "   "  "" " "" """"  " " "  " " " "  ""  "   " "" " """"" " "" " " "  " " "  """""""  " " "" " """"" "  "   "  "" """ """"  " " "  " " " "  ""  "   " "" " """"" " "" " " " """ " " " """  " " "" " "  " """" " "  "   " "" " "" " "" "" "" "  " "  " " " " """ " " "   """ """ """ " """"" " " " "" "  """ " " " " " """"" "  "   " "" " " """ " " ""  " "  " "" " "   "" """" "" " " " " " " "  """" """ """"""   "  "   " " " " "" "" " " " "  " "  " " " " "  "" " "" "  "" "" """"" " " " " " "" " " " "" " " " "" """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ "" """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " "" """ " "" """ " """"" " "" """" " "" "  """ " "" "  """ " """ """ " """""" " """ """ " """ """ " """""" " """  """ " """ """ " "" """ " "" """ " ""  """ " "" """ " ""  """ " "" """ " """"" " """"" " """"" " "" "" " " "" """ " "" """ " " """"" " " """"  " " """" " " """" " " """"" " """"" " "" """ " """"" " """" " " "" """ " " "" """ " " "" """" " """""" " """""" " """""" " """"" " "" """ " "" """ " """"" " """" " " """" " " "" " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " """ " " """ " " "" " "" " "" """ " """ "  " " """ " " """ " " "" "" " "" "" " "" " " " """ " " """ " " "" " " " " "" """ " "" """ " """" " " """ "" " "" " "" " "" """ " "" " "" " """"" " """ """ " "" "" "" " "" " """" " "" " " " """ " """ "" """ " """ "" "" " " "" """ " " " " "" """ " """ "" " """" " "" "" " """ " " """ "" " "" "" " " """" " " """" " " "" " " " " """" "" " """" "" " "" "" " " """" " " """ " " " """ " " " " "" " " "" " "" ""  " " "" " " " " """ """ " """" " " " """ """ " "" ""  "" " "" "" "" " ""  " " " " "" " " " " " "" """" " "" "" " " """ """ " """""" " ""  " "" " "" " " " " """ " " " "" " "" " "" " """"" " "" "" "" "" " "" """ " " " "" "" " "" " "" " " " " " " """ "" "" " """ "" " " "" "" "" " """""" " """" " " """"" " "" "" """ " "" ""  " " " """"  " " "" "" "" " """""" " """ " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " "" """ " """" " " """ "" " "" " " " " " "" " """ " " """   "" " " """"" " " " "" " """ " " "" " """" " """ "" " " " """  """" " "" """ """ " ""   " """ " ""  "" " ""  " " " ""  "  " " " "" "  "" " """ " " " """ " " " """ "" " """ "" " """ "" " """ " " """ " " """ " " """ " " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " ""  " " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" "" " "" " " ""   " " " ""  " " " "" " " " """ " " "" " " ""  "" " """ " """ " """ " "" "" " "" " " """ " """ " "" "" " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" "" " "" "" " " ""  " " " ""  " " " "" "" " """ " " ""  " " " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " "" "" " "" "" " """" " """ " " "" " " " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " "" "" " """" " " "" " " " """" " """ " " """ " ""  " " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " "" " "" " " " " """" " " """" " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " " "" " " " "" "" " "" "" " """" " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " """ " """ " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" "" " """" " "" " " " "" "" " """ " " """ " " """ " "" " " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" " " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " " "" " " ""  "" " ""  "" " " "" "" " " " """"" "" " """ " "" " " " " """ " """" " """" "" """ " """ " """" " " " """ "" " " " " " " """"" """ "" " " """" " " " " " """ " " " "" " """ " """"" " """" " "" """ " """  " """" " """ " " "" " " " """" "" " " " " """ " " """"" " """" " "  "" " " " """ " " " """" " """ " "" " " " " " """" " " " " " " " """" " """" " " """" """" " " " " """" "" "   " " " " """" " "" "" " " " """ " " """ " " """  " " """" " """ " " """" " """" " "" "" " """ " " "" "" " """ " " """" " """" " "" "" " """" " "" "" " """ " " " "" "" " """ " " """"  " " """ "" " " """  " " """ """ " """"" " """ " " " """ "" " """ "" " " "" " " " """"" " """ " " """" " " "" "" " """  " " """ " " """ " " """ "" " """ " " " """ " " """ " " """" " " """" " """ "" " """ " " " "" " " " """ " " " """" " """ " " """" " " """ " " "" "" " " " """ " " " """" " """" " """"" " """ " " "" """ " " """  " " """" " " """" " " "" """ " " """ "" " """" """ " """  "" " "  "" """" " """ " " " "" " " " "" "" " " "" " " """  " " " " "" """" " " """ "" " " "" "" """"" " """"" " " "" """"""" " """ " " " " " """"" """ " " """ "" " " " " """ "" "" """ " """ " "  " " " """ """ """ " """"" " " """ """"  ""  " " """ "   " " " " """"""" """ " " """" " "  " " """""" " " """ " " """ " " " " """" "" " "" " " """" " " "" """" " """" " """  "  " " "" "" """" " "" " " """ ""  " " """" """ """" " " """"" " " "" "" " """"  " " """ " " " """"" " " " " "" " " """ " "" " " """ " " """ " " """ "" " "" "" " " " " " """ " """ """ " "" "" " "" """" " " """" " " " """""""" " """" " " """"" """"" " """ " " " " "" " " " "" "" " """ " " """" """ " " " """" " """"  "" " " """ " " """"" "  """ " """  " " " """ "" """ " """" " " """"" " " """" " " """"" " """ " " """"" " """ " " " """" " """"" " """" " """ " """ " """ "" "" " """" " " """ " " """ " """ " " """ " """ "" " """ " """"" " """ " """"" " """ "" " """" " """" " """" " """" " """" " "" """ """ """ """ """ "" "" " "" " " """ "" " """ "" """ " "" ""    "" "   " """  """" "" " "   "" " " "  " """ " "" "" " "  """ " ""  " """" "  " " " " "  " "   " " """ """ """ """ """ """" "" " " """ " """ " " " """ " """"   " "   " """ " "" " ""    """ "" " "    " """ " "" " """   "" "" ""    " """""""  "  "" "" " " "   "" """ " "" " """ "" " """ """ """" " " " " " """"" " " "" "" """    " "" " " """  " "  " " ""  " """ "  " "" "  "" """ "  " " "  " """ """  S' X    T'  Federal Communications Commissionă`l(#bFCC 98-191 ă   yx}dddy ՊX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:!'x((fxoxxxxxx1.x` ` Introduction (#` pp"(#17  T "'x((fxoxxxxxx2.x` ` Interoperability (#` pp"(#18  T"'x((fxoxxxxxx3.x` ` Types of Communications (#` pp"(#22  T#'x((fxoxxxxxx4.x` ` Band Design Details (#` pp"(#25  Tr$'x((fxoxxxxxx5.x` ` Channelization (#` pp"(#34  T &'((foxB.ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A LICENSE pp"(#47  T&'x((fxoxxxxxx1.x` ` Purpose of Spectrum Use(#` pp"(#49  T''x((fxoxxxxxx2.x` ` Identity of Licensee(#` pp"(#50  Ts('x((fxoxxxxxx3.x` ` Noncommercial Proviso(#` pp"(#71"s(, * *,,})"Ԍ T'ԙ((foxxx4C.hxppADMINISTRATION (#ppp"(#73  T'((fox1.8x` ` Interoperability(#` pp"(#73  T'((fox2.8x` ` Regional Planning (#` pp"(#77  Tg'x((fxoxxxxxx3.x` ` National Planning (#` pp"(#490  T4'x((fxoxxxxxx4.x` ` Frequency Coordination (#` pp"(#95  T'x((fxoxxxx5.x` ` Construction Requirements (#` p"(#101 x((fxoxxxxx(#  T'x((fxoxxxD.hTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (#p"(#104  Th'x((fxoxxxxxx1.x` ` Overview of Technical Requirements (#` p"(#104  T5'x((fxoxxxxxx2.x` ` Technical Requirements for the Nationwide Interoperability Channels(#` p"(#107  T'x((fxoxxxxxx3.x` ` Technical Requirements for General Use and Reserve Channels(#` p"(#124  T'x((fxoxxxxxx4.x` ` Technical Standards for all 700 MHz Band Public Safety Equipment(#` p"(#133 x((fxoxxxxx(#  Ti 'x((fxoxxxE.xPROTECTION OF TELEVISION/DIGITAL TELEVISION (TV/DTV) STATIONS(#p"(#146  T6 '((fox1.8x` ` Introduction (#` p"(#146  T '((fox2. ` ` Protection of TV Stations (#` p"(#150  T '((fox3.8x` ` Protection of DTV Stations (#` p"(#153  T '((fox4. ` ` TV Protected Service Contour Alternatives (#` p"(#156  Tj'((fox5.8x` ` TV/DTV Protection from Control and Mobile Stations (#` p"(#160  T7'((fox6. ` ` Protection of Public Safety from TV/DTV Stations (#` p"(#163  T'x((fxoxxxF.xCANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS (#p"(#165  Tk'V.xTHIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING p"(#168  T'x((fxoxxxA.hUSE AND LICENSING OF RESERVE SPECTRUM (#p"(#169  T'x((fxoxxxB.xINTEROPERABILITY BELOW 512 MHz (#p"(#185  Tl'x((fxoxxxxxx1.Interoperability Channels in Existing Public Safety Bands (#p"(#190  T9'x((fxoxxxxxx2.Interoperability Channels in the 138144 MHz Band(#p"(#192  T'x((fxoxxxxxx3.Interoperability Channels from the VHF Maritime Band(#p"(#194 x((fxo(#  T'x((fxoxxxC.hxppGLOBAL ORBITING NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GLONASS) AND GLOBAL POSITIONING SERVICE (GPS) (#pp!(# 196  T'x((fxoxxxD.hPREPARATION OF COMPUTERS TO ACCOMMODATE YEAR 2000 (#p!(# 202 x((fxoxxx(#  T'VI.hxPROCEDURAL MATTERS (#p"(#208  T;'VII.ORDERING CLAUSES (#p"(#217 APPENDIX Ap(#\Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (First Report and Order) APPENDIX Bp~(#Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Third Notice) APPENDIX Cp)(#VList of Pleadings APPENDIX Dp_(#Z List of Regions APPENDIX Ep(#Final Rules for First Report and Order APPENDIX Fp(#gProposed Rules for Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making APPENDIX Gp(#Technical Analysis of Second Harmonics Pertaining to `(#GLONASS and GPS Receivers APPENDIX Hp)(#vChannelization Plan for the 700 MHz Public Safety Band"=',l(l(,,'"Ԍ S'ԙ AI. INTRODUCTION ă   "(p` P @ 0 xhXH8(X4` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:licensee may permit the unlicensed provider to share the use of its system for noncommercial public safety services under Section90.179 of the Commission's Rules.(#`  Tg' e X,44,` ` Federal public safety providers may be authorized to use the public safety spectrum in  e the 700 MHz band pursuant to the existing NTIA/FCC process for Federal government  e Fuse of nonFederal government spectrum, as set forth in Part2 of the Commission's  T' e  Rules.K zPi'ԍ See 47C.F.R.2.103. K Federal use of the nationwide interoperability channels will be addressed in the recommendations to the Commission made by the NCC (described below).(#`  T5' e X44X` ` We adopt a regional planning approach to spectrum management for specific channels  e throughout the 700MHz band, identified on the Spectrum Overview and Band Plan  e charts above as "GeneralUse" (a total of 12.6megahertz of spectrum). The 700MHz  e band regional planning process will be similar to that which governs management of  Ti ' e qpublic safety spectrum in the 821-824MHz and the 866-869MHz bands.\i  zP ' xV ԍ See Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to  x^ Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/866-869MHz Bands by the Public Safety  zP('Services, GEN Docket No. 87-112, Report and Order, 3FCCRcd905 (1987) (National Plan Report and Order). To allow for  e 0additional flexibility, however, we provide a mechanism that allows states that either are  e 0included in multistate regions or have portions of their states included in more than one  e zregion to opt out of their current regions and to form new regions along geographical  e ~lines conforming to state boundaries. Thus, a state split among more than one RPC may  e opt, through consensus of the state representatives, to reform RPC boundaries so that the  e state participates in a single RPC. Similarly, all representatives to RPCs from the same state may, by consensus, create a new RPC that conforms to the boundaries of that state.(#`  T' e X44X` ` We will charter the NCC in accordance with the procedural steps contained in the Federal  Tk' e  Advisory Committee Act (FACA)bk xP'ԍ Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2 (1988).b that will seek American National Standards Institute  e (ANSI) certification and provide a national structure for use of the 700MHz band  e nationwide interoperability spectrum. The major responsibilities of this committee will  e ~be to: (1)formulate and submit for Commission review and approval an operational plan  e Jto achieve national interoperability that includes a shared or priority system among users  e ,of the interoperability spectrum, for both daytoday and emergency operations, and  e recommendations regarding Federal users' access to the interoperability spectrum;  e (2)recommend interoperability technical standards for Commission review and approval;  e (3)provide voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional plans; and  e (4)provide general recommendations to the Commission on operational plans of the public safety community. (#` ": A,l(l(,,"Ԍ T' e 1X44X` ` We allow all of the certified public safety frequency coordinators  xPh' x ԍ The coordinators are: Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO)  x International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC)/International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA); Forestry  x Conservation Communications Association (FCCA); and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). to provide  e #coordination in the 700MHz band, so that competition among coordinators will provide incentives for lower coordination fees and better quality services.(#`  T4' e  X44X` ` We adopt technical regulations sufficient to establish a general framework for seamless  e nationwide interoperability, facilitate spectrum management, encourage efficient and  e effective spectrum use, promote competition and avoid undue delays in equipment development.(#`  T5' e X44X` ` We adopt geographic separation requirements based on a 40dB DesiredtoUndesired  e signal strength ratio (D/U) to protect the TV/DTV stations and public safety spectrum  e users from harmful interference to each other and to comply with the requirements of the  e 1997 Budget Act. We emphasize that the necessity for public safety licensees to share  e this 24megahertz of spectrum with both analog and digital TV broadcast stations until  e WDecember31,2006 will require the utmost cooperation between the TV stations and the public safety community.(#`  T ' e X44X` ` We adopt rules requiring that licenses for public safety facilities proposed to be located  e =within 75miles of the U.S.-Canada border or the U.S.-Mexico border be conditioned on  e 0avoiding harmful interference to television station receivers in those countries. We note  e ~that additional licensing conditions governing crossborder sharing between public safety  e and television operations may be required after final agreements with the governments of those countries are signed.(#`  T8' 11.ؠThe major proposals in the Third Notice are as follows:  T' e 9X44X` ` We seek comment on how to license the portion of the 700MHz band designated as  e reserve spectrum. Specifically, we request comment on whether some or all of the  e reserve spectrum should be licensed by means of the RPC process or directly to each  T:' e state for deployment of statewide systems. The Third Notice also invites commenters to suggest other proposals for licensing of the 8.8megahertz of spectrum.(#` X (#  T' e X,44,` ` We also seek comment on whether the channels designated in the First Report for  e Tnationwide interoperability (2.6megahertz of the 700MHz band subject to  e interoperability guidelines to be recommended by the NCC and approved by the  e Commission) should be licensed by means of the Regional Planning Committee process or licensed directly to each state. (#`  Tq' e \X44X` ` In response to the extensive public safety comments submitted in this record that  e >additional interoperability spectrum is needed below 512MHz to fully address  e interoperability nationwide, we examine three additional possible interoperability  e solutions. We propose to designate five channels in each of the existing public safety  e ~bands at 150-174MHz and 450-512MHz for mutual aid purposes. We also seek further  e 0comment on the need for a separate interoperability band below 512MHz. Specifically,"r" ,l(l(,,""  e we seek comment on the feasibility of using the 138-144MHz band currently used by  e the U.S. Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a  T' e 0separate interoperability band. zP' x ԍ See Petition of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council for Further Rulemaking to Allocate  zP'Spectrum in the 138-144 MHz Band for Public Safety (April9,1998) (NPSTC Petition). We also seek comment on our proposed reallocation of  e two channel pairs in the VHF 156-162MHz band for interoperable channels of  e dcommunication in 33 Economic Areas (EAs), which are now available for assignment to  T'public safety entities.$ xP' x ԍ The channel pairs were formerly allocated in Section80.371 of the Commission's Rules for VHF Public Coast Stations as public correspondence channels and were also shared under Section90.283.(#`  T' e X44X` ` We also propose technical solutions and invite comments on how to protect certain global  e =navigation satellite systems, particularly the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems  T5' e m(GLONASS) and Global Positioning System (GPS).5| xPQ'ԍ GLONASS utilizes the RadionavigationSatellite Service (spacetoEarth) band of 1598-1605MHz. We are concerned that second  e harmonic emissions from public safety equipment operating in the 794-806MHz band  e \(TV channels68 and 69) may cause harmful interference to aeronautical users of  e GLONASS and GPS receivers and seek further comment to supplement the record on this matter.(#`  T ' e X,44,` ` We also seek comment on how best to ascertain the extent, reach, and effectiveness of  e JYear2000 compliance initiatives that have been or are being undertaken by public safety  e entities, so that we can better understand the nature of the Year2000 problem and the potential risks it poses to public safety communications networks.(#`  T' " 12.ؠThe rules we adopt today represent an important step in advancing the goal of creating a  xnational public safety wireless network. Achieving a flexible, efficient and effective framework to fully  xmeet the communications needs of the public safety community on an ongoing basis, however, will  xQrequire the longterm, coordinated efforts of public safety radio users and spectrum administrators at the  xFederal, state and local levels of government. The reallocation and availability of the 700MHz band,  xmade possible through the enactment of the 1997 Budget Act, provides not only a resolution for current  xspectrum deficiencies but also constitutes an important step toward solving the problem of how and where  xcto accommodate the projected growth of both traditional and advanced voice, data, HSD and video communications services that will be required by public safety agencies into the 21st century.  T'@ III. BACKGROUND ă  T' " 13. P15F נIn 1993, Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to ensure that public  Tm' xsafety communications needs are met through the year 2010.m  zP#' x ԍ See 47U.S.C.309(j)(10)(B)(iv), as added by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L.No.103-66, TitleVI, 6002, 107Stat.312 (1993). Pursuant to that directive, the Commission  xissued a report to Congress identifying a need to gather additional information on the present and future  T' xcommunications requirements of public safety agencies.ff  zP ''ԍ 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, 10FCCRcd5207 (1995).f In 1995, the Commission, together with the" ,l(l(,,"  xNational Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), established the Public Safety  T' x Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),b xP5'ԍ Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2 (1988).b  xtto provide advice and recommendations regarding the communications needs of public safety agencies  xthrough the year 2010. Shortly thereafter, the Commission commenced this rulemaking proceeding,  T4' xwhich sought to evaluate and plan for present and future public safety communications requirements.p \4X xP,' xt ԍ The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and  zP' x3 Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Notice of Proposed Rule  zP'Making, 11FCCRcd12,460 (1996) (First Notice).p  T' xIn the First Notice, the Commission sought comment on a wide variety of public safety communications  xIissues, including, but not limited to, future public safety spectrum needs, projected operational and  xtechnological requirements for interoperability (between and among public safety entities on a local and regional basis), and technical parameters needed to ensure efficient and effective communications.  T' "_ 14.ؠIn September1996, the PSWAC Final Report was submitted to the Commission as part of  T' xDthe record in this proceeding. The PSWAC Final Report found that the spectrum then allocated to public  xsafety was insufficient to support the current and projected voice and data needs of the public safety  xcommunity, did not provide adequate capacity for obtaining interoperability, and was inadequate to meet  T9 ' xfuture needs, based on projected population growth and demographic changes. The PSWAC Final Report  xconcluded that in order to meet these needs, 25megahertz of new public safety spectrum allocations  T ' xwould be needed within five years.J! | zP'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 3. J The PSWAC Final Report further stated that data communication  xMand wireless video needs were also expected to grow rapidly, and additional spectrum was required to  To'support new capabilities and technologies, including high speed data and video.="o zP'ԍ Id. at 19-20.=  T ' "u15.ؠOn August14, 1996, the Commission released a Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule  T' xMaking in the digital television (DTV) proceeding, in which it acknowledged that a portion of the  xspectrum recovered from TV channels60-69 when DTV is fully deployed "could be used to meet public  Tr' x<safety needs."R#^r zP' x ԍ Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service,  zP|' x MMDocketNo.87-268, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11FCCRcd10,968, 10,980 (1996) (DTV  zPF'Sixth Notice).R In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would initiate a  xseparate proceeding to address the issue of how best to allocate TV channels60-69, and would give  T ' xserious consideration to allocating 24megahertz of that spectrum for public safety use.$   xPs!' x ԍ Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket  zP;"'No. 87-268, Sixth Report and Order, 12FCCRcd14,588, 14,626 (1997) (DTV Sixth Report & Order). Subsequently,  xin the 1997 Budget Act, Congress directed the Commission to reallocate 24megahertz of the spectrum  T' x}recovered from TV channels60-69 as a result of DTV implementation for public safety services.Z%  xPg%'ԍ 1997 Budget Act, codified at 47U.S.C.337.Z  x3Shortly thereafter, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in ETDocketNo.97-157 which  TA' xled to the adoption of a Report and Order reallocating 24megahertz of spectrum located in the 700MHz"A %,l(l(,,"  T' xRband for public safety services.&& zPh' x" ԍ Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ETDocket No. 97-157, Notice of  zP2'Proposed Rule Making, 12FCCRcd14,141 (1997); Reallocation Report and Order, 12FCCRcd22,953 (1998). & This new allocation is the largest ever made for public safety  xcommunications and constitutes a significant public benefit derived from the conversion of television  T'broadcasting in the United States from analog technology to stateoftheart digital technology.k'$ zP^'ԍ See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12FCCRcdat 14,588.k  T4' "16.ؠIn the Second Notice in this proceeding, the Commission continued its inquiry into the  xpresent and future public safety communications needs and how best to use the newly reallocated  x24megahertz of spectrum in the 700MHz band. It sought comment on a broad range of options to  T' x promote the efficient and effective use of the 700MHz band to meet those needs.($ zP ' xp ԍ The Second Notice contained a section, prompted by a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the National  x Communications System (NCS), seeking comment on the establishment of Cellular Priority Access Service (CPAS)  zP ' x7 designed to meet the communications needs of public safety services in emergency and disaster situations. See 12FCCRcd at 17,779-800. We will defer action on this matter at this time. Fifty comments,  Ti' xforty reply comments, and numerous ex parte presentations were received in response to the Second  T7'Notice.Y)7 xPy'ԍ A list of commenters is provided in Appendix C.Y  T'6 IV. FIRST REPORT AND ORDER ă  Sl ' A. BAND PLAN  S ' 1. Introduction  T ' "y17.ؠIn this section, we discuss the band plan we are establishing for the 700MHz public safety  x3band. For the technical and policy reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, we are dividing the  xband into separate segments for wideband and narrowband communications, establishing flexible  x/channelization standards for these segments, designating some of the channels thereby created for  xnationwide interoperability and designating most of the other channels for general public safety use,  x3pursuant to regional planning. The remaining channels will be held in reserve pending our adoption of  Tn'the licensing proposals made in the Third Notice.  S ' 2. Interoperability  T' ""18.ؠP71In the Second Notice, the Commission proposed to dedicate a significant amount of spectrum  xgin the 700MHz band solely for interoperability communications. We stated that the precise amount of  xspectrum devoted to interoperability would reflect the record of public safety user expertise, particularly  xxwith respect to the channelization required to maximize functionality. The Commission solicited comment  xMon whether it is necessary or advisable to allot specific interoperability channels to accommodate each  xdiscrete use. We also solicited comment on whether channels should be designated solely for  Tr' xinteroperable voice, data, image/hsd, or video, and, if so, how many channels should be designated for  T?'each category of use.X*?2  zP''ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd at 17,739.X"? *,l(l(,,"Ԍ T' "ԙ19.ؠNearly all commenters agree that the establishment of nationwide public safety  T' x7interoperability is in the public interest.`+ zP5'ԍ NTIA Comments at 910; PSWAC Final Report at 52.` The comments, however, oppose dedicating substantially more  T' xthan 2.5MHz or 10percent of the 700MHz band, solely for interoperability communications.,Z xP' x ԍ Ft. Lauderdale Reply Comments at 2; The City of Richardson, Texas Comments at 4; APCO at 10-11; Long Beach, California at 3-4. Several  xcommenters note that limiting a larger portion of the spectrum to interoperability operations (e.g., mutual  x&aid, daytoday and task force) would severely curtail the availability of the 700MHz band for routine  T'daily operations, such as dispatch.- zPS ' x@ ԍ See, e.g., APCO Comments at 10-11; Long Beach, California Comments at 3-4; National League of Cities (NLC) Comments at 7-9; Motorola Comments at 11.  T' "u20.ؠSome commenters argue that the 700MHz band is not as desirable as the 150MHz and  x450MHz bands, from a radio propagation standpoint. Others prefer that interoperability channels be  xlocated in the bands below 512MHz because of their proximity to the majority of current public safety  T' xgoperations.S.  zP'ԍ See e.g., FLEWUG Comments at 13-14.S Some of these commenters also advocate negotiating with the Department of Defense to  T' xZallow shared interoperability use of the 138144MHz band./ xP 'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 10; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 12; Motorola Inc. Reply Comments at 2. Other commenters advocate designating  xtwo sets of channels for interoperability, one in the 700MHz band and the other in the VHF band (150 Ti ' x 170 MHz).V0i .  xP7'ԍ IACP Comments at 3-5; FLEWUG Comments at 8.V Nonetheless, the comments overwhelmingly support a flexible interoperability allocation  xthat allows daytoday, mutual aid, and task force interoperability operations in the 700MHz band on  xa dynamic basis, and urge adoption of the PSWAC recommendation of 2.5megahertz or approximately  T ' x10percent of the spectrum as being the appropriate amount.x1  xP.'ԍ IACP Reply Comments at 2; the City of Fort Lauderdale, FL Reply Comments at 2.x We observe that the requirement for  xinteroperable communications systems includes both routine and emergency communications needs. After  x7consideration of how these needs could be met by the new 700MHz spectrum in combination with other  xexisting and possible future interoperability channels, we have decided to designate 2.6megahertz of spectrum in the 700MHz band for nationwide interoperability purposes.  T' "821.ؠMany commenters informed us that designating nationwide interoperability channels in the  x&700MHz band alone will not provide a comprehensive interoperability solution for many public safety  T8' x*agencies.a28N  zP&"'ԍ See, e.g., IACP Comments at 4; NLC Comments at 9.a Because effecting the changes necessary to achieve nationwide, comprehensive interoperable  xcommunications involves complex, systemic problems, we believe that we must approach this undertaking  x^simultaneously on several fronts. Therefore, we are also seeking comment regarding possible alternatives  T'for interoperable communications on channels below 512MHz in the Third Notice in this proceeding. "m2,l(l(,,("Ԍ S' 43. Types of Communications  T' "+22.ؠIn order to successfully perform their missions in the modern world, public safety entities  xkmust rely on a forwardlooking spectrum policy that promotes beneficial technological advances into their4  T4' xZcommunications systems.3"4 xP' x ԍ In this connection, we also believe that existing public safety systems should be year 2000 compliant so that  x public safety entities are not hampered in their efforts to successfully perform their missions using wireless  x communications. Therefore, we are furthering our discussion regarding the status of the public safety community's  zP'present and future year 2000 compliance efforts in the Third Notice.  When the Commission last allocated spectrum for public safety in 1987 it  T' xtacknowledged the need for both voice and data communications.a4 zPS 'ԍ National Plan Report and Order, 3FCCRcd at 907.a Comments in response to the First  T' xNotice, however, suggested a need for even more advanced forms of public safety communications and  T' xmaintained that this need extends beyond the context of interoperability. 5$D zP ' x ԍ For example, the PSWAC Final Report describes numerous examples of new applications based on newly x; developed technologies to serve the public safety community, including broadband data systems to provide access  x to databases for police officers on patrol, the use of video systems for surveillance purposes, and control of toxic  zP'or hazardous environments by robotics. See PSWAC Final Report at 2.  In consideration of those  Tj' xxviews, the Second Notice sought comments regarding what types of public safety communications should  T8' xbe provided in the 700MHz band. In particular, the Commission asked for comment on whether public  xsafety entities would be better positioned to deploy advanced technologies in an orderly way if we were  T'to subdivide the 700MHz band into four communications modes: voice, data, image/hsd, and video.[60  zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd at 17,764-65.[  Tl ' "23.ؠMost of the commenters support allowing all four types of communications in the 700MHz  T9 ' x^band.79  zP'ԍ See, e.g., NTIA Comments at 9; FLEWUG Comments at 13; NPSTC Comments at 10. California, however, recommends that no spectrum in the 700MHz band be allocated specifically  T ' xfor image/hsd or video anywhere in the country.T8 T  zP'ԍ See California Comments at para. 41.T California and Ericsson argue that voice and data are  T ' xthe only types of communications that are needed for interoperability use.t9  zPY'ԍ See Ericsson Comments at 4; California Comments at paras. 5, and 19.t Many of the other  xcommenters, however, support having the flexibility to select from among all four types of  Tm'communications on interoperability channels as well as the general use channels.i:mx zP 'ԍ See e.g. Comments of NPSTC at 10; FLEWUG Comments at 9. i  T' "24.ؠThere continues to be a demand for additional voice channels in many of the larger  T' xmetropolitan areas.;  zP~$'ԍ See, e.g., National Plan Report and Order, 3FCCRcd at 907; PSWAC Final Report at 18. Indeed, for most public safety operations, voice is and will continue to be the best  T' xand most effective means of communications.l< zP&'ԍ See key finding 2.1.1 of the PSWAC Final Report at 18.l The additional 24megahertz of public safety spectrum".<,l(l(,,b"  xin the 700MHz band can address some of the requirements for additional voice channels in many areas  xin the near term, and in every area of the country at the end of the DTV transition period. There are also  xprojected needs for additional spectrum to accommodate growth, for regional integrated systems, and to  xsupport the use by the public safety community of data applications, which are expected to increase  T4' xexponentially in the next decade.N=4 zP'ԍ See, e.g., NTIA Comments at 9.N Public safety entities also seek additional spectrum to develop  T' xemerging technology applications, such as image/hsd, video, and perhaps multimedia applications, which  xZwill enable them to better and more efficiently serve the public. We note that only a limited number of  T' xchannels for image/hsd and video can be provided in the 700MHz band, because of the large bandwidth  Th' xRtypically necessary for those applications.>hZ xPb ' x ԍ Because we are limiting wideband channels to 150kHz maximum bandwidth, use of fullmotion, full screen video in the 700MHz band will require the use of significant video signal compression. We continue to believe, however, that the tentative  T5' xMconclusion in the Second Notice to make provision in the 700MHz band for both current and evolving  x_operational modes are sound. Accordingly, for both nationwide interoperability and general use  xEspectrum, our band plan is designed with sufficient flexibility to accommodate all four types of  xZoperational modes currently identifiable in use, and should also be able to keep pace with technological  Tj 'innovation.?j  xP' x ԍ Although we conclude that it is not necessary for us to specifically identify particular channels to be used for each type of communications, we do separate the types into narrowband and wideband applications.  S ' 4. Band Design Details  T ' "25.ؠThe Second Notice offered three alternative approaches to the task of determining an  x7appropriate channel plan for the 700MHz public safety band to address the communications needs of the  xpublic safety community. One approach would allow each of the RPCs complete freedom to  T' xtindependently decide how the 700MHz band should be used in its region.[@  zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd at 17,768-69.[ Under a second approach,  xthe Commission would specify nationwide standards for the basic channelization for the band, but allow  xthe RPCs to combine and/or split contiguous channels as needed to customize the national band plan to  Tm' xbest meet the particular needs of their regions.BAm zP'ԍ See id. at 17,766.B The third approach would be for the Commission to  xadopt a nationwide band plan mandating a specific channelization that would be used uniformly by all  T' x3regions.EB.  zP'ԍ See id. at 17,769-70.E There is little support in the record for affording complete discretion over the design of the  x700MHz band plan to either the Commission or the RPCs. Instead, the comments generally support roles for both the Commission and the RPCs in establishing the band plan.  T;' "26.ؠIn regard to the portions of the band to be used for nationwide interoperability, we believe  xZthat we should set some of broad parameters for the band plan, such as the amount of spectrum to be  xdevoted to interoperability and location in the spectrum of interoperability channels, and also to provide  xfor a national coordinating body to determine and advise us as to more specific technical and operational  xQrequirements. Concerning the portion of the allocation designated for general public safety use, however,  T<' xwe agree with the commenters that neither of the exclusive approaches offered in the Second Notice"< B,l(l(,,"  xwould be appropriate. On one hand, giving the RPCs complete discretion could lead to vastly dissimilar  xIusage patterns, resulting in fragmentation of the equipment market and conflicts between adjoining  xregions. On the other hand, denying the RPCs input as to how the spectrum will be used would deprive  xthem of the ability to optimize efficient spectrum use by tailoring the band plan to more closely fit local  xneeds. We are concerned that a fixed national band plan with no allowance for customization would  x"deprive public safety entities of the flexibility needed to construct systems that will best meet their  xcommunications needs. Consequently, for the general use channels, we favor a joint approach, with the  x7Commission setting only basic nationwide allocation and channelization standards, and the RPCs handling the detailed plans for use of the channels.  T' "_27.ؠAccordingly, we will standardize only those aspects of band plan design that are necessary  x7to avoid undue delays in equipment development, to ensure that the 700MHz band will be able to support  xfuture communications technologies, to promote a competitive equipment market, and to provide for  xnationwide interoperability. Specifically, we are adopting rules that will determine the following:  x8(1)channel pairing requirements; (2)the portion of the band to be used for narrow bandwidth  xgapplications; (3)the portion of the band to be used for wide bandwidth applications; (4)the amount of  xspectrum to be designated for national interoperability use; (5)the amount of spectrum to be initially  xprovided for general (regional, local and/or statewide) use; (6)the minimum and maximum channel sizes  xfor narrow and wide bandwidth uses; (7)spectrum usage efficiency standards for narrow and wide  xgbandwidth applications; (8)a channel numbering system; and (9)the specific channels to be dedicated  xfor national interoperability use. Other planning matters, such as the use of specific channels for  xparticular public safety agencies, purposes or technologies will be determined by the RPCs as part of the regional planning process.  T8' "28.ؠBase/Mobile Pairing. In the Second Notice, the Commission asked for comment on our  x}proposal to designate 764-776MHz (TV Channels63 and 64) for basetomobile transmissions and  x794-806MHz (TV Channels68 and 69) for mobiletobase communications. In addition, the  xZCommission proposed that base transmit channels in TV Channel63 be paired with mobile channels in  xTV Channel68 and likewise that base channels in TV Channel64 be paired with mobile channels in TV  T:' xChannel69.[C: zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd 17,778.[ We noted that this would provide approximately 30MHz separation between base and  xmobile transmit channel center frequencies. This was suggested because of the close proximity of TV  xChannels68 and 69 to the 806-824MHz band, which contains the transmit channels for mobile and  x@portable radios operating in that band, which also use a 30MHz separation. We anticipated that in the  xfuture, public safety equipment for this part of the spectrum could be designed to operate in both the 700MHz and 800MHz bands.  T' "/29.ؠMost comments responding to these requests support the proposed channel pairing scheme.DZ zP 'ԍ See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 47; California Comments at 48-9; Long Beach, CA Comments at 5.  xOne commenter, however, claims that a base/mobile pairing scheme is outdated by the more progressive  To' xblock approaches for frequency management.JEo zP#'ԍ See FLEWUG Comments at 23.J Another requests that nonstandard pairing be allowed  T<' xcduring the DTV transition period.IF<~ zPZ&'ԍ See APCO Comments at 4. I We continue to believe, nonetheless, that base/mobile pairing is  xessential to facilitating the rapid development of reasonably priced mobile and portable radios capable of" F,l(l(,, "  T' xoperating in the 700MHz band.[G zPh'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd at 17,778-79.[ Because pairing provides simplicity and uniformity to band design,  x@we anticipate that it will reduce costs for equipment manufactured to operate in this band. Therefore, we will, as proposed, require channel pairing.  T4' "830.ؠWe recognize, however, that uniform pairing of base and mobile channels may not always  xbe possible during the DTV transition period. For example, there are geographical areas where either  xlicensed or otherwise protected fullservice television stations are currently authorized to operate on TV  T' x@Channels63, 64, 68, and 69.HZ zP 'ԍ See Reallocation, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12FCCRcd at 14,141, 14,177-78 and 14,182-83. The occupation of one or more of the four TVchannels may preclude  x^pairing of the channels in accordance with our requirement. Furthermore, the use of TVChannel69 may  x"be contingent on some additional technical requirements necessary to prevent interference with an  T' xaeronautical navigation system used in the United States.nI zP 'ԍ See GLONASS and GPS discussion at paras. 200205, infra.n Therefore, to provide for cases where  xstandard pairing is not practicable during the DTV transition period, we will allow the RPCs to pair base xtomobile channels in TVChannel 63 with mobiletobase channels in TVChannel69 and/or baseto x"mobile channels in TVChannel 64 with mobiletobase channels in TVChannel68. Because such  xnon-standard channel pairing could cause some problems when the band becomes more fully occupied,  xgwe expect the RPCs to permit such non-standard channel pairing only when absolutely necessary, and  xwe may require stations to return to standard channel pairing after the DTV transition period is over.  xFurthermore, we will not permit non-standard channel pairing on the nationwide interoperability channels  xMin the 700MHz band because of the need for nationwide uniformity of these channels. One additional  T7' xdetail that was not specifically mentioned in the Second Notice, but was mentioned in Motorola's  T' xcomments,OJ~ zPU'ԍ See Comments of Motorola at 15.O is the question of whether we should allow mobile transmissions on any part of the 700MHz  xMband, not just the upper 12MHz. We will allow this because, as some of the commenters note, it will  T' xfacilitate direct mobiletomobile communications (i.e., not through a repeater) that are often employed  x&at the site of an incident, where wide area communications facilities are not available or desired. Also  xQwe note that allowing mobile transmissions on both halves of a paired channel is generally consistent with  T'our rules governing use of other public safety bands.KB zP' xV ԍ See e.g. "Class of Stations" column entry for the 851-859 MHz row in the table in 90.20(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules.  T' "~31.ؠBand Segments. We turn now to the matter of establishing separate segments in the  xg700MHz band for narrowband and wideband communications types. Initially, we note that Motorola,  T<' x<NPSTC, and Florida submitted comprehensive band plans.L< zPx!'ԍ See Motorola Comments, Appendix at 4-7, NPSTC Comments AppendixA, and Florida Comments at 2-6. For the purpose of these plans, these  xcommenters generally combined the four types of communications into two categories: narrowband  xVcommunications comprising voice and slow speed data ("integrated voice and data") and wideband  T' xcommunications comprising image/hsd and video. Separating narrowband from wideband removes an  xMelement of uncertainty as to the potential for adjacent channel interference, leading to less complicated  xfrequency coordination requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum. We agree with this  xkapproach and for the purpose of putting compatible communications types together in band segments, we  xtlikewise are classifying the four communications types into two categories, narrowband and wideband". L,l(l(,,"  xcommunications. For the purpose of the 700MHz public safety band, we define the narrowband category  xfor integrated voice and data as any emission bandwidth less than or equal to 25kHz. In similar fashion,  T' x/we define the wideband category for image/hsd and video as any emission bandwidth greater than 25kHz.  T' "32.ؠIn their proposed band plans, Motorola and NPSTC generally agree that each of the four TV  xchannels should be divided into three segments: narrowband channels for voice and data, wideband  T' xchannels for image/hsd and video, and a reserved block for future expansion of these two categories.M zP'ԍ See Motorola Comments at Appendix, page 4-7. See also NPSTC Comments at AppendixA.  xkAfter reviewing the proposed band plans, we agree that a band layout similar to that suggested by NPSTC  xZand Motorola is appropriate for the 700MHz band. Because the near-term availability of the spectrum  xin the 700MHz band for public safety use in any particular area will depend on the presence or absence  xtof nearby operating TV broadcast facilities, we must assume that one or more of the four 6megahertz  xTV channels may be unavailable to public safety entities in some cities during the DTV transition period.  xAs suggested by the commenters, our band plan takes this into consideration by providing for each type of communications within each of the TV channels.  T ' "< 33. Within each of the four 6megahertz TVchannels, we designate two segments. One segment  T ' x*will be used for narrowband communications and the other will be used for wideband communications.fN\ Z zP' x ԍ In the Third Notice, we seek comment on how to license the 8.8 MHz of reserve spectrum.  See Third  zPa' x Notice, SectionV(A), infra. In this First Report, for ease of reference and identification, we refer to this portion as the reserve spectrum.f  xgIn recognition of the statutory deadline for the reallocation and adoption of service rules as directed by  x3Congress, plus the public safety community's identification of an immediate need for an additional 25  T' xMHz of spectrum for public safety services,HO~ zP"'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 3.H we believe that the bulk of the spectrum should be made  xreadily available to the public safety community. We also believe that the public interest would be served  xtby our consideration of other uses and licensing approaches for a certain portion of the 700 MHz band  xthat may best serve other significant public safety purposes. Thus, we will designate 8.8MHz of  T8' xspectrum as "reserve," which will be subject to the Third Notice. Unlike the reserve spectrum  xgdesignations in Motorola's and NPSTC's suggested band plans, the nature of such designations are not  T' xDnecessarily longterm but may in fact be shortterm based on the comments received to the Third Notice.  xThe 764-770 MHz (TVChannel63) and 794-800MHz (TVChannel68) bands are arranged with the  xnarrowband and wideband blocks laid out from lower to higher frequencies, while the 770-776MHz  x@(TVChannel64) and 800-806MHz (TVChannel69) bands are the reverse of this, with the wideband  T' xand narrowband blocks laid out from lower to higher frequencies.\P xP 'ԍ This arrangement also allows for channel pairing. \ As noted by some of the  x@commenters, this arrangement ensures that the wideband segment is not adjacent to nonpublic safety  T' x3portions of the 700MHz band.LQ zP#'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 16-17.L This is important because the adjacent channel interference potential  xof wideband emissions has not yet been determined. A simplified chart of this band segmentation follows: " 2 Q,l(l(,,"ԌGUFrequency (MHz) caH0Va \  ddxV)X c  B  A Ee "E"  764E 770E 776E 794E 800E 806EE  ddxV)X  H0[[ .E  A IE  . 2R 2 "}XTV Channel 6348". TV Channel 6448"xWR"uWR"TV Channel 68WR"JTV Channel 696E   BB  BB 6 2R 2 "z/NB" WB";NB"x"u"NB"}WB " NB% BB  BB W % T'  T' NB = narrowband channels WB = wideband channelsŃ  Sc' 5. Channelization  T' "!34.ؠChannel Size and Spectrum Efficiency. Many comments support having the Commission  T ' x_specify an assortment of channels of different sizesuRz a xP3 ' xg ԍ There are complex mathematical relationships between various technical factors that determine what the  x minimum channel size must be in order to satisfy a particular communications requirement. These factors include,  x but are not limited to, the desired information transmission (data) rate, the required signal to noise ratio or bit error  x rate, the presence of signal fading, noise or interference on the channel, and the type of modulation and encoding  zPS' xD used. Because it is an important specification for interoperability, the Second Notice focused mainly on channel  x spacing rather than channel size. However, as channel size and spacing are interrelated in the context of band planning, we address both herein.u and allowing the RPCs to "aggregate" and  T ' x/"disaggregate"S a xPB' x ԍ In this proceeding, the Commission as well as some of the commenters use the term "aggregating channels"  x to mean simply using two or more contiguous designated channels for a single emission where a particular  x application requires a larger bandwidth. Likewise, the term "disaggregating a channel" is used herein to mean  xx transmitting two or more emissions within a single designated channel. The use of these terms is not intended to  xM imply an assignment of license or transfer of control, as they generally do in reference to commercial wireless services. the channels to accommodate their needs.T a zP' x ԍ See e.g. Motorola Comments; Region20 Comments at 14; Ericsson Comments at 18; John S. Powell Reply Comments at 34. The comments regarding the channel  Te ' xbandwidth for integrated voice and data were mixed. A few commenters suggest 25kHz.QUe a zP'ԍ See e.g. M/A-COM Comments at 3-5.Q Others urge  T2 ' xadoption of 6.25kHz.V2 na zP@' x  ԍ See, e.g., Association For Maximum Service Television, Inc. and National Association of Broadcasters (AMSTV/NAB) Reply Comments at 10; M/A-COM Comments at 3-5. Most commenters favor 12.5kHz channel size for voice and data applications.WZ2 a zP ' x ԍ See, e.g., CA/PSRA Comments at 4; Florida Comments at 5; NPSTC Comments at 32; Ericsson Comments  x at 9 (also supports 25kHz channel spacing); Powell Reply Comments at para. 34; AASHTO Reply Comments at 8.  xPennsylvania suggests that the spectrum be divided into narrowband channels, while allowing licensees  T ' xDto request assignments in wider channels if needed.oX a zPV%'ԍ See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) Comments at 16.o Ericsson and Motorola urge us to adopt a 6.25kHz  x channel size with the ability to combine these narrow channels into larger channels in multiples of the"|X,l(l(,,/g"  T' x*6.25kHz channel.dYa zPh'ԍ See Motorola Comments at 15; Ericsson Comments at 9.d Motorola suggests channelizing the whole 24megahertz using 6.25kHz spacing and  T' xcombining contiguous groups of these narrow channels into wideband channels for image/hsd or video  xapplications. Similarly, NPSTC advocates channelizing the whole band using 12.5kHz channels and allowing these channels to be combined for medium or wideband data applications.  T' "E"35.ؠFor wideband operations, Motorola suggests assigning the narrow channels in multiples of  T' x@100kHz, while NPSTC prefers 125kHz channels.ZZa xP' x} ԍ NPTSC initially recommended 150kHz as the maximum bandwidth, but on April10, 1998, submitted a  zP 'written ex pate submission that amended its comments with regard to wideband channels. Florida suggests 150kHz channels for wideband  T' xapplications.M[a zP 'ԍ See Florida Comments at 6. M NPSTC and Florida also advocate a group of medium size channels (25kHz) for data applications. All three would allow the RPCs to combine or split channels as needed.  T' "#36.ؠAs stated above, we believe that standardizing channelization on a national basis will provide  xfor reasonably rapid development of a costbased equipment market for the 700 MHz band, while local  xflexibility can be provided, as the commenters point out, by allowing combining of channels. We  xbelieve, however, that it would be inefficient to specify a single standard channel size for all types of  xcommunication without allowing some type of local flexibility. For this reason, we believe that the best  xapproach is to specify a minimum channel size for narrowband communications, a second minimum  xpchannel size for wideband communications, and to allow the RPCs to combine these minimum size channels in specific ways, as needed.  T7' "$37.ؠEfficient spectrum use is another factor to be considered with regard to channelization of the  x@700MHz band. The right to use a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has proven in many cases  xQto be a valuable commodity, but public safety entities are generally insulated from market forces in regard  T' xto acquisition of these rights.\Fa xP' x ԍ See e.g., 47U.S.C.309(J)(2) (1997) (Commission's competitive bidding authority shall not apply to licenses issued by the Commission for public safety radio services). While the public generally values public safety communications, their  xprovision is not generally the result of marketdriven forces. Instead, jurisdictions provide public safety  xkcommunications to better protect the safety of life and property. How jurisdictions meet these needs may  x3have more to do with budgetary considerations than considerations of what are the most efficient and  T' xeffective technologies.]a zP' x ԍ See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220222 MHz Band by  zP'the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 9893 (rel. May 21, 1998). Therefore, we believe a technical standard is necessary and appropriate to ensure  xthat the spectrum use within the 700MHz band is efficient. For digital wireless telecommunications  Tl' xsystems, spectrum use efficiency can be specified in terms of the data rate per unit bandwidth.^l a xP#' x ԍ We express spectrum efficiency requirements in terms of a minimum data rate for a given channel size, e.g.4.8kilobits per second per 6.25kHz. In the  T9' xZRefarming Report and Order, the Commission adopted a data rate efficiency of 4.8kbps for 6.25kHz"9R ^,l(l(,,g"  T' xequipment and the equivalent 9.6kbps for 12.5kHz equipment._$a xPh' x ԍ Replacement of Part90 by Part88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies  x* Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land Mobile  zP' x Services, PRDocketNo.92-235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule  zP'Making,10FCCRcd10,076, 10,122 (1995) (Refarming Report and Order). We believe this efficiency standard  xis also appropriate for public safety narrowband communications in the 700MHz band. For digital voice  xand data transmissions, NPSTC recommends the equivalent 9.6kbps for 12.5kHz channels, 19.2kbps  Tg' xcfor 25kHz channels, and 384kbps for 150kHz channels.?`ga xP'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 32.? We agree that a 384 kbps data rate, as  T4' x recommended in the PSWAC Final Report for HSD and video, is appropriate for 150kHz channels.za4Da zP 'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 31-32. See also PSWAC Final Report at 231-32.z  xCertification of equipment designed for use in the 700MHz band will be granted only if these guidelines  T'for maximizing spectrum use are met.ba xPE'ԍ In determining the data rate consideration will be given to the ratio between the bit rate and the symbol rate.  Ti' "%38.ؠAfter full consideration of the record, we have decided to establish a standard channel  xbandwidth of 6.25kHz for the narrowband segments. We fully expect that in the next few years it will  xbe both technically and economically feasible to use these very narrow channels individually for certain  x7applications such as digital voice and data. Until then, the RPCs will be allowed to combine these narrow  x7channels like building blocks to create wider channels in two standard bandwidths, 12.5kHz and 25kHz,  Tj ' xprovided that a spectrum use efficiency of 4.8kbps per 6.25kHz is maintained.cj f a xPp' x ԍ The narrowband segment is divided into groups of two contiguous 6.25kHz channels. Each channel may  x! be combined only with the other channel within its group. In addition, only contiguous groups (of 4 channels) may  zP' x be combined. See new 90.531(e) for details. This will limit the number of possible channel center frequencies,  x simplifying equipment design and promoting a competitive market for equipment by ensuring that each  x manufacturer's equipment operates on the same set of channel center frequencies. Furthermore, it will eliminate the risk that "orphan" or guardband 6.25kHz channels, which may not be usable, will be formed. We will not, however,  xauthorize channels wider than 25kHz in the narrowband segments of the 700MHz band. Applications  xthat require a larger bandwidth must be accommodated in the wideband segment, and meet the spectrum  x^use efficiency requirement for the wideband segment. Allowing wideband applications in the narrowband  xchannels would upset the initial balance of spectrum allocations we are establishing for these types of  xcommunications, and could cause the supply of narrowband channels to be depleted prematurely.  xFurthermore, we have concerns about whether wideband applications would cause adjacent channel  T'interference and can successfully operate in channels that are adjacent to narrowband applications.da xP ' x" ԍ Under our band plan, wideband and narrowband applications will be adjacent at only four channel boundaries.  T' "&39.ؠConsistent with our narrowband approach, we are adopting a minimum "building block"  Tl' x3channel size, which for the wideband segment will be a bandwidth of 50kHz.e"|l8a xPD%' xg ԍThe record is mixed on the issue of wideband channel size. It appears, however, that some commenters'  x. recommendations are based on the assumption that we will permit combining wideband channels to make very large  x channels. For example, Motorola recommends 100kHz as a typical wideband channel size, but also shows possible  zP'' xZ combined channels of 200kHz and 400kHz. Motorola Comments, Appendix at 16.17. Ericsson in an ex parte"'d,l(l('"  x filing, discusses the advantages of leveraging current research and development in commercial mobile technology  zPX' x by using "offtheshelf" wireless standards such as GSM, that would require a 200kHz or larger channel size.  See  x letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, from Dr. Lars-Gorman Larsson, Ericsson, Inc., dated April30,1998  zP' x (Ericsson ex parte filing Number 1). NPSTC on the other hand does not propose channels wider than 150kHz,  x| stating that it does not believe that there is sufficient spectrum available in the new band to justify wider bandwidths  x for fullmotion video. NPSTC Comments at 11. NPSTC later modified its original submission to request 125kHz instead of 150kHz as its recommended wideband channel size. Although we are not"l e,l(l(,,g"  xgcurrently aware of any wideband applications that can operate in this minimum channel size, it is likely  T' xthat some wideband communications uses will exhibit an asymmetrical data flow (i.e., much more data  xcbeing transmitted on the downlink than the uplink). In such cases, it could be advantageous to use  xcmultiple 50kHz mobile transmit channels for uplinks (or other purposes) and the paired wider base transmit channel for a common downlink.  T' "R'40.ؠWe also must provide for a wideband channel size sufficient to accommodate the principal  T' x7wideband applications (image/hsd and video) envisioned for public safety use. We note that 150kHz has  xbeen suggested as a minimum bandwidth necessary, given present data compression technology, to  xIsupport the data rates required for applications such as slow motion video and rapid distribution of  T' xNCIC-2000 data.f a xP' x ԍ NPSTC indicates that it expects that a 150kHz bandwidth channel will support a data rate of T1, which  xx can provide image and slow motion video. NCIC2000 is a system that will provide nationwide access for criminal  x justice agencies via wireline and wireless to the FBI's data bases, which contain information such as lists of stolen  x articles, wanted persons, fingerprints, mugshots. It can function at slower speeds, but faster delivery of large files  zP'is desirable to make best use of FBI resources. See NPSTC Comments at 13-14, 34-35. We are concerned that NPSTC's late suggestion of 125kHz may not have a  xmathematical basis, but may merely represent a compromise between its original position and that of  xMotorola, and be based on an overly optimistic view of future developments in data compression  xttechniques. We do not believe that we can risk adopting a maximum wideband channel size that could  xlater turn out to be insufficient to support wideband applications at a reasonable transmission speed. We  xalso note that 125kHz is not an integer multiple of the minimum channel size we are adopting today  x(50kHz), which would complicate equipment design and channel numbering. For these reasons, we establish 150kHz as the maximum wideband channel size.  T8' "h(41.ؠWe expect that the RPCs will ordinarily combine three adjacent 50kHz "building block"  T' x@channels in the wideband general use spectrum to achieve 150kHz channels.Pg a zPc'ԍ See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 32.P However, as with the  xnarrowband segment of the 700 MHz band, we will, however, allow the use of one or two of these  T' xchannels (50kHz and 100kHz channel bandwidths, respectively).hP a xP ' x7 ԍ The wideband segment is divided into groups of three contiguous 50kHz channels. Each channel may be  zPW!' xk combined only with adjacent channels within its group. See new 90.531(e) for details. This will limit the number  xg of possible channel center frequencies, simplifying equipment design and promoting a competitive market for  x! equipment by ensuring that each manufacturer's equipment operates on the same set of channel center frequencies.  x Furthermore, it will reduce the risk that "orphan" or guardband 50kHz channels, which may not be usable, will be formed.  In any event, we are requiring that  xthe equivalent of 384kbps per 150kHz spectrum use be maintained in order to ensure that the spectrum  xavailable for wideband applications is used efficiently. We will not permit combining the 50kHz  xchannels to make channels larger than 150 kHz in the wideband segments of the 700MHz band because"h,l(l(,,wg"  x allowing a channel size that exceeds 150kHz could significantly reduce the already limited number of wideband channel assignments possible in the band.  Tg' ")42.ؠAmount of Spectrum. We now turn to the issues of how much spectrum and how many  xnarrowband and wideband channels should be designated for nationwide interoperability and general use.  xMotorola, NPSTC, and Florida each suggest a specific amount of spectrum and number of channels for  T' xinteroperability, general use and reserve.ia zP7' xM ԍ See Motorola Comments, Appendix at 4-7, NPSTC Comments at Appendix A, and Florida Comments at 2-6. A comparison of the these recommendations is shown in the table that follows:  T6'  Commenter's Suggested Spectrum & Channel Allocations ă | H0[[  ddx`}P  |  BB  W    "2Motorola "2NPSTC "ZFlorida     INTEROPERABILITY Narrowband Wideband Totalh "L (80 x 6.25 = 0.5  jJ '?  jJ^ 3 0.5MHz h "T \64 x 12.5 = 0.8 u12 x 125 = 1.5  jJ^ ; 2.3MHz h "n DP120 x 12.5 = 1.50 N8 x 150 = 1.2  jJ^ Ux 2.7MHz  :   k  GENERAL USE Narrowband Midsize Wideband Totalk"L "1520 x 6.25 = 9.5 Hԩ )60 x 100 = 6.0  jJ/ 15.5MHz k"T 800 x 12.5 = 10.0 #ԩ u60 x 125 = 7.5  jJ 17.5MHz k"n Gu776 x 12.5 = 9.7 N24 x 25 = 0.6 K48 x 150 = 7.2  jJQT 13.6MHz :   h  k  RESERVEd" jJ*8 8MHz d" jJ*; 4.2MHz d" jJ*Ux 4.2MHz    Td'  T1' "[*43.ؠWe have evaluated the recommendations of the commenters in light of our decisions to  xdesignate a significant amount of spectrum for nationwide interoperability, to provide for both  xnarrowband and wideband public safety communications, and to allow flexibility to permit effective  xregional planning. We conclude that a composite of the allocation plans submitted would provide the  x/most appropriate balance between general use and nationwide interoperability spectrum, as well as  T2' x@between narrowband and wideband communications. j2" xP' x ԍ The Motorola plan does not, in our estimation, provide enough spectrum for nationwide interoperability. The Florida plan (which does not appear to use the entire allocation) and NPSTC hold too little in reserve.  Our plan thus provides for 1920narrowband  x^(6.25kHz) channels and 240wideband (50kHz) channels. The following table summarizes the spectrum  T' xDand channel allocations we are adopting today together with those we propose in the Third Notice (which  T'are indicated by the shaded areas in the table).`kz xP!'ԍ A detailed channelization plan is given in AppendixH.` "g k,l(l(,,!"Ԍ T'+  FCC 700 MHz Public Safety Band Spectrum & Channels ă ^ ddx`}P  ddx` ^       Designated Purposeo"  Amount of  Spectrumo"TNarrowband (6.25kHz)o"LWideband O(50kHz)   }  General UseD" 12.6MHz  jJ',(52.5%)}"7.8MHz  jJ'L(1248channels)}"O4.8MHz  jJ'H(96channels)  o }}  Nationwide Interoperabilityp}" 2.6MHz  jJC',(10.8%)p}"0.8MHz  jJC'p(128channels)p}"O1.8MHz  jJC'H(36channels) _@ @ P }c  Reserved% "  8.8MHz  jJ ',(36.7%) c"3.4MHz  jJ 'p(544channels) c"O5.4MHz  jJ 'E(108channels)_@ @ P  p c  TOTAL "24 MHz  jJ$ 'D(100%)^ "12 MHz  jJ$ 'L(1920 channels)^ "Q12 MHz  jJ$ 'E(240 channels)   +  T+' "+44.ؠChannel Numbering. To avoid confusion in identifying channels that could be of several  xkdifferent sizes, we will show channel numbers instead of channel center frequencies in the rules we adopt  xtoday for public safety facilities in the 700MHz band. Motorola suggests numbering 6.25kHz channels  T' xpin sequence of ascending frequency._l  zP'ԍ See Motorola Comments at Appendix, 14 and 22. _ This appears to be a good approach, except that we see no  xpurpose in numbering the wideband segment in 6.25kHz increments when we have decided not to allow  xwideband channel sizes smaller than 50kHz. Instead, we will number 50kHz channels in the wideband  xsegment. We will identify combined channels by their lowest and highest constituent channel numbers,  x separated by a hyphen. For example, a 150kHz channel comprising wideband channels1, 2 and 3 is  T' xdesignated as channel1-3. The channel numbering scheme is detailed in new Section90.531 (see  Tb'AppendixE) and shown in the channelization plan (see AppendixH).  T' ",45.ؠDispersion of Interoperability Channels.For the interoperability spectrum, Motorola,  xNPSTC, and Florida recommend a distribution of narrowband and wideband channels throughout the  xMwhole 700MHz band, rather than all together in one contiguous block. To minimize equipment costs,  xFlorida also recommends that the channels be distributed to allow transmitter combining at no less than  x250kHz spacing between channels for integrated voice and data, and 450kHz between channels for  T' xwideband data and video.FmZ  xP'ԍ Florida Comments at 2 and 6.F Motorola also indicates that it is desirable to separate interoperability  T' xchannels by an amount adequate to allow low loss cavity combining.n  xPV!' x ԍ A lowloss cavity combiner is a device consisting of low loss, high quality coaxial cavities that combine the outputs of two or more transmitters to produce a single output. NPSTC's detailed band plan  xshows three 12.5kHz interoperability channels dispersed every 450kHz throughout the narrowband"Bn,l(l(,, "  T' xsegment, beginning 300kHz Sabove the lower band edge.]o  zPh'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at Appendix pages 5 and 8.] Motorola suggests that 4 contiguous  T' x6.25kHz interoperability channels be provided at 500kHz intervals beginning at the lower band edge.YpZ  zP'ԍ See Motorola Comments at Appendix page 8.Y  xMotorola claims that this will provide better adjacent channel interferenceS protection. Otherwise, the  x3commenter's comprehensive plans propose similar channel separation and disperse the interoperability  xcchannels across the band in a similar way. In addition to the narrowband interoperability channels,  xNPSTC's plan suggests 12wideband channels (150kHz channel size) be designated for interoperability  T'purposes, 8 for image/hsd plus 4 for video.]q  zPZ 'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at Appendix pages 6 and 7.]  Th' "u-46.ؠThe amount of spectrum that we have decided to designate for interoperability provides  xD128narrowband channels (6.25kHz channel size) and 36wideband channels (50kHz channel size). The  x@dispersal pattern in the narrowband interoperability scheme we choose is similar to that recommended  xby NPSTC. The principal difference between NPSTC's plan and the one we adopt today is that NPSTC  xwould have us designate specific purposes and service categories for many of the narrowband channels,  xwhereas we have decided to designate only the channels that are to be used for nationwide  x@interoperability, and to leave decisions as to earmarking the other channels for any specific purpose to  xthe National Coordination Committee, States and/or RPCs. We also note that NPSTC's plan is based  x on a 12.5kHz channel size, whereas the plan we adopt is based on a 6.25kHz channel size. Because  xNPSTC's plan would allow splitting of the 12.5kHz channels into 6.25kHz channels, this distinction  xpis not of much importance. The specific interoperability channel numbers are provided in new rule  T7'Section90.531 (see AppendixE).  S' B. ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A LICENSE  Tl' "#.47. The 1997 Budget Act directs the Commission, by January 1, 1998, to reallocate 24  T9' xmegahertz of spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz (inclusive) for public safety services.r9~  zPW' x^ #X\  P6G;P#э 1997 Budget Act. See 47 U.S.C.  337(a)(1). The statute specified that the public safety reallocation would  x be according to the terms and conditions established by the Commission in consultation with the Secretary of  zP' x  Commerce and the Attorney General. Id. Section 337(a) also directed the Commission to allocate 36 MHz of  zP' x spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz for commercial use. See 47 U.S.C.  337(a)(2); see also Reallocation  zP}'Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953.  We  T' x*complied with this mandate in our Reallocation Report and Order. The 1997 Budget Act also directs the  xCommission to commence assignment of licenses for this reallocated spectrum by September 30, 1998.  xtTo commence the licensing process, we must first establish criteria for determining eligibility to hold a public safety license in the 700 MHz band. ";6 r,l(l(,, "  T' " U 1 "" 1 /48. Congress specifically defined the "public safety services" that are intended to benefit from  xthis spectrum allocation. Section 337(f) of the Communications Act defines the term "public safety services" as X,44,` ` services(#`  e iX,44,` ` (A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property; ` X,44,` ` (B) that are provided" ` X,44,` ` (i) by State or local government entities; or `  e iX,44,` ` (ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and `  T'X,44,` ` (C) that are not made commercially available to the public by the provider.js| xP7 '#X\  P6G;P#э 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1).j `  x&Accordingly, we adopt the following 3pronged test for determining eligibility for use of the 700 MHz  xIpublic safety allocation and is directly based on the definition of public safety services contained in Section 337(f)(1) of the Communications Act.  Tj'!  M dd|"" ) P4 Three Pronged Test `  T'` 1. Purpose of Spectrum Use 2. Identity of Licensee  T' 3. Noncommercial provisoĄ  S9' 1. Purpose of Spectrum Use  T' "8049. Section 337(f) requires spectrum in the 700 MHz band to be used for services, the sole or  T'principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property.tX| zP' x  #X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(A). For brevity, we refer to these services herein as "public safety services."  S:' 2. Identity of Licensee  T'  T' "A150. State or Local Governments and Nongovernmental Organizations. Under the statutory  x7definition of public safety services, the spectrum is to be used by "State or local government entities" and  x "nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity" whose primary mission  xis the provision of services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health,X<t,l(l(,, 3 ! \==X  T' xor property.ku| xPh'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f).k Based on its tentative conclusion that the 1997 Budget Act and Section 337 limited  T' xlicensing to entities whose sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health, or property,vX| zP' x@ #X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,74142, 17,76162 citing 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1). In the First Notice,  xD the Commission proposed terms and definitions related to eligibility for public safety spectrum including "Public  x Safety," "Public Safety Services," "Public Safety Services Provider," "Public Safety Support Provider," and "Public  zP' x Services." See First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,470. The PSWAC Final Report adopted these definitions. PSWAC  zP'Final Report at 45.   T'the Commission proposed the following eligibility criteria in the Second Notice:  e X,44,` ` Public Safety Service Provider: (1) A State or local government entity that provides  e public safety services; or (2) a nongovernmental organization that is authorized to  e provide public safety services by a governmental entity pursuant to Section  T'337(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act.w| zPJ'#X\  P6G;P#э See id. citing 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). (#`  T6' " P80R 251. The Commission observed that two groups fit within this definition: (1) governmental public  x"safety services providers, and (2) nongovernmental public safety services providers authorized by  T' x8governmental entities.x| zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,742. The Commission also recognized that other entities with public safety  xZresponsibilities, with which eligible entities might need to communicate by radio, did not fall within the  Tj ' xdefinition.\yj 2 | zP<'#X\  P6G;P#э Id. \ The Commission proposed having each regional plan specify the precise types of groups,  T7 ' xMfalling within its definition, that would be eligible to receive frequencies,z7 | zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,762 citing National Plan Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 905. and asked if additional rules  T 'were needed either for eligibility or for applications submitted by nongovernment organizations.{ V | zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,74142, 17,76162 citing 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). If NGOs  xo provide "public safety services" and are authorized by a government agency whose primary mission is the provision  x of such services, the Commission proposed that authorized NGO providers should not be treated as guest entities  x on interoperability channels, but should instead be treated as being among the public safety service providers for  zP'whom interoperability channels are specifically intended. Id. at 17,747.   T ' "352.USE PSWAC PARA With regard to the spectrum in the 700 MHz band governed by Section 337, most  Tk' xcommenters disagree with the "narrow" definition proposed in the Second Notice, and favor adoption of  x&eligibility criteria based on the PSWAC definitions of public safety and related service providers to the  T' xextent possible under the statute.|\ | xP#' xy #X\  P6G;P#э APCO Comments at 1416; NY Transit Comments at 12; IACP Comments at 2; Little Rock Reply  zPx$' x7 Comments at 1; FLEWUG ex parte letter, filed April 29, 1998. Eligibility criteria based on the PSWAC definitions  x would confer licensing eligibility on Federal, state, and local governmental entities; Section 337(f)(1)(B), however,  x* does not list Federal entities. IACP, for example, states that the PSWAC recommendations were developed by a  x broad representation of public safety interests, and represent the most appropriate solutions for public safety  zP'' x communications. See IACP Comments at 2. NPSTC adds that the PSWAC definitions provide a clear, allinclusive"'{,l(l('"  zP' x* basis for national, state and local interoperability plans whereas the "narrow" definition proposed in the Second  zPZ' x Notice could leave unclear the governmental functions that are included, which would delay licensing. See NPSTC Reply Comments at 23.USE PSWAC DEFIN AMSTV/NAB, however, would limit eligibility to law enforcement,"|,l(l(,, "  xyfire fighters, and emergency rescue services, asserting that a broader definition would put these  x3"traditional" public safety users in competition for scarce spectrum with entities that are not critical to  T' xpublic safety efforts.h}| xP&'#X\  P6G;P#э AMSTV/NAB Reply at 9. h AMSTV/NAB also express concern about minimizing both the number of  xlicensed entities that television broadcasters would have to protect and the sources of potential interference  T4'to broadcast television.}~4|| zPP '#X\  P6G;P#э  See, e.g., AMSTV/NAB Comments at 7. }  T' "453. The rules and policies that we are adopting today include "bright line" application processing  xcriteria, based on the type of entity applying for a license, and consistent with the statutory definition of  xthe services for which this spectrum is to be used. We believe that establishing "bright line" criteria promotes consistent, predictable, and efficient licensing.  T' "554. First, we conclude that state or local government entities are eligible for licensing in the 700  T ' xMHz band without further showing as to eligibility. | xPJ' xt #X\  P6G;P#э One commenter argues, for example, that it is critical that the majority of new licenses be limited to state  x^ and local government agencies because these agencies currently suffer from a multitude of problems that exist in  zP' xk the current public safety spectrum. See Ft. Lauderdale Reply Comments at 1. See also UTC Comments at 3 (UTC  xx recognizes that th[e] narrow definition of public safety services in . . . Section 337 . . . generally would not include utilities and pipelines).  ALL STATE We acknowledge, in this regard, our departure  Ti ' xZfrom the Second Notice's tentative conclusion that certain state and local government entities would be  T7 ' xineligible for licensing under the statutory definition of public safety services.D7 | zP' xx #X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 1774142 (tentatively concluded that state or local governmental entities would be ineligible unless principal purpose of entity is the protection of the safety of life, health or property). D We are adopting a more  xinclusive interpretation today because, as suggested by many commenters, the more inclusive definition  T ' xbetter reflects the statutory intent.Z | xP' xy #X\  P6G;P#э Several commenters argue that licenses for this spectrum should be held only by state and local  x governmental entities or, along the same line, that all state and local governmental entities are eligible for licensing  zP'under the statutory definition. See e.g., APCO Reply Comments at 13; Powell Reply Comments at paras. 1214.  TRAD POLICE POWERIn addition, among the providers of public safety services listed in  T ' x*the statute, state and local governments are referenced first and apart from NGOs.| <| zPz '#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(i). | NGOs must also be  Tk' xMauthorized by "a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services."k| zP"'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). We  xbelieve our revised approach gives meaning to the distinction that Congress made between eligible "State  T' x&and local governments"p`| xP&'#X\  P6G;P#э 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(i).p and the narrower subset of governmental entities with a primary mission of",l(l(,, "  T' xproviding public safety services from which NGOs need authorization.r| xPh'#X\  P6G;P#э 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). r We emphasize, however, that eligibility to use this spectrum is governed by  xlSection 337 of the Act in all aspects; thus, these application processing standards are rebuttable  Tg' x3presumptions. We also emphasize that although the statute does not require licensees to have the sole  T4' x*or principal purpose of providing public safety services,14X| zP,' x8 #X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1). Compare, 47 U.S.C.  336(a)(1) (1996) (Commission should limit initial  zP'eligibility for advanced television licenses to certain "persons"). 1SERVICES NOT ENTITIES Section 337 mandates that this spectrum must  T'be used for services whose sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health or property.  T' "655. In light of these distinctions, we conclude that NGOs are also eligible for licensing in the  Ti' xD700 MHz band if approved by an appropriate state or local government entity.}i| zP '#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). } Most commenters agree  T6' xgwith this approach.6F| zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See e.g., API Reply Comments at 34. See also Region 20 Comments at 78. APCO argues, however, that licenses generally should be held only by state and  x3local government entities because NGOs only meet the definition if their purpose is providing services  T' xauthorized by a state or local government that protect the safety of life, health, or property.w| zPH'#X\  P6G;P#э See APCO Reply Comments at 13. w API and  xECompuDawn counter that the plain language of the statute requires the Commission to receive  Tj ' xapplications from and consider granting licenses to NGOs.Ej j | zPt' x #X\  P6G;P#э See CompuDawn Reply Comments at 46. API states that authorized NGOs providing appropriate services  zP>'are eligible for licensing under the plain language of the statute. See API Reply Comments at 5. E We concur with API and CompuDawn that Section 337 also contemplates licensing of NGOs in the 700 MHz band.  T ' "756. Thus, we conclude, based on the definition in the 1997 Budget Act for public safety  xservices, that NGOs are eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band when expressly authorized by a state  Tk' xpor local governmental entity whose mission is the oversight of or provision of such services.}k | zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). } To  ximplement this provision of the statute, NGO applicants must submit a written statement by the state or  xlocal governmental entity that is authorizing the NGO to use 700 MHz band spectrum, and the  xauthorizing state or local governmental entity's authorization must certify that its mission includes  T' xoversight of or responsibility for providing public safety services. An NGO Neighborhood Watch,X | zP ' xn ԍ See, e.g., Neighborhood, National Crime Prevention Council Internet site: . for  xexample, would probably seek written authority from the local police department but there are countless  xvariations on how NGO use might present itself among states and localities nationwide. We believe that  x^the certification from one of our licensees provides a reasonable measure of confidence that the NGO has received authorization from a governmental entity that is appropriate under the circumstances. ",l(l(,,X "Ԍ T' "p857. Some commenters disagree whether NGOs should be required to obtain governmental support  T' x}for their 700 MHz applications in order to be eligible for licensing.| xP5' x #X\  P6G;P#э APCO and NPSTC, for example, contend that an NGO's agreement to assist a government agency's public  xx safety operations does not constitute the governmental authorization that NGOs need to be eligible for licensing.  zP' x See APCO Reply Comments at 14; NPSTC Comments at 23. CompuDawn counters that the "plain language" of  x the statute requires the Commission to consider granting licenses to NGOs that enter such agreements with public  zPW'safety agencies. See CompuDawn Reply Comments at 46.  While it is true that the statute  xdoes not expressly state that NGOs must obtain formal governmental approval to be licensed in the 700  Tg' xMHz band,sg|| zP '#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f). s we believe that the abovedescribed approach ensures that licensing of NGOs is consistent  xwith the statutory requirements in a manner that minimizes information collection, submission, and other  x@burdens for all interested parties. We note that this approach is consistent with our eligibility rules for  x^public safety spectrum allocated prior to the 1997 Budget Act, where NGOs generally received some type  T' xof approval from state or local government entities before being licensed on such spectrum.jz| zPI' x3 #X\  P6G;P#э Refarming Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14319 (eligibility for licensing in Public Safety Pool below  x 512 MHz is typically established by governmental status of applicant; NGOs almost always need governmental  xZ approval to be licensed). When our rules conflict with the statute they must yield. For example, NGO special  x emergency entities are eligibility without governmental approval for licensing on specific frequencies within the  x Public Safety Pool below 512 MHz. Without governmental approval, these special emergency NGOs are not  x eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band because Section 337 requires all NGOs to be authorized by an appropriate governmental entity. j We also  xrecognize that governmental authorities effectively have veto power over NGO applications for the 700  xMHz band because NGOs need appropriate governmental authorization in order to be deemed eligible  T' x/to receive a license.}P | zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii). } Thus, under the rules we adopt today, NGOs are required to obtain written  T' xZconsent for their 700 MHz band applications, i.e., initial, assignment, and transfer directly from the  xstate or local governmental entity that authorized the NGO to provide public safety services. For  xapplication processing purposes, so long as the NGO applicant submits the required written authorization of such a state or local governmental entity, we will deem these provisions satisfied.  T ' "958.NGO CONDITIONAL PARA In sum, NGOs are eligible to be licensed for spectrum in the 700 MHz band that will be used  xfor services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property so  Tk' xlong as state or local governmental authorization, from a primary mission provider, exists.[Zk| xP' x7 #X\  P6G;P#э APCO argues that NGO licenses should be conditioned on use only for activities involving the protection  zP' x of safety, life, health or property, and continued governmental authorization. See APCO Reply Comments at 13. [ To codify  xthis policy and clarify that it applies to all NGO applications and licenses, both initially and on an  T' xongoing basis, the rules we adopt today include a provision that expressly conditions$| zP#'#X\  P6G;P#э See generally, AAT Electronics Corp., 93 FCC 2d 1034 (1983), P & R Temmer, 93 FCC 2d 1051  zPs$'(1983), both aff'd sub. nom., P & R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1984). $ all 700 MHz band licenses issued to NGOs as follows: "`,l(l(,,. "  :iX,44"This authorization is granted subject to the condition that frequencies in the  :i764-776 and 794-806MHz bands shall be used exclusively for public safety  T' :i services, see 47 U.S.C.  337. If at any time the State or local governmental  :i>entity that authorized the applicant/licensee cancels, revokes, or terminates its  :iaauthorization of the applicant/licensee: (1) in the case of an applicant, such  :i>applicant's pending application shall be dismissed automatically; and (2) in the  :icase of a licensee, such licensee's authorization shall terminate automatically and immediately revert to the Commission." Ƥ4  x3In the event that factual or legal disputes arise between NGOs and "supporting" governmental entities,  x7the NGO will bear the burden of proof. Similarly, if another governmental entity challenges the accuracy  xof an NGO applicant's state or local government authorization, the NGO bears the ultimate burden of  xproof. If, however, another NGO challenges the state or local government authorization, the challenging NGO bears the burden of proof.  T ' ":59. If a governmental entity rescinds its authorization and the safety of the public requires  ximmediate suspension of the NGO's 700 MHz band operation, the governmental entity should notify the  xCommission directly in writing. It is probable that governmental entities will need to communicate with  xINGOs that they authorize; they also have a strong interest in ensuring that NGOs use public safety spectrum properly.  T' "q;60. Licensed Federal Use of 700 MHz Band Spectrum. The Commission also tentatively  T' x@concluded in the Second Notice that Federal government entities were not eligible to be licensed to use  xthe general use spectrum because Section 337 refers to State and local government entities, and NGOs  T;'that are authorized by appropriate governmental entities, but does not reference Federal entities.;| zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337; see also Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,74647.  T' "E<61. Several commenters, including FLEWUG and NPSTC, argue that licensing Federal entities  xin the 700 MHz band is essential to promoting interoperability and other important goals of this  To' xtproceeding.oZ| zPi' xM #X\  P6G;P#э  See, e.g., FLEWUG ex parte letter, filed April 29, 1998 (FLEWUG seeks licensing of federal agencies on  x interoperability channels but not for general use spectrum); NPSTC Comments at 2021; California Comments at  x 3439. NPSTC also recommends that Congress amend the statute appropriately if Section 337(f) prohibits adoption  zP' x; of the entire PSWAC definition because the statutory definition is too limiting in scope and too broad in application.  zP'See NPSTC Comments at 2021.  Along this line, NTIA states that Congress required the Commission to consult with the  xSecretary of Commerce and the Attorney General in the reallocation of the 700 MHz band spectrum  xbecause it recognized the vital role that Federal agencies play in providing public safety related services  T' xto the American people.C| xP!' xx #X\  P6G;P#э NTIA Comments at 5. Powell opposed federal entities holding licenses but would allow federally chartered  zPN"'organizations, e.g., ARINC, to hold a license. See Powell Reply Comments at paras. 1214. C As noted above, many commenters generally support the definitions in the  T'PSWAC Final Report, which include Federal agencies.jj | zP$'#X\  P6G;P#э See supra para. 54.j "q ,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "=62. While Congress directed the Commission to consult with the Secretary of Commerce and  T' xthe Attorney General regarding the public safety allocation,t| zP5'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(a)(1).t we cannot conclude that Congress  xauthorized the Commission to read this consultation provision as an implied exception to express  Tg' xgprovisions of Section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.gZ| zPa' x" #X\  P6G;P#э Section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C.  305; see also 47 U.S.C.  901904 (NTIA Organization Act). 305 Section 305 of the Act  xprecludes the Commission from licensing stations belonging to and operated by the United States. Section 305 provides in part:  T' :iX,44[R]adio stations belonging to and operated by the United States shall not be  :isubject to the provisions of sections 301 [Commission's licensing authority] and  :i303 [Commission's general powers] of this Act. All such Government stations  T' :ishall use such frequencies as shall be assigned to each or each class by  T'[NTIA].~| zP%' x #X\  P6G;P#э 47 U.S.C.  305 (emphasis added). " [U]se of the radio frequency spectrum for radio transmissions for  x; telecommunications or for other purpose shall be made by United States Government stations only as authorized by  zP' x the Assistant Secretary [of Commerce]. See Section 7.0, NTIA Manual of Regulations & Procedures for Federal  x Radio Frequency Management (Edition 9/95, with Revisions for September 1996, January and May 1997) (NTIA Manual). ~Ƥ4  xIf Congress had intended to create an exception to the licensing provisions of Section 305 of the Act, it  xcould have done so explicitly. In the absence of an explicit statement, we must look to the legislative  xkhistory and context of Congress' action to discern whether it meant to create an implied exception. Based  xon our review of the legislative history, there is no evidence that Congress intended to create in the 1997  x}Budget Act an implied exception to NTIA's authority to assign all frequencies to be used by Federal entities as set forth in Section 305 of the Act.  T' ">63. State/Local Governmental Licensees Allied with Federal Public Safety Service Providers.  xAnother scenario where the statute is silent arises when state or local governmental licensees want to  xapprove shared use of their Commission licensed frequencies by Federal public safety service providers.  xAs discussed immediately above, we find no basis for concluding that, in empowering state and local  xgovernmental entities as to NGO licensing, Congress intended Section 337(f) to eliminate state and local  x"government licensees' from voluntarily requesting authority for a Federal provider of public safety services to use frequencies for which the state or local entity is licensed.  To' "?64. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that public safety service  xproviders that are eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band would be required to communicate with  x8their ineligible Federal counterparts. The Commission sought comment as to how the Table of  xAllocations may need to be revised to permit Federal use and whether permitting such use would be  T' x}consistent with Congressional objectives in adding Section 337 of the Communications Act.h | zP$'#X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,747 citing PSWAC Final Report at 313. The  xCommission also tentatively concluded that the orderly and effective use of interoperability channels  T>' xcwould require that all users " state, local and Federal; governmental and non-governmental; those">! ,l(l(,, "  xentities that are eligible by definition and those entities that may be eligible as guests " should be entitled  T'to use the interoperability channels only in accordance with the interoperability plan.l| zP5'#X\  P6G;P#э See id. at 17,748. l  Th' "8@65. The record before us reflects overwhelmingly that Federal entities provide noncommercial  xservices the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property. As  x/noted above, for example, most commenters support the PSWAC definitions, at least to the extent  x&allowed under the statute, because these definitions include Federal entities among providers of public  T' xksafety services.lZ| zP '#X\  P6G;P#э See infra para. 54. l Many commenters also state that allowing Federal entities to access the 700 MHz band  Ti'is essential to promoting interoperability and other important goals of this proceeding.vi| zP ' x  #X\  P6G;P#э Id. Commenters generally support allowing Federal public safety providers the use of interoperability  zP ' x} channels. See FLEWUG Comments at 14; NTIA Comments at 46; NPSTC Comments at 2425; NYS Police  xc Comments at 34; AWWA Comments at 2; UTC Reply Comments at 24; APCO Comments at 1416; IACP  x Comments at 5 (eligibility of entities entitled to operate in 700 MHz band should include wide range of public safety and government public service entities). v  T' "A66. Although the statute does not refer to Federal entities,p| zPC'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337. p we agree with NTIA that Section  T' x337 does not bar Federal entities from use of the 700 MHz band.2 | zP' xx #X\  P6G;P#э See NTIA Comments at 5. Noting that Section 337(b)(1) directs the Commission to "commence assignment  x of the licenses for public safety services" within a certain time frame, NTIA avers that Congress defined "public  x safety services" in such a way as to be consistent with the Commission's authority to assign licenses only to state  xk and local government entities and nongovernmental users, thus preserving NTIA's role as the spectrum manager  zP'for Federal agencies. Id. NTIA NOTE We believe the omission simply  xQreflects the fact that the Commission does not license Federal stations. Likewise, the omission of Federal  Tj ' xentities in the definition of public safety services does not mean that Congress rejected the PSWAC Final  T8 ' x8Report's conclusion that Federal public safety entities are integral members of the public safety  T ' xccommunity. | zP'#X\  P6G;P#э FLEWUG Reply at 67; see also NYS Police Comments at 34. Rather, as NTIA and FLEWUG argue, the statutory definition is necessarily framed  T ' xaround the Commission's licensing powers x| zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See e.g., infra note  305152  and accompanying text and supra note NTIA NOTE159. and, as such, the omission of Federal entities is only  xrelevant for licensing purposes; it does not mean that Congress determined that Federal agencies do not  xDprovide services the sole or principal purpose of which, is to protect the safety of life, health or property.  T:'This conclusion is also supported by the fact that the statute defines services, not entities.l: | zP"'#X\  P6G;P#э See supra para. 56. l   T' "B67. In the United States, radio spectrum may be allocated exclusively or for shared use to either  T' xgovernment (Federal government) or nongovernment (state/local governments and civilians). Spectrum"",l(l(,,H "  T' xMin the 700 MHz band is allocated exclusively for nongovernment assignments.| zPh'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 C.F.R.  2.106; NTIA Manual  4.1.3. See also Reallocation Report and Order. Federal government  x@stations, however, may be authorized to use nongovernment frequencies, under Section 2.103 of our  T' xtrules,hZ| xP'#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R.  2.103. h if the Commission licensee(s) supports the Federal use and certifies that it is necessary for the  Tg' xcoordination of Federal government and nonFederal government activities.Xg| xP' x& #X\  P6G;P#э If the Commission concurs with the licensee's request, the Federal entity's use of the nonGovernment  x spectrum must not cause harmful interference to nonFederal Government stations and must be in accordance with the Commission's service rules as well as any conditions agreed upon by the Commission and NTIA.  Requests for Federal use  xof 700 MHz band frequencies must be filed with the Commission by the state or local governmental  xlicensee (for the 700 MHz band frequencies involved) that supports the Federal use. Additionally,  xFederal entities must submit their requests to use nonGovernment spectrum with NTIA in accordance  T'with Section 305 of the Act. | zPE' x #X\  P6G;P#э See NTIA Manual  4.1.2 (a Government frequency assignment may be authorized in a nonGovernment  x band, as an exception to the Table of Allocations, provided the assignment is coordinated with the FCC and no  x harmful interference will be caused to the service rendered by nonGovernment stations, present or future), 7.12  x (Use of Frequencies Authorized to NonGovernment Stations Under Part 90 of the FCC Rules), 8.3.3 (Coordination of Frequencies Used for Communication with NonGovernment Stations Licensed Under Part 90 of the FCC Rules).   T5' "C68. Although we conclude herein that Federal entities are ineligible for Commission licensing  xgin the 700 MHz band, they are eligible to receive authorization to use this spectrum in accordance with  xthe requirements set forth in Section 2.103 of our rules for Government use of nonGovernment  xspectrum. This use of the 700 MHz band by Federal public safety providers falls within the reasonable  xinterpretation of the uses for which the spectrum is allocated because such use will benefit, support, and  T6 ' xin some cases be critical to, the successful provision of public safety services by Commission licensees.,6 | xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э Put differently, these alliances are consistent with Section 337 because the allied use of the spectrum can fairly be said to be for the public safety services for which this spectrum is allocated. ,  T ' xIt also generally is consistent with the consultation provision of Section 337. | xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э NTIA states that Congress required the Commission to consult with the Secretary of Commerce and the  x Attorney General in the reallocation of the 700 MHz band spectrum because it recognized the vital role that Federal  zPG' x agencies play in providing public safety related services to the American people. See also WT Docket No. 9686,  zP' x ex parte Letter filed with the Commission on July 22, 1998, from Janet Reno, Attorney General, and William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce, to the Honorable William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC.  This process is also  xconsistent with Section 337 because a state or local governmental licensee must agree to the Federal use  xof its licensed frequencies. We are adopting conforming revisions to Section 2.103 to clarify the Commission's standards for this process for spectrum governed by Section 337 of the Act.  T' "D69. In sum, if a state or local governmental licensee desires for a Federal public safety entity  xto receive access to some or all of its licensed frequencies, the licensee can join in the request, under the  xNTIA/FCC process, to authorize Federal use of its nongovernment frequencies for noncommercial public  xQsafety services. In addition, NTIA's comments in this proceeding express strong approval of this Federal  xDuse of nongovernment frequencies. We observe that there may be benefits to providing for the adoption"8#,l(l(,, "  x"of a single, "blanket" authorization that would confer NTIA's authorization to all Federal entities as described in Section 2.103 of the Commission's Rules.  Tg' "E70. Section 337 Statutory Eligibility; Relation to PLMR Sharing. While Section 337(f) requires  T5' xtthe spectrum to be used for public safety services and sets forth the statutory prerequisites of licensed  x3state and local governmental and NGO use, the statute is silent as to the permissibility of state or local  xgovernment licensees allowing shared use of their licensed frequencies for noncommercial public safety  xservices. If our existing private land mobile radio (PLMR) "sharing" rules apply to 700 MHz band  xlicensees, one sharing scenario will likely occur when a state or local governmental licensee has declined  T7' xto authorize NGO licensing but agrees to permit the NGO to share the use of its licensed system.. 7| xP ' xg #X\  P6G;P#э For example, a local police department licensee may decline to authorize NGO licensing for an NGO that  x assists with security services during an annual, twoweek local fair. Under 47 C.F.R.  90.179, 90.421, the local  xD police department can allow the NGO to share the use of its (the police department's) licensed system by issuing handheld units for its system to the NGO for use for the duration of the annual fair. . We  xQfind no basis for concluding that in empowering state and local governmental entities as to NGO licensing  xCongress intended Section 337(f) to eliminate state and local licensees' privilege, under our current rules,  xto share their licensed systems with unlicensed entities for noncommercial public safety services. As  xVsuch, we are extending the scope of our PLMR sharing rules and policies to include state and local  xgovernmental licensees in the 700 MHz band. In accordance with Section 337(f)(B)(ii), NGO licensees  xin the 700 MHz band may share their licensed frequencies with noncommercial public safety service  xMproviders only with the express written approval of the authorized governmental entity. This approval  xrequirement ensures that NGO licensees operate within the scope of the permission conferred by the  x3authorized governmental entity and joins any issues before a disapproved use of the spectrum occurs, thereby avoiding automatic cancellation of the NGO's conditional license. 44  S4 3. Noncommercial Proviso  To' "F71. Under the statutory definition of public safety services, the spectrum cannot be used for  xservices to protect the safety of life, health, or property, that the provider "makes commercially available  T ' xMto the public."y | zPY'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(C). y Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that entities  xnot eligible for licensing on this spectrum included government or NGOs in the context of public safety  T'services that they make commercially available to the public.^B| zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,74142. The Commission also tentatively concluded that state and  zPP' x local governmental entities, the sole or principal purpose of which is not to protect the safety of life, health, or  zP'property, were ineligible. Id. We are not adopting this tentative conclusion.  See supra, para. 56.  T>' "G72. We adopt this tentative conclusion and  NONCOM confirm that potential applicants, whether state or  x local government entities or NGOs, may not claim eligibility for licensing in the 700 MHz band on the  T' x*basis of public safety servicesyh | zP#'#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(A). y that they make commercially available to the public. Because the statute  xdefines the public safety services, and not the entities, for which the spectrum is allocated, we also note  Tr' xZthat commercial providers of public safety services are not barred, per se; thus, these entities could be  xQeligible for NGO licensing under particular circumstances " but only in connection with providing public"@$ ,l(l(,, "  T' xsafety services that they do not make commercially available to the public.-$| zPh' xZ #X\  P6G;P#э See 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(C). Accord CompuDawn Reply at 45. Appropriate governmental approval is  x required for NGOs in all events. If a state or local governmental licensee needs to communicate by radio with a  x commercial provider of public safety services that is ineligible for licensing, an operational solution may be  zP'permissible under our rules. See 47 C.F.R.  90.421. - As such, we disagree with  xAPCO's conclusion that commercial entities are ineligible in all events because their principal purpose  T' xZis not the protection of the safety of life, health, or property.n| xP'#X\  P6G;P#э APCO Reply Comments at 14 . n In connection with UTC's observation  x@that the "narrow" definition in the statute generally does not include utilities and pipelines, we note that  T4' x}entities are not disqualified, per se, by their commercial status.4D| zP ' x #X\  P6G;P#э See UTC Comments at 3. UTC also argues that licensing utilities and pipelines on interoperability channels  zP ' x would comport with Congressional intent. See id. at 36 citing Section 3002(a)(2)(A) of the 1997 Budget Act, which  x amended 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2) to add an exemption from auctions for public safety radio services, including private  x. internal radio service used by nonGovernment entities that protect the safety of life, health, or property. UTC adds  x& that the Commission should initiate a rulemaking to allocate spectrum for interoperability among utilities and  zP' x7 pipelines. Id. at 410. UTC's request is beyond the scope of the Second Notice and thus also beyond the scope  zP'of this First Report.  For example, a commercial utility  xcompany, with appropriate governmental authorization, is eligible to hold licenses for spectrum in the  x3700 MHz band for use when it provides services to protect the safety of life, health or property that it  T'does not make commercially available to the public.8 | xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э In cases where utilities or pipelines are ineligible for licensing, governmental authorization notwithstanding, we note that operational options may be available under Section 90.421 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.421.8  S6' C. ADMINISTRATION  S' 1. Interoperability  Tj ' "_H73. The band plan that we adopt in this First Report designates specific channels (representing  xtapproximately 10percent of the 700MHz public safety band) for interoperability communications. As  xa general matter, interoperability refers to the ability of units from two or more government agencies to  T ' xinteract with one another and exchange information. | zPV'#X\  P6G;P#э See e.g., Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,719; PSWAC Final Report at 69. In this subsection of the First Report, we adopt  T 'general guidelines for operation and use of the spectrum dedicated to interoperability. v| zP'#X\  P6G;P#э We note that the issue of interoperability channels is addressed in the Third Notice. See Section V, infra.  T:' "E P37N I74. Public safety agencies have traditionally operated their own systems using frequencies and  T' xequipment that are not necessarily compatible with those used by other agencies. In the First Notice and  T' xSecond Notice, the Commission discussed the need for interoperability in public safety communications  xkin the general contexts of mutual aid incidents, emergency aid incidents or task force operations, and day Tp' x today operations.p| Y&4ԍ #X\  P6G;P#First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,472.#Xj\  P6G;[AXP# The Commission observed that interoperability must often be established during  x@emergencies and under conditions that allow little opportunity for prior planning; that communications"=%,l(l(,, "  xmust often be established among numerous smaller groups, each with its own talk group; and that, once  T' xresponders are on the scene, mutual aid interoperability usually involves the use of portable radios.| zP5'ԍ  Second Notice 12 FCC Rcd at 17,721; PSWAC Final Report at 48.#Xj\  P6G;[AXP#њ  xtThe Commission also noted that emergency preparedness involves planning for disaster relief that may  Tg' xinclude many public safety agencies from various jurisdictions.gZ| zPa'ԍ  Second Notice 12 FCC Rcd at 17,721; First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,472.#Xj\  P6G;[AXP#Ѥ Task forces also typically involve  xkagencies from many disciplines and jurisdictions, and thus require interoperable communications systems;  xthey also frequently deploy emergency operations centers, establish onscene command posts, and dispatch  T' xunits throughout a wide area.f| zPZ 'ԍ Id.#Xj\  P6G;[AXP#f The Commission also noted that daytoday operations are those requir xing routine communications capabilities, as when personnel in adjoining jurisdictions, or within different  xdisciplines in the same jurisdiction, need to exchange information and that, typically, these requirements  xare local or regional, as when agencies with concurrent jurisdiction need to monitor each other's routine  T'traffic.9~| zP 'ԍ Id.9  T ' "[J75. In the First Notice, the Commission proposed a formal definition of interoperability and  xrelated definitions that at the time were under consideration by the Interoperability Subcommittee of  T7 ' xPSWAC.S7 | zP'ԍ  First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,471.S These definitions were ultimately adopted by PSWAC and included in the PSWAC Final  T ' xReport.K | zPG'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 457.K In the Second Notice, the Commission stated that a primary goal with respect to  T ' xIinteroperability should be seamless interoperability on a nationwide basis.c 4 | zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,714 and 17,743.c Towards attaining this  T ' ximportant goal, the Commission also tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that the earlierproposed  Tn' xdefinitions should be adopted.Wn | zP'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,71921.W Commenters to the Second Notice generally support the adoption of  T<'these proposed definitions.w<X | xP4'ԍ California Comments at 14; NPSTC Reply Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 1416.w  T' "'K76. Based on the record before us, we now confirm the definition for interoperability. We  xanticipate that this definition will serve as the framework that the National Coordinating Committee will  Tp' xfollow as it adopts guidelines for more specific interoperability standards and protocols.p| zP"' x ԍ We urge the National Coordinating Committee to use the PSWAC Final Report's proposed definitions when adopting guidelines for interoperability standards. Specifically, we adopt the following definition for interoperability:  T' :44Interoperability: An essential communications link within public safety and public service  :wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more different entities to"&B,l(l(,,r "  :interact with one another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable results. (#4  Tg'X4` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:). ANSI  x! does not itself develop American National Standards (ANSs); rather, it facilitates their development by establishing  zP' x guidelines to ensure consensus, due process, and openness.  Id. ANSI has three methods of accreditation  zP' xD (organization, committee or canvass). See generally ANSI Procedures for the Development and Coordination of American National Standards (approved by the ANSI Board of Directors, April 1998).3  xtFurther, because realization of interoperability is of critical importance to the public safety community,  xthe charter will include milestones for timely accomplishment of certain tasks to ensure that the NCC's work is completed in the most expeditious manner practicable.  T' "R\93. FLEWUG recommends the formation of both a national general use coordination body and  x@a national interoperability coordination committee because it asserts that the planning and management". ,l(l(,,4 "  T' x3processes for the general use channels and the interoperability channels are similar but not identical.@P xPh'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 18.@  xIn addition, FLEWUG suggests that these two bodies establish a standing working group to meet  T' xregularly to ensure adequate coordination and integration.@XP xP'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 19.@ We find that one national committee would  xbe more effective and efficient than two. Although there may be some differences between the process  xtrequired to develop a national interoperability plan and the processes involved in developing policies for  xggeneral service spectrum, we find that such differences are not so great as to justify the duplication of  xeffort, personnel, and expense necessarily involved in creating two national committees. A single  xcommittee could address both issues, would better conserve scarce public safety financial resources and  xmore efficiently focus the talent and expertise of the public safety communications community, which is  xoften represented by a small group of dedicated individuals in each region. We are convinced that if we  xwere to form two committees, many of the same individuals would end up serving on both. We  xconclude, therefore, that the establishment of a single national committee provides the best approach without duplication.   T6 ' "]94. Some commenters favoring a national committee stress the need for representation on the  xcommittee to include all levels of the public safety community, the Commission, and individuals with  T ' xgtechnical expertise and proven leadership in the regional planning process.j P zPX'ԍ See e.g., FLEWUG Comments at 18; APCO Reply Comments at 4.j Others indicated that the  xcommittee would be most knowledgeable, most representative, and most likely to be effective if it were  x*made up of representatives from the public safety user community across the country, rather than public  T7' xsafety organizations. 7zP xPQ' x ԍ We note that NPSTC is a voluntary association of organizations including the four certified public safety frequency coordinators, and, as such, its membership would be represented on the Coordinating Committee.  Based on our experience gained from both NPSPAC and PSWAC, we conclude  xthat a national coordination committee composed of a broad range of representatives of the public safety  T'user community is appropriate.P xPC' x ԍ The specific makeup and responsibilities of the National Coordination Committee will be announced in a separate Public Notice.   Sk' 4. Frequency Coordination  T' "^95.ؠCoordinators. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private organization  xrecommends to the Commission the most appropriate frequencies for private land mobile radio (PLMR)  T' x8service applicants. * P zPj!' x3 ԍ See Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 83737, Report  zP4"'and Order, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986) (Frequency Coordination Report and Order).  Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by  x/eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of the applications, resolving  T:' x^potential interference problems at the source.: P xP`%' x ԍ We note that in the future frequency coordinators will provide an even greater service by filing applications electronically. There are currently four frequency coordinators certified":/,l(l(,, "  T' xto coordinate frequencies for public safety applicants. P xPh' x ԍ The coordinators are: Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational (APCO);  x International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC)/International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA); Forestry  x Conservation Communications Association (FCCA); and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).  Until 1997, each public safety frequency coordinator was  T' xauthorized to coordinate frequencies only in certain identified groups of frequencies, called "Services."P zP'ԍ See Frequency Coordination, Report and Order, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986).  Tg' x*In the Refarming Second Report and Order, the Commission established a structure whereby each of the  xexisting certified public safety frequency coordinators continued to manage the frequencies for which they  T' xwere responsible prior to consolidation.$BP xP ' x ԍ Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the  xQ Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land  zPt ' x Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 92235, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,307 (1997) (Refarming  zP>'Second Report and Order). The one exception to this scheme was the Local Government  T' x3Radio Service, which the Commission opened to all of the certified public safety coordinators.l. P zP'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.l The  xCommission adopted this exception, in part, because frequencies in the Local Government Radio Service  Ti'were routinely used by all Public Safety Radio Services.li P zP'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.l  T' "_96.ؠIn the Second Notice, we did not directly address the issue of frequency coordination.  xDNonetheless, several commenters address the question in connection with the new spectrum. APCO, for  T ' xexample, requests designation as the sole coordinator for the new spectrum,= R P xP'ԍ APCO Comments at 7.= and several commenters  Tk ' xfiled in support.k P zP' xl ԍ See, e.g., Alameda County Reply Comments at 2; CA/PSRA Reply Comments at 2; Powell Reply Comments at paras. 2732. In justification of its request, APCO suggests that, as the sole coordinator for the 800  xMHz public safety spectrum, it is the only coordinator with experience in working with regional planning  T ' xDand in coordinating spectrum for widearea, multiagency systems in that band.= <P xP'ԍ APCO Comments at 8.= Furthermore, it claims  xthat it is the only coordinator with a network of local frequency advisors in each of the public safety  T ' xIplanning regions.= P xP "'ԍ APCO Comments at 8.= If APCO is selected as the sole coordinator for the 700 MHz band, it offers to  xgprovide reasonable direct technical, organizational, and financial support for regional planning activities  x_and to maintain a separate and unique regional planning database available to all regions over the  T'Internet.?\P xP&'ԍ APCO Comments at 78.? "0,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "J`97. AASHTO urges the Commission to allow all of the certified coordinators to provide  x^coordination services in the 700 MHz band and asserts that it has had a system of frequency coordinators  T' xtin all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, for over 40 years.GP xP'ԍ AASHTO Reply Comments at 67.G Moreover, AASHTO  xgargues that at least one state experienced substantial delay in its efforts to expand its "shared resource"  xstatewide telecommunications system because of APCO's failure to process the applications. This delay  T' xwould not have occurred, AASHTO asserts, if there had been multiple coordinators.GXP xP'ԍ AASHTO Reply Comments at 67.G The Joint  xtCommenters oppose APCO's designation as sole coordinator and urge the Commission to allow any of  T' xkthe certified frequency coordinators to provide frequency coordination services.GP xP# 'ԍ Joint Reply Comments at 810.G Ericsson recommends  xthat frequency coordination be open to all organizations engaged in the process of coordination, and  T5'asserts that competition will result in lower overall costs for public safety licensees.G5xP xPM'ԍ Ericsson Reply Comments at 5.G   T' "Aa98.ؠWe will adopt for the general use portion of this band the same frequency coordination  T ' xxprocesses adopted for the Local Government Radio Service in the Refarming Second Report and Order.l P zPD'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.l  xgTherein, we reasoned that since the frequencies in the Local Government Radio Service were available  xto all public safety entities (just like they are for the new spectrum) any of the certified public safety  T ' xtcoordinators may provide coordination.l P zP>'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.l While we acknowledge the generous offers of assistance to  xRPCs by APCO, we nevertheless decline to choose it to be the sole coordinator for the public safety  xfrequencies in the 700 MHz band. We continue to believe that by encouraging competition among  x&coordinators, we will promote costbased pricing of coordination services and provide incentives for  T8' xenhancing service quality.h8, P zP'ԍ Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.h Therefore, we will allow any of the certified public safety coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band.  T' "b99.ؠData Base. In order to make the best possible frequency recommendations, coordinators  xmust have complete and accurate knowledge of the radio environment in which a proposed system is  x<designed to operate. Several commenters argue that a common data base for the new spectrum is  T' xcessential. P zPe!' x ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 2324; FLEWUG Reply Comments at para. 49; NLC Comments at 6; Joint Comments at 19. Some suggest that it be maintained by the National Coordinating Committee.LP zP#'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 2324.L Others  xsuggest that the Commission maintain the database, and Ft. Lauderdale recommends that APCO maintain  T' xthe data base.WP zP&'ԍ See Ft. Lauderdale Reply Comments at 2.W As mentioned above, APCO indicated that it would make its database available to all"1<,l(l(,,X "  T' xregions if it were the sole coordinator.?P xPh'ԍ APCO Comments at 78.? AASHTO asserts that, through its data base contractor, it has  xachieved near "real time data transfer which eliminates the need for a "single data base" as proposed by  T' x3APCO.EXP xP'ԍ AASHTO Reply Comments at 5.E Moreover, AASHTO asserts that such a data transfer methodology would be accomplished  Tg'easily for the 700 MHz band.EgP xP'ԍ AASHTO Reply Comments at 5.E  T' "c100.ؠWe believe that, if it were attainable, a common coordinator data base would be the best  xmethod for providing all coordinators with accurate uptodate information needed to formulate accurate  T' xVfrequency recommendations.m xP zP 'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,332.m However, since there is no evidence in the record indicating that a  xconsolidated database created by the frequency coordinators is a viable option, we conclude that the notice  T5' xand waitingperiod provisions adopted in the Refarming Second Report and Order are the most practical  T' xmethods by which accurate frequency coordination decisions can be made.t  P zP'ԍ See Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,333335. t Specifically, all frequency  xtcoordinators must provide notice of all frequency recommendations made to the Commission to all the  xother frequency coordinators, with onebusiness day of making such recommendation. In addition, all  xRapplicants for new or modified facilities are required to observe a tenday waiting period before  xcommencing operation in order to avoid the possibility of interference with existing facilities. Finally,  xtwe reject APCO's suggestion that its database should serve as the official coordination tool for the 700  xMHz band because it is predicated on our designation of APCO as the sole coordinator, which we have  T 'declined to do.J  P zP'ԍ See para. 100 supra.J  S8' 5. Construction Requirements  T' "[Ԡd101.ؠAs noted in the Second Notice, Part 90 of the Commission's Rules generally requires a  xlicensee in the 800 MHz band to construct a station and place it in operation within eight months for  Tm' xconventional systems and twelve months for trunked systems. m. P zP;'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,777, referring to 47 C.F.R.  90.155 (a) and  90.631(e). In certain instances, the construction  T:' xperiod can be longer, even up to five years upon appropriate justification.T : P zP 'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,777.T In the Second Notice we  xsought comment on the appropriate construction requirements for public safety stations licensed in the  T'700 MHz band.WR P zP#'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77778.W  To' "e102.ؠThe responses to our request vary in their approach, yet all of the commenters recommend  xthat the construction period be longer than the standard eight to twelve months for Part 90 public safety"<2,l(l(,, "  T' x}licensees.P zPh' x ԍ See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 46; Florida Comments at 8; Long Beach, CA Comments at 6; California Comments at para. 47; NYS Police Comments at 8. NPSTC recommends a two or three year deadline with the possibility of extending the  T' x}construction period up to five years if good cause is demonstrated.?"P xP'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 46.? Florida suggests a three year  T' xconstruction period with routine extensions allowed to five or even ten years.@P xP'ԍ Florida Comments at 8.@ Other commenters  Tg' xxadvocate a five year construction period.ygBP zPI 'ԍ See, e.g., Long Beach, CA Comments at 6; California Comments at para. 47.y New York State Police recommend that large scale, statewide  T4'systems be allowed a ten year construction period.C4P xP 'ԍ NYS Police Comments at 8.C  T' " f103.ؠWe conclude that a twelve month construction deadline should apply to public safety  xapplicants in the 700 MHz band. Nonetheless, because state and local governments often follow multi xxyear cycles for the planning, approval, funding and purchasing of their public safety systems, we will also  xgfollow Section 90.155(b), which permits local government entities a longer period for placing a station  x&in operation where the applicant submits a specific schedule for the completion of each portion of the  xtentire system, along with a showing that the system has been approved and funded for implementation  T ' x*in accordance with that schedule.\ d P zP' x/ ԍ  See 47 C.F.R.  90.155(b). APCO has filed a Petition for Rule Making, seeking, inter alia, to amend  zPj' x Section 90.155(b) so that an applicant, would be required merely to demonstrate that it has sought funding. See  xP4'Public Notice, "Petitions for Rulemaking Filed," Report No. 2251 (rel. Jan. 28, 1998). None of the commenters have made a convincing argument that the  xCommission's current rules, which allow public safety entities to request an extended implementation  T6 ' x@schedule of up to five years, would not be adequate.O6 P zP^'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.155(b). O Thus, an applicant will have twelve months to  xplace a system in operation or up to five years if application is made pursuant to Section 90.155(b). We  xcontinue to believe that allowing public safety applicants up to five years allows sufficient time to  xcomplete the planning, approval, funding, and construction needed to place a proposed system in operation.  S' D. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS  S' 1. Overview of Technical Requirements  T8' "lg104.ؠIn this section, we consider technical requirements for systems and equipment to be used  xin the 700MHz band. In particular, we discuss technical specifications that determine the spectrum use  x3efficiency, interoperability, and interference potential of public safety systems. We believe that only a  xminimal set of Commission technical regulations is necessary to enable nationwide interoperability, to  x}facilitate spectrum management, to encourage efficient and effective spectrum use, and to promote competition and avoid undue delays in equipment development. "3,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "h105.ؠAs previously noted, one of our principal goals in this proceeding is to provide a significant  xamount of spectrum for public safety interoperability. Having reserved approximately 10 percent of the  xM24megahertz in the 700MHz band for interoperability channels, we must now, as we proposed in the  Tg' x<Second Notice, adopt technical standards sufficient to ensure that these channels will be usable for  xcinteroperability purposes anywhere in the country. Accordingly, we must consider more extensive  xtechnical requirements for equipment and systems using the nationwide interoperability channels than for  x&equipment and systems operating in statewide, regional and local channels. Although we are setting a  T' xfew of the basic technical standards in this First Report, many of the specifications for advanced  xinnovative technology that will be needed to ensure successful nationwide interoperability in this band  x&have only begun to be developed by the equipment manufacturers and public safety committees. Our  xpreference is for these standards, which will apply to use of the nationwide interoperability channels, to  xbe developed by an ANSIaccredited industry body and recommended by the National Coordination Committee for our consideration, within a set time frame.  T8 ' "[i106.ؠWe are also mindful that the basic technical framework we adopt today will affect the  xequipment design of future public safety systems. Therefore, we recognize that, consistent with our  xoftenrepeated regulatory goals, these regulations must provide the minimum necessary constraints that  x/meet reasonable goals for interoperability, spectrum use efficiency and interference protection. In  xcaddition, we believe that the rules we adopt must be as competitively and technologicallyneutral as  xpossible to allow for competing equipment designs and to avoid hindering or precluding future innovative  xZtechnological developments. We note that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense  T' xspectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs.  Conversely, while wider tolerances may allow  xmanufacturers to use less costly component parts in transmitting equipment, they may also result in less  xefficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe the technical regulations we adopt herein provide a reasonable balance of these concerns.  S' 2. Technical Requirements for the Nationwide Interoperability Channels  Tn' "j107.ؠModulation Type. We will first discuss the issue of whether we should allow or require  xVthe use of analog modulation or digital modulation (or both) for interoperable 700MHz band public  T ' xsafety systems. P zPq' x ԍ In the Second Notice, we entitled sections primarily addressing the question of analog versus digital  zP;'modulation "Transmission Technology". See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,73235 and 17,77273. In the Second Notice, we tentatively concluded that in order to provide for nationwide  x@interoperability, we must, at a minimum, specify whether analog or digital modulation is to be used on  T'the interoperability channels.W$P zPh'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,732. W  T>' "k108.ؠAlthough most of the commenters generally support the use of digital modulation on the  x3interoperability channels, many also favor specifying an analog modulation type as a baseline. Several  xof the commenters suggest that we specify analog FM voice modulation on the interoperability channels,  xVeither as an interim standard to be used until a digital standard is established and equipment for that  Tr' xstandard is developed, or indefinitely as a baseline interoperability mode.rP zP$' x ԍ See e.g. NPSTC Comments at 3, 38; Ericsson Comments of Ericsson at 78; The City of Richardson, Texas Comments at 5; Joint Reply Comments at 13. We have considered this  xsuggestion, but reject it for the following reasons. First, if we allow the construction of analogonly  xsystems in this band, this could once again create a situation where a public safety band becomes" 4,l(l(,, "  x&encumbered with a significant financial investment in an obsolete technology. Second, the availability  xof less expensive analogonly equipment could diminish the market for digital equipment, resulting in  x<delays and higher costs for those users who do wish to buy digital equipment in order to obtain its  xbenefits. Third, establishment of analogonly systems would diminish the availability of spectrum for  x"digital modulated equipment. Fourth, digital technology is better suited to accommodate emerging technologies and advanced capabilities for the equipment operating in this band.  T' "l109.ؠ We believe that digital modulation technology is a very important factor in optimizing  xefficiency of spectrum use, and as such, it will be a key technology for the future of land mobile radio.  xBecause land mobile radio equipment (analog or digital) designed to operate in the 700MHz band is not  x@yet available, we are presented with a unique opportunity to ensure that spectrally efficient modulation technology is incorporated in public safety equipment for this band from the outset.  Ti ' "ym110.ؠWe are concerned with the amount of time that standards development processes require,  T6 ' xand in the Second Notice we asked whether the possible delay in setting a digital modulation standard for  xQinteroperability might outweigh the advantages of digital modulation. This assumes that analog equipment  xcould be more quickly developed. We now conclude that, in view of the progress that is being made in  T ' x4the development of digital public safety equipment, e.g., as cited by Pennsylvania,G P xP'ԍ Pennsylvania Comments at 78.G that an  x interoperability standard is possible within a reasonable time frame, and that the long term advantages  xof digital modulation will be worth the small delay. For these reasons, we will require that 700MHz  xband public safety equipment, when operating on the interoperability channels, be designed to use digital  xmodulation as its primary modulation mode. We will allow mobile and portable units to have analog modulation capability, but only as a secondary mode in addition to its primary digital mode.  T:' "n111.ؠStandards for Digital Modulation. Our adoption of a requirement for digital modulation  xon the interoperability channels in the 700MHz band raises the question of which digital modulation  xstandards to utilize. Clearly, if interoperability is to be achieved on these channels, a single standard  T' x@must be selected to ensure equipment compatibility. In the Second Notice, we sought comment as to  xwhether or not the Commission should adopt a digital modulation standard, and if so, we questioned  x[whether that would "lock in" the technology of today at the expense of precluding emerging  T ' xtechnologies.^ XP zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,73217,735. ^ We posed questions concerning the process involved in developing a standard, in  T' xparticular, how long it would take for industry bodies to develop standards.3P zPa'ԍ Id.3 We also observed that  xcommon encryption standards may be desirable for public safety communications on the interoperability  xchannels, and so we invited comment as to the scope of any such additional standards that may be needed  xto ensure effective interoperability, including how such standards should be developed and the elements  T 'these standards should encompass.S |P zP'#'ԍ Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,754. S  T' "o112.ؠAs previously noted, many of the commenters favor adoption of a single digital standard  xk(many support the Project25 family of standards in particular) along with an analog standard (particularly"r5,l(l(,, "  T' x12.5kHz FM voice) for interim or baseline use.nP zPh'ԍ See e.g., Joint Comment at 1314, NPSTC Comments at 28 and 41.n Some commenters urge adoption of a digital standard  T' xby a date certain`\ZP zP' x ԍ See FLEWUG Comments at 10 (agrees with PSWAC Final Report that digital standards should be developed  zP' x within 2 years though an open and fair process), id., at para. 16; See also, FLEWUG Reply Comments at para. 17; and Region 49 Comments at 2.` and most support analog FM as the common mode for voice communications in the  T' xinterim.wX~P xP' x ԍ Joint Reply Comments at 1314 (Supports adoption of analog FM as the baseline technology for  x* interoperability channels. Notes that most public safety equipment uses analog FM.); Region49 Comments at 2 (adopt PSWAC recommendation that analog modulation for voice should be the minimum common mode). w Some commenters believe that the Commission should set all interoperability technical  Tg' xstandards on the national level.? gP xP 'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 25.? Several commenters state that any standardsetting must be achieved  xthrough an open and fair process as under an ANSIaccredited entity, with no proprietary data  T' xincorporated into the standard.! . P xP' xk ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 17 (notes that the standards development option that has the greatest likelihood of  xM success is an open standard, created by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited entity);  xx California Comments at para. 15 (lack of standards defining how trunking and encryption should function, lead to noncompetition); Northern Telecom, Inc. (Nortel) Reply Comments at IV.  In response to the questions on encryption, some commenters urge us  T'to adopt an encryption standard for interoperability channels."P xP' x7 ԍ California Comments at para. 15; (lack of standards defining how trunking and encryption should function  xD lead to noncompetition. Standards may discourage innovation and development of new technology, but public  xZ safety needs reliable platforms which have a reasonable lifecycle); Project 25 Comments at 13 (Project 25 has  x adopted a CommonAirInterface and many related standards, such as trunking, encryption and the other features  x necessary for interoperability); NPSTC Comments at 29 (noting that Project 25 includes digital encryption as an integral part of the standards suite). OverTheAir Rekeying (OTAR) is a standardized option.   Th' "8p113.ؠAlthough it is clear that digital modulation standards must be adopted for the narrowband  xand wideband interoperability channels, we find that it would be premature to do so at this time. In  T' xxregard to the interoperability wideband (image/hsd and video) channels, industry standard setting activities  xsuch as Project34 are presently in early stages; consequently we do not have information on the record  xtto adopt a digital standard for these applications. We decline to adopt the Project25 Phase I standards  xfor the 700MHz band because we intend that this band ultimately be used with a spectrum efficient  T6 ' x@6.25kHz technology (Project25 PhaseI is a 12.5kHz standard).#6 P xPd ' x ԍ We have, however, arranged the band plan such that pairs of 6.25kHz channels are adjacent and can be combined and used as 12.5kHz channels until such time as standard 6.25kHz equipment is readily available. We note that the Project25 body  xhas begun a promising PhaseII process looking toward a digital standard for 6.25kHz channels, and it  xIappears that this process will also consider possible alternative technologies that provide equivalent  x spectrum efficiency with wider emissions. We will require that the National Coordination Committee  x7or a working group established thereunder seek and obtain recognition as an ANSIaccredited entity. We  xfurther will require the National Coordination Committee to monitor industry standardsetting activities,  x"including those described above, and use the information learned to recommend a set of voluntary  xtechnical standards for digital modulation to be used on the nationwide interoperability channels. While  xwe are now placing this task in the purview of the National Coordination Committee, we nonetheless will"6#,l(l(,,; "  x<monitor its progress regarding its standardsetting activities. Because the NCC will be required to  xbecome American National Standards Institutecertified, the Commission will not unnecessarily disturb technical standards recommended through this open and neutral process.  T4' "q114.ؠTrunking. In the Second Notice, we tentatively concluded that a trunked system is the best  xgand possibly the only practicable method to achieve, in a large scale emergency, the rapid coordination  T' xof communications among many personnel from different agencies and regions.T$P zP7'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,752.T We sought comment  xMon the advantages and disadvantages of using trunking technology on interoperability channels, on our  xproposal to require trunking on the interoperability channels, and as to how a single trunking technology  xstandard, appearing to be necessary to maintain nationwide interoperability, could be selected in a timely  T' xmanner.S%ZP zP 'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17753.S We asked whether the Commission should adopt a trunking standard for communications on  xthe interoperability channels or whether we should leave to the RPCs the decisions about whether to  T 'employ trunking and of what trunking standards to select.S& P zP)'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17752.S  T7 ' "8r115.ؠMany of the commenters addressing these questions vigorously oppose the adoption of a  x7Commission requirement to use trunking technology on the interoperability channels. These commenters  xoffer several reasons why they believe that trunking technology does not meet operational requirements  x@for interoperable communications. First and foremost, the commenters argue that relying solely upon  xtrunking technology for interoperability communications would require a costly and complex  xtinfrastructure to be in place simply to provide communications between nearby units responding at the  xQscene of an incident. Because the location where an emergency might occur cannot always be predicted,  xthe commenters note that it could not be guaranteed that system coverage would be adequate at any  xVparticular location. Generally, in situations where emergency and disaster response interoperability  x^communications are required, direct unit to unit communications at the site is what is most needed, rather  T9' xthan the wide area capabilities of a trunked system.}'9~P xPW'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 16; Florida Comments at 45; and NPSTC Comments at 2627. } NPSTC also observes that mandating trunking  xtechnology on the nationwide interoperability channels would necessitate creation and maintenance of a  T' xpnationwide database of radio unit ID numbers.?(P xP'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 27.? According to California, experience indicates that  x^trunked systems may actually be less efficient in situations where there is a very large volume of message  xtraffic. This occurs because on a trunked system the users are not generally aware of system loading or  xthe nature or urgency of other communications on the system to which they are not a party. Thus, not  xall of the system users are aware when there is an emergency in progress, and consequently they continue  x*to engage in lower priority communications that load the system, and which they might choose to refrain  T' xMfrom transmitting if they knew that the system was being used for an emergency situation.N)P xP#'ԍ California Comments at paragraph 29.N Various  xxcommenters cite the increased cost of trunked equipment as a disincentive for smaller agencies to support  xIinteroperability. Some commenters do favor being allowed (although not required) to use trunking";7. ),l(l(,, "  T' xxtechnology in the interoperability spectrum in some form,*P xPh' x& ԍ Region 49Austin, Texas (Region 49) Comments at 2; APCO Project 25 Steering Committee (Project 25) Comments at 12. and at least one county has developed its own  T' x&regional, 22channel trunked system which it says has enhanced its ability to communicate across the  T' xcommunication lines of different public safety agencies.^+ P xPZ'ԍ The County of Alameda (Alameda) Reply Comments at 1.^ On the other hand, Florida urges us not only  Tg'not to mandate trunking, but to prohibit it on the interoperability channels.J,gP zP'ԍ See Florida Comments at 4.J  T' "s116.ؠAfter consideration of these views, we realize that our tentative conclusion that trunking  xis the only practicable technology for interoperability may have been overstated. We still believe that  xfor most routine daytoday interoperability communication needs, trunking technology provides the  Th' xbenefits of spectrum efficiency (i.e. fewer instances of waiting for a channel to be clear, compared to a  x*conventional system), and the advantages of being able to organize users into talk groups and to establish  xcommunications priority. The commenters have convinced us, however, that conventional, repeated or  xkdirect unittounit communications can be better suited for some types of interoperability communications  xQneeds. Therefore, we are not adopting a requirement mandating trunking on the interoperability channels  xat this time. We will, however, strongly recommend to the National Coordination Committee that it  ximmediately consider the benefits of employing trunking on (at least) a portion of the nationwide  T ' xtinteroperability spectrum,- BP xP' x  ԍ We note that 20 of the 32 nationwide interoperability channels in each TV channel, which NPSTC had indicated would serve well for paired interoperability systems, could be used for trunked systems. and we will direct it to make a timely recommendation to us as to whether  T 'Commission action to require trunking on nationwide interoperability spectrum is needed.. P xP ' x ԍ An early recommendation on this matter is appropriate because, in the event trunking will be used, the work on standard setting must commence as soon as possible.  Tk' "t117.ؠWe recognize that employing trunked systems for interoperability communications in a  x*public safety equipment market where multiple incompatible trunking technologies are available ultimately  xMrequires choosing one technology over another, something the Commission is not generally inclined to  T' x*do./ P zPd'ԍ Budget Act. See also, National Plan Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 909. As with the standards for digital modulation, we prefer instead that a compatible trunking standard  xbe developed by an ANSIaccredited standard setting body. We have noted that disagreements over  x intellectual property rights and technical issues attendant to the adoption of a digital trunking standard  T9' xwere experienced through the Project25 process.T09 P zP]!'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,753.T In the event that a trunking standard for nationwide  xinteroperability use is required, we hope that, in the interest of enhancement of public safety services  xthroughout the country, a repetition of these problems can be avoided. If the National Coordination  xCommittee recommends that trunking be required, we will require that it fulfill the same requirements  x7regarding recommendation of an interoperability trunking standard as established for the recommendation of the interoperability digital modulation standard. "80,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "u118.ؠReceiver Standards. Recently, the Commission has adopted rules only as necessary to limit  xinterference between communications systems, and has not specified performance or quality standards for  xreceivers. Instead, we have typically relied on market forces to determine the appropriate balance  Th' xbetween quality of receivers used by licensees and their cost. In the Second Notice, we solicited comment  T6'on applying this same methodology in the 700MHz band.g16P zP'ԍ  Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,73941 and 17,77374. g  T' "+v119.ؠSeveral public safety agencies filed comments in support of mandated receiver standards  T' xfor general use, as well as for interoperability channels,2ZP zP 'ԍ See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 19; FLEWUG Comments at 11; Florida Comments at 2 and 7. while the three manufacturers that submitted  Tj' xcomments all opposed receiver standards generally.3jP xP ' x  ԍ Ericsson Comments at 9; Motorola Reply Comments at 5; Kenwood Communications, Inc. (Kenwood) Reply Comments at 34. Proponents noted that minimum performance  xspecifications, such as adjacent channel selectivity, spurious and intermodulation rejection, and receiver  xstability, are necessary components of any interference analysis. NTIA, long a proponent of receiver  xperformance standards, states that receiver standards are necessary for the effective and efficient  T ' xmanagement of the spectrum.>4 DP xP'ԍ NTIA Comments at 12.> NPSTC states that receiver standards have been essential to obtaining  Tk ' xmaximum spectrum efficiency in the 821 MHz band.?5k P xP'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 19.? Kenwood, however, argues that equipment  x<manufacturers already have incentives to provide optimum receiver performance and public safety  x^licensees will continue to specify their minimum acceptable technical specifications through the traditional  T 'bid and contract process.H6 d P xP'ԍ Kenwood Reply Comments at 34.H  Tl' "w120.ؠMost commenters also believe that receiver standards should be set because comparatively  T9' xQsmaller public safety agencies may not have the inhouse capability of measuring receiver performance.p7X9 P xP' x ԍ Florida Comments at 7 (argues that the vast majority of public safety agencies do not have the experience  x or knowledge to determine whether receiver performance satisfies their needs and strongly encourages the Commission to adopt receiver standards for all radios in the 746806 MHz band). p  xFlorida and others strongly recommend that receiver standards be adopted either for general use as well  T' xas interoperability channels.8P xP ' x ԍ Florida Comments at 2; NTIA Comments at 12; FLEWUG Reply Comments at para. 20 (agrees with NTIA that standards be consistent with NTIA and TIA standards); Powell Reply Comments at para. 36. We note that present equipment manufacturers generally do not favor  T' xxmandated radio receiver standards.R9lP zP#'ԍ See e.g., Ericsson Comments at 19.R FLEWUG also believes that receiver performance standards should  Tm'be mandatory by a date certain.@:mP xP &'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 11.@ ":9:,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "x121.ؠAfter considering these comments regarding receiver standards, there appear to be two  xZissues before us at this time. The first is whether the Commission should establish a certain minimum  xquality for public safety receivers, particularly for interoperability purposes. The comments did not  xsupport a distinction between general use and interoperability operations. Although we continue to hold  xDthe general view that receiver standards should not be mandated by the Commission for quality purposes,  x*we are concerned that interoperability communications may typically be of greater urgency than ordinary  xdaytoday public safety communications, and to the extent that receiver standards may improve the  xreliability of interoperability communications systems used in such critical safety of life and property  xcircumstances, we believe that receiver standards may be appropriate. Accordingly, we will require that  x^the NCC fulfill the same requirements regarding recommendation of receiver standards for the nationwide  xinteroperability channels as established for the recommendation of the interoperability digital modulation  T' xstandard. We charge the NCC with recommending the scope of parameters (e.g. sensitivity, selectivity, dynamic range, durability characteristics) that need to be included in the receiver standards.  T7 ' "y122.ؠStandards Development Process We conclude that technical standards for all  xtinteroperability channels in the 700MHz band should be chosen and recommended in accordance with the following process, reporting requirements and time frame:  Tl' e iXXX` ` recommend digital technical and equipment standards for integrated voice and  T9' e idata, image/hsd and video communications no later than four years from the  T'release date of this First Report; `  T' e iOXX` ` no proprietary data is to be incorporated in any standard ultimately recommended  e iunless the proprietary data is made available on a fair, reasonable, unbiased and  e inondiscriminatory basis, with license fees approved by ANSI and on terms and conditions set by that standards body; `  T' e iXX` ` only an open process, governed by ANSI or standards approved by ANSI, is to be utilized in recommending these standards; `  T ' e i\XX` ` annual committee progress reports on the recommendation of these technical and  e iequipment standards must be submitted to the Commission, with updates submitted on a quarterly basis; and, `  T=' e iXX` ` the first such progress report shall be submitted to the Commission by the close  e iof the second quarter after which the NCC is established and shall include a plan  e iof action and milestones for the recommendation of each of these standards within this fouryear time frame. `  T>' "[z123.ؠEncryption. Because interoperability channels will be used for sudden emergency and  xdisaster response situations, which call for the widest possible access by various federal, state and local  xgovernment public safety agencies, but only infrequently for tactical or covert operations, we conclude  xgthat Commission adoption of an encryption standard for the interoperability channels is not essential to  xensure these channels are used effectively for interoperability purposes. Nevertheless, we encourage the  xpublic safety sector to develop voluntary encryption standards to facilitate its use in situations where secure interoperable communications are desired. "$::,l(l(,,`% "Ԍ S' 3. Technical Requirements for General Use and Reserve Channels  T' "{124.ؠModulation Type. We will first discuss the issue of whether we should allow or require  x&the use of analog modulation or digital modulation (or both) for public safety systems in the 700 MHz  T5' xband.{;\5P zP' x ԍ In the Second Notice, we entitled sections primarily addressing the question of analog versus digital  x modulation "Transmission Technology", a more general term that seemingly could encompass many other issues  zP/'as well. See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,73235 and 17,77273.{ In the Second Notice, for the general use channels, we proposed to refrain from requiring either  xanalog or digital technology, stating that, where nationwide interoperability is not required, it is  T'preferable to allow public safety licensees to choose among available modulation technologies.V<P zP\ 'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,772. V  Tj' "|125.ؠFLEWUG supports our proposal not to specify a modulation type for the general use  xchannels. FLEWUG believes that the public safety community, through the regional planning  T' xcommittees, should be allowed to decide what technology will best suit its needs.H=~P xP"'ԍ FLEWUG Reply Comments at 56. H Pennsylvania argues  xthat the 700MHz band should be reserved for digital modulation only, because it believes that equipment  xemploying digital modulation is or will be available in the near future before capacity in the  Tk ' x 821-824MHz public safety band is depleted.H>k P xP'ԍ Pennsylvania Comments at 78. H On the other hand, the City of Richardson, TX urges  T8 'adoption of a requirement for analog modulation only.X?8 P xPv'ԍ The City of Richardson, Texas Comments at 5. X  T ' "N}126.ؠ As stated previously, we believe that digital modulation technology is a very important  xMfactor in optimizing efficiency of spectrum use, and as such, it will be a key technology for the future  xof land mobile radio. Digital modulation is generally superior to analog modulation for data  T9' xZtransmission, particularly image/hsd, and it provides a spectrally efficient means of transmitting video.  xAs noted by PSWAC, equipment employing digital modulation offers a significant improvement in  T' xtspectrum efficiency over the analog technology in use by public safety systems today.K@. P zP'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 44. K Yet, in spite  xof these advantages, digital modulation technology is not yet widely used in public safety wireless communications systems.  T' "~127.ؠOne factor that could be impeding conversion of public safety wireless telecommunications  x*systems to digital modulation is that public safety entities already have a substantial investment in existing  xZanalog systems. Much of the existing analog equipment has an expected service life of as much as 20  x<years. Consequently, converting from analog to digital before the time when existing equipment is  xscheduled to be replaced would entail additional unbudgeted costs, which for many public safety organizations would be financially impractical.  T' "R128.ؠThere are, however, no existing public safety systems in the 700MHz band. Although in  To' xthe Second Notice, we suggested that it might be possible to modify existing 800MHz public safety"o; @,l(l(,,+ "  T' xequipment to operate in the 700MHz band, NPSTC advises that this is not likely to be feasible.KAP zPh'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 35. K  xBecause land mobile radio equipment (analog or digital) designed to operate in the 700MHz band is not  x@yet available, we are presented with a unique opportunity to ensure that spectrally efficient modulation  xtechnology is incorporated in public safety equipment for this band from the outset. For these reasons,  xwe have decided to depart from our proposal to refrain from specifying analog or digital modulation for  T' xthe general use spectrum in this band. We will instead require that all 700MHz band equipment (general  T'use, interoperability, and reserve) use digital modulation as its primary modulation mode.BZP xP' x ԍ We will allow mobile and portable units to have analog modulation capability as a secondary mode in addition to its primary digital mode.  Ti' "I129.ؠStandards for Digital Modulation. In the Second Notice, we proposed not to mandate either  xtanalog or digital modulation exclusively. Because these channels will be used public safety entities for  xinternal communications, we reasoned that it would be preferable to allow public safety entities to  T'independently select equipment and technologies that best satisfies their particular requirements.YCP zP#'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77273. Y  Tk ' "_130.ؠMost commenters addressing these issues agree that there is no need for the Commission  T8 ' xxto adopt either a specific technology or comprehensive technical standards for the general use channels.D8 DP zP'ԍ See, e.g., FLEWUG Comments at 22; Florida Comments at 7; Ericsson Comments at 18.  xBecause nationwide interoperability is not required in this spectrum, we still believe that there is little,  xtif any, need for our intervention in the process of adopting standards for operations on these channels,  xeven though we have decided to mandate the use of digital modulation. We conclude that individual  x"public safety licensees should be able to select the equipment and technologies that best meet their  xparticular communications needs, and we therefore decline to mandate a particular digital technology or standards for general use or reserve channels.  T' "131.ؠTrunking. As a general rule, the Commission requires licensees to employ a trunking  xtechnology when they establish a twoway land mobile system that uses more than five channels in the  T;' xfrequency bands above 512MHz.ME;P zP'ԍ See 47C.F.R.90.623(a).M In the NPSPAC Report and Order we decided, in regard to the  x*Public Safety National Plan (800MHz band), to require trunking for public safety systems, except where  x^it is shown that a requested alternative technology would provide comparable efficiency, or that a trunked  T' xsystem would not meet operational requirements.kFh P zP 'ԍ National Plan Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 90910 (1987).k We believe that our trunking policy has generally  xbeen successful in achieving efficient spectrum use. Accordingly, we will continue this policy and require  xttrunking for systems using more than five narrowband channels in the 700MHz band, except where it  x/is demonstrated by a substantial showing that an alternative technology would provide comparable spectrum efficiency or that operational requirements would not be met.  Tq' "<132.ؠReceiver Standards. As we previously noted, our recent policy has been to adopt only those  x"rules necessary to limit interference between communications systems, and we have not generally  xspecified performance or quality standards for receivers. For general use or reserve channels, the issue" < F,l(l(,, "  xtwith regard to receiver standards is whether we need to adopt minimum performance specifications to  xksupport better interference analysis, allowing more intensive use of the spectrum. We agree that receiver  xspecifications are helpful for planning and frequency coordination purposes. As Florida states, the vast  xmajority of public safety agencies rely on Commission regulations or guidance from larger agencies and  T4' x<user advocate groups for technical specifications.@G4P xP'ԍ Florida Comments at 7.@ Thus, we will require that the RPCs establish  xreference values for adjacent channel selectivity, spurious response attenuation, and intermodulation  xrejection in their plans. This approach will allow public safety entities to avail themselves of competitive  xmarket choices while establishing a reference point for interference analysis. Additionally, a "reference receiver" would assist all parties, including the Commission, in resolving interference disputes.  S' 4. Technical Standards for all 700MHz Band Public Safety Equipment  T ' "133.ؠInteroperability Channel Capability. In the Second Notice, we asked for comment as to  xwhether we should require that all public safety mobile and portable radios for the 700MHz band be  T7 ' x*capable of operating on all interoperability channels in that band.QH7 XP zP/'ԍ Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,740.Q We also sought comment on whether  T ' xgit is technically feasible to incorporate 700MHz band interoperability channels into mobile and portable  T ' xradios operating in the 800MHz public safety band.4I P zP['ԍ Id. 4 Moreover, we asked whether we should require  xZthat all public safety mobile and portable radios operating in the 700MHz band be capable of operating  Tk'on all public safety and commercial channels in that band, and whether this is technically feasible.QJk|P zP'ԍ Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,774.Q  T' "'134.ؠThe commenters generally support a requirement that all 700MHz band public safety  xmobile and portable radios be capable of operating on all 700MHz public safety channels and particularly  T' xon all of the nationwide interoperability channels.KP zPM'ԍ See e.g. comments of FLEWUG at 23, Florida at 3, California at 24, NPSTC at 19. FLEWUG for example supports a requirement that  xlall mobile and portable radios in the 700MHz band be capable of operating on all voice and data  T9' xZinteroperability channels in the band, but not on all commercial channels in the band.@L9P xPy'ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 23.@ Some of these  x@same commenters believe that this requirement should be extended to equipment in the 800 MHz band  T' xonly, however, after a period longer that the one year proposed by the Commission.@M0 P xP 'ԍ Florida Comments at 3.@ Region 49  xg(central Texas) says that the Commission should mandate the inclusion of the interoperability channels  Tm'in all new public safety radios.BNm P xP#'ԍ Region 49 Comments at 2.B ":=P N,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "135.ؠWe are adopting a rule to require that all narrowband mobile and portable 700MHz band  xlpublic safety radios be capable of operating on all of the narrowband nationwide interoperability  T' xchannels.ROP zP5'ԍ See new 90.547 in Appendix E.R We believe it is not appropriate at this time to adopt a similar requirement for the wideband  xkinteroperability channels, because different and unrelated applications could be used on different channels.  xThe commenters further advise that there should be no requirement to operate on the commercial portions  T' xof the band at this time.QPP xP.'ԍ Comments of Florida at 7, FLEWUG at 23.Q We agree that such a requirement is premature until such time as it is determined how the commercial portion of the 700MHz band will be used.  Th' "R136.ؠEmission Limitations. Emission limits are transmitter performance specifications that are  xnecessary to minimize interference to communications systems operating in other channels or bands.  xTheir purpose is to restrict the level of emissions that are unavoidably transmitted into adjacent channels  x*and other parts of the spectrum. To maximize spectrum efficiency, it is desirable to utilize the full extent  x@of the channel in order to maximize information transfer and thus ensure efficient use of the 700MHz  Tj ' xband.Qj P xP'' x ԍ Emission mask is the technical specification that limits the distribution of power of a radio transmitter as a function of frequency. At the same time, emission limits must be carefully selected to provide acceptable adjacent  T7 ' xtchannel protection. In the Second Notice, the Commission asked whether the RPCs should be allowed  T ' x<to develop their own emission masks for the new 700MHz band.BRX uP xP' x ԍ As a related matter, the Commission asked whether it should require an affidavit from equipment  x^ manufacturer to be submitted with any Regional Plan containing a regionally developed emission mask, attesting to the appropriateness of the parameters.B We also sought comment on  x@whether particular emission masks already in our rules should be applied in the new band for different  T ' x@types of communications.S P xP' x ԍ Emission masks, which are schedules of attenuation as a function of displacement frequency, are the Commission's traditional method for limiting out of channel and out of band emissions. Specifically, we requested comment on whether the 12.5kHz or 25kHz  Tl' x*emission masks for voice and data currently set forth in the Commission's RulesuTl P zP'ԍ See Section 90.210 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.210. u should be adopted for  T9'the 700MHz band.WU9 P zPX'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77576.W We also solicited information on requirements for image/hsd and video.  T' "137.ؠNPSTC, in its initial comments, supports using a 12.5kHz emission mask, requests that  xQthe mask for 25 kHz be broadened to better accommodate data, and suggests that the designator for wide  Tm' xband 150kHz channels await further action of Project 34.VmP xP"' xt ԍ NPSTC Comments at 4142. APCO Project 34 is a new program undertaken to develop wideband digital  xP"'radio technology standards for the transport of image/hsd transmissions. As an alternative to emission masks,  xMotorola suggests an alternative approach, termed "adjacent channel coupled power" ("ACCP"), that  T' xMotorola asserts is flexible and has technical specifications that better address realworld conditions.WiP xP&'ԍ Motorola Comments at 16, Appendix A, sections 2.4 and 3.2; Ericsson Reply Comments at 6.  T' x ACCP is an industrydeveloped method to assess compatibility within the complex channel environment">W,l(l(,, "  T' xresulting from the initial Refarming Report and Order.fXP zPh'ԍ See Refarming Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 10,120. f Motorola claims that this new approach would  xxbetter accommodate future technologies and eliminate some of the interpretation problems associated with  xemission masks that depend on specific spectrum analyzer characteristics. Motorola states that the  xspecifications based on coupled power more directly relate to current radio system design, and it claims  xthat the definition of absolute and relative levels of coupled power as a function of frequency should result  x&in systems that operate with more predictable and lower levels of interference. Ericsson supports the  xcoupledpower concept as recommended by Motorola, but indicates that the specific attenuation values  T'proposed by Motorola may need additional study.YZP xP ' x ԍ Ericsson Reply Comments at 7. In a subsequent exparte submission, Ericsson alleges that lesser attenuation values may be more appropriate for offtheshelf commercial wideband technology.  T6' "_138.ؠAs wireless communications evolve, the complexity of determining compatibility between  xgdifferent types of systems increases. Historically, public safety communications systems consisted of  xanalog 25kHz FM for voice communications. Recent years have seen the increased use of mobile data  x7terminals, but generally most data applications have been accommodated within the channel and technical  xrequirements designed for voice transmissions. Commission specifications typically involve fairly  xstraightforward rules denoting authorized bandwidths and emission masks. The 700MHz band, however,  xoffers the opportunity for public safety agencies to enter fullscale into digital communications. The  x}Commission's rules must keep pace with and recognize the diversity of equipment that will become  x3available in the future. As we have said, the Commission should adopt regulations that encourage and  xdo not inhibit the continuously evolving equipment market in ways that favor competition without  xfavoring any particular technology. Consequently, rather than specifying emission masks for the various  xctypes of communications in the 700MHz band, we will specify emission limits based on ACCP, as  T' xsuggested by Motorola.bZZP xP$' x7 ԍ The ACCP limits cover displacement frequencies up to and including the receive band. On all frequencies  xP[ x3 not covered by the ACCP limits, the general outofband attenuation formula, AdBĠ=43+10logp, will apply.  zP'See 90.210(l).b The questions raised by Ericsson relate principally to emission types that have  x^bandwidths that would exceed the wideband 150kHz aggregated limit we are adopting herein. Moreover,  x*the ACCP limits offer a reasonable solution to the extent that these questions also relate to emission types  xpthat have a bandwidth less than 150kHz. Specifically, the use of ACCP emission limits will ensure  xDappropriately that the adjacent channel interference potential of transmitters" producing emissions of the  xvarious possible different bandwidths" is consistent and predictable. Also, the measurement procedure  xfor ACCP requires the instrumentation to be set in a manner that simulates actual receivers. Therefore,  xthe measured results will be more comparable to real world experience than if the emission mask method were to be used.  T' "139.ؠFrequency Stability. Frequency stability is an equipment design parameter that affects  T' xadjacent channel interference potential, and can thus impact the efficient use of the spectrum. The Second  Tp' xNotice sought comment on whether to use the same requirements in the 700 MHz band as are currently  x<used in the 806 MHz band, which is 1.5parts per million (ppm) for fixed stations and 2.5ppm for  T ' xmobile stations.W[ P zP%'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77576.W NPSTC and Motorola were the only commenters to address these specifications.  xNPSTC supports 1.5 and 2.5ppm for fixed and mobile equipment, respectively. Motorola suggests  xvalues for a variety of equipment types narrowband as well as wideband equipment. To account for"?f [,l(l(,,D "  xboth types of equipment, we will adopt the following specifications based on Motorola's comments: 100  T' xparts per billion (ppb) for narrowband base stations; 2.5 ppm\P xP5' x3 ԍ Approximately 0.4ppm by automatic frequency control (AFC) locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 2.5ppm when AFC lock is lost. for narrowband mobiles or portables;  T'100ppm for wideband base stations; and 5ppm] P xPZ' xt ԍ Approximately 1.25ppm by AFC locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 5ppm allowed if AFC lock is lost. for wideband mobiles or portables.  T4' "[140.ؠAuthorized Bandwidth. Authorized bandwidth is defined in Part90 of our rules as the  xtfrequency range wherein 99percent of the power of the electromagnetic emission from the authorized  T' xtransmitter must be confined.H^xP zP 'ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 90.7.H To determine the authorized bandwidth, we generally use either the  xnecessary bandwidth, a calculated parameter, or the occupied bandwidth, a measured parameter.  xNecessary bandwidth is used as the first portion of the emission designator, a data element that is in turn  T6' xused for licensing, frequency coordination and international notification purposes.K_6 P zP'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.202. K We note that  T' xauthorized bandwidth is not necessarily the same value as the channel size or spacing.`P xP?' x ԍ Authorized bandwidth is the frequency range within which 99percent of the radiated power appears, extended to include any frequency upon which the power is at least 0.25percent of the total radiated power. In some  xservices, the authorized bandwidth exceeds the channel size. For example, the maximum authorized  xbandwidth for the 25kHz channels in the 806821/851866 MHz bands is 20kHz, while the authorized  Tj 'bandwidth for the 12.5kHz channels in the 821-824/866869MHz bands is also 20kHz.uaj P zP'ԍ See Section 90.209 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.209. u  T ' "141.ؠThe Second Notice sought comment on the authorized bandwidth for different types of  T ' xcommunications: voice, data, image/hsd, and video.Wb P zP'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77475.W Among the comments received on the technical  xissues, all urge that the maximum authorized bandwidth be less than the channel size, with many  Tl'suggesting various specific values such as 11.25kHz authorized bandwidth for a 12.5kHz channel size.clP zP$'ԍ See, e.g., Region 20 Comments at 10; Florida Comments at 7; California Comments at para. 44.  T' ""142.ؠAs discussed above, the technical parameters for the 700MHz band must accommodate the  xwide assortment of voice, data, and video transmissions that are currently technically feasible as well as  xfuture technologies that may not be envisioned at present. The rules must provide flexibility for the  xfuture while providing a framework that speeds the introduction of 700MHz band equipment into the  T:' xpublic safety market, as required by the 1997 Budget Act.Md:P zP$'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  337(d)(1).M Although in some services, the authorized  x}bandwidth exceeds the channel size, to do so complicates frequency coordination by increasing the  xnecessary separation for adjacent channel facilities. Furthermore, the ACCP values we are adopting (see  xDdiscussion above) will not permit substantial coupled power into adjacent channels. Accordingly, we will"@<d,l(l(,,e "  xallow public safety entities to specify in applications and to use any authorized bandwidth that does not exceed the channel size.  Tg' "}143.ؠTransmitting Power and Antenna Height Limits. In the Second Notice, we sought comments  T5' xon whether the power and antenna height limitations specified for the 800MHz bande5P zP' x ԍ The power and antenna height limitations for the 800 and 900 MHz band are the same.  See Section 90.635 of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.635. should be applied  xto the 700MHz band, and if not, we asked for comment on what other power and antenna height limits  T' xshould be specified.Tf"P zP 'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,776.T The few comments received on this issue varied in their response. NPSTC and  xVMotorola recommend that the power and antenna height limits be dependent solely upon frequency  Ti' xcoordination requirements.XgiP xP 'ԍ NPSTC Comments at 45; Motorola Comments at 15.X As indicated by California,ThiDP zPM'ԍ See California Comments at para. 45.T however, the 800MHz band requirements  x^appear to have worked well to limit system coverage to reasonable distances. Therefore, we are adopting  xa rule that incorporates by reference the 800MHz power and antenna height limits as specified in  xSection90.635 of our rules, which provides a maximum of 1kilowatt (30dBW) and 304m (1000feet)  xabove average terrain (AAT) for trunked and "urban" systems, 500Watts (27dBW) and 152m (500feet) for suburbanconventional systems, and sets of equivalency tables.  T ' "144.ؠIn addition, we adopt transmitter output power limits of 3watts for hand held portable  T ' xttransmitters and 30watts for mobile and control transmitters.bi P zPG'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 45; Motorola Comments at 15.b For control stations, we also adopt a  xrequirement that the power output must be further reduced as necessary to ensure that the received power  xlevel into the fixed receiver (or fixed amplifier after the antenna in a fixed receiver network) does not  T8' xtexceed -85dBm.bj8h P zP@'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 45; Motorola Comments at 15.b Finally, we are adopting Motorola's suggestion to require that mobile and portable  T' xtransmitters be designed to have automatic power control (APC).Bk P xP'ԍ Motorola Comments at 15.B APC is a system capability that  xallows the system to automatically adjust the output power of mobile and portable transmitters in order  xto maintain the minimum transmitting power necessary for effective communications, and to reduce interference potential.  T' ""145.ؠCochannel Interference Protection. In the Second Notice, we sought comment on whether  T' xthe Commission should apply to the 700MHz band the cochannel protection criterial  P xP"' x ԍ Cochannel protection refers to the interference protection that a particular licensee provides to another  x  licensee operating on the same channel in the same geographic area. The protection criteria are designed to  x minimize the likelihood of interference to base/mobile communications on the channels in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands, which are assigned to licensees on an exclusive basis. specified for the"Arl,l(l(,,n "  T' x806MHz band,mP zPh' x ԍ The power and antenna height limitations for the 800 and 900 MHz band are the same.  See Section 90.635 of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.635. or alternatively,  T' x_as permitted in the 821MHz National Plan, permit the regions to determine their own criteria.Wn"P zP'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77677.W  x@Commenters expressed no consensus. NPSTC and FLEWUG favored having the parameters set by a  xnational planning committee, while California and others indicated that the RPCs should be permitted to  xestablish the requirements. Florida recommended that we specify minimum interference criteria  xsuggesting 40dBV/m desired to 30 dBV/m undesired, but that we allow regions to adopt more  xstringent standards if desired. After reviewing the comments on this issue, we have decided to allow the  xRPCs to use the "40dBV/m + 3miles" service contour standards and 5dBV/m interference contour  xmethod that is used by many regions in the 821MHz band, rather than specifying a Commission  xstandard. We will also allow the RPCs to use alternative methods, provided that the method used is  x+approved by all adjacent RPCs. Our experience is that where criteria have been clearly set and  xappropriate interregional coordination has occurred, the regionally established criteria have worked well.  xBecause there are several methods of implementing these criteria, we will not adopt a rule specifying any specific methodology at this time.  S ' E. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION/DIGITAL TELEVISION (TV/DTV) STATIONS  S ' 1. Introduction  T7' "/146.ؠIn this section, we discuss the protection requirements among public safety base and mobile  T' xstations, television (TV) stations,hoP xPX'ԍ Existing TV stations use the traditional analog (NTSC) format.h and DTV stationspDP xP' x ԍ DTV refers to any technology that uses digital techniques to provide advanced TV services such as high definition TV, multiple standard definition TV, and other advanced features and services. in the recently allocated 24 megahertz of  T' xZspectrum for public safety use nationwide.eqP zP 'ԍ See Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953.e During the transition from analog to DTV service (DTV  T' xtransition period), which ends December 31, 2006,r. P xPl' xp ԍ The DTV transition period will end December 31, 2006, but may be extended in some markets for the  zP4'reasons enumerated in the 1997 Budget Act  3003. See, also, Reallocation Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 22,953. public safety entities must share the use of this 24  Tk' x*megahertz of spectrum with TV operations including both analog and digital stations. The Second Notice  T9' xsought comment on the appropriate land mobile/TV sharing criteria for public safety use of these bands  T' xduring the DTV transition period.\s P zP."'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77879. \ Specifically, the Commission was interested in determining the  xappropriate geographic separation requirements needed to protect TV reception as required by the 1997"Bs,l(l(,, "  T' x<Budget Act.MtP zPh'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  337(d)(2).M The 1997 Budget Act also required us to consider rules to ensure that public safety  T'licensees are not subject to harmful interference from TV and DTV stations.MuZP zP'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  337(d)(4).M  Tg' "147.ؠThe Second Notice proposed a 40dB desired to undesired (D/U) signal ratio for cochannel  x/operations and a 0dB D/U signal ratio for adjacent channel operations to determine the geographic  xseparation needed between public safety base stations and the GradeB service contours of cochannel and  T' xadjacent channel TV stations.UvP zP[ 'ԍ See Second Notice, 12FCCRcd17,803.U The D/U signal ratio is used to determine the level of land mobile  xsignals that can be permitted at TV receiver locations without degrading the TV picture to less than a  xdefined picture quality. In other words, the D/U signal ratio indicates what relative levels of TV and land  xmobile signals can be tolerated without causing excessive interference to TV reception. The  xdetermination of the appropriate D/U ratio in this case is based upon a number of factors, including the  T' xdefinition of acceptable picture quality,w|~P xP' x ԍ The reference picture quality used in establishing sharing criteria in the 470512 MHz band was "Passable."  zP' x The term "Passable" is defined as "The picture is of acceptable quality. Interference is not objectionable."  See  x! "Engineering Aspects of Television Allocations," Report of the Television Allocations Study Organization (TASO)  x to the Federal Communications Commission, March 1959. This is the same picture quality used by the Commission  zP' x to determine TV Grade B service coverage. See Sixth Report and Order in Docket Nos. 8736, 8975, 8976 and  xx 9175, April 11, 1952. The same picture quality was used so that land mobile interference to TV would not be more than "equally objectionable" as TV to TV interference. TV receiver susceptibility,x$ P zP2' x ԍ In connection with the UHFTV Sharing NPRM, the FCC's Laboratory performed TV receiver susceptibility  zP' x measurements. See FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Report, "Receiver Susceptibility Measurements  x@ Relating to Interference between UHF Television and Land Mobile Radio Services, February 1987. The tests showed the median value for receiver susceptibility to be 45 dB. antenna characteristics,yP xP' x@ ԍ The directional characteristics (fronttoback ratio) and polarization (horizontal vs. vertical) of UHFTV receiving antennas discriminate against land mobile interference. and  xaggregate interference caused by multiple land mobile signals. Certain technical parameters such as  Tj ' xZpicture quality are subjective and others such as TV receiver susceptibility vary widely.z j P xP' xZ ԍ Susceptibility ratios for receivers vary from model to model, and for a given receiver will depend on the  x7 modulation of the interfering signal, the number of interfering signals present, and their frequency relative to the  x desired TV visual carrier. Because of these variabilities, susceptibility ratios are often described by a range of values. This makes  xMit difficult for parties to agree on an appropriate D/U value that would provide sufficient protection for  xanalog and digital TV reception without being overly protective and unnecessarily prohibiting the use of valuable public safety spectrum.  Tk' "_148. In making our determination, we note that land mobile and TV services have successfully  T8' xshared the 470512MHz band (TVChannels 14-20) in eleven major cities since the early 1970's.J{8P zP&'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.303.J To  xMprotect against potential land mobile interference to and from TV stations, the Commission established"C{,l(l(,, "  T' xland mobile/TV sharing criteria.|\P zPh' xM ԍ See Amendment of Parts 2, 89, 91, and 93, Geographic Reallocation of UHFTV Channels 14 through 20  x to the Land Mobile Radio Services for Use Within the 25 Largest Urbanized Areas of the United States, Docket  zP'No. 18261, First Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 325, 342 (1970) (Geographic Reallocation First Report and Order). Under the criteria adopted for the 470512MHz band, land mobile  T' xbase stations must be located within 80.5km (50mi) of the geographic centers of these eleven cities.}P zPY' x ԍ Mobile and control stations have to be located within 48 km (30 mi.) of their associated base station. See 47 C.F.R.  90.305.  xZLand mobile base stations also must meet certain geographic separation requirements from cochannel  Tg' xand adjacent channel TV stations.w~ZgFP xPM ' x ԍ Land mobile stations operating within the six megahertz occupied by a TV channel are considered co xD channel. Land mobile stations operating within the six megahertz band directly above or below a TV channel are  zP 'considered to be adjacent channel. See 47 C.F.R.  90.309. w For cochannel operations, the geographic separations are based  T4' xupon providing a signal ratio of at least 50dB"4h P zP<' x ԍ For TV Channel 15 in New York City, a 40 dB D/U signal ratio is used.  See 47 C.F.R.  90.307(b) and  xM 90.309 (Table B). A 50 dB protection ratio means that the amplitude of the desired TV signal is more than 300  xD times greater than the amplitude of the undesired signal at the Grade B service contour. A 40 dB protection ratio means the desired TV signal is 100 times greater. between the desired TV signal and undesired cochannel  T' xland mobile signal (D/U signal ratio) at a hypothetical 88.5km (55mi) GradeB service contour.~R P xP' x ԍ The 88.5 km (55 mi) Grade B service contour (64 dBuV/m) is based on a hypothetical TV station operating  x at an effective radiated power of one megawatt, a transmitting antenna height above average terrain of 610 meters  zP' x (2000 feet) and the Commission's R6602 F(50/50) curves. See 47 C.F.R.  73.699. Maximum facilities for TV  x7 stations operating in the UHF band are 5 megawatts effective radiated power at an antenna HAAT of 610 meters  zP'(2,000 feet).  See 47 C.F.R.  73.614.~ For  xprotection of first adjacent channel TV operations, the geographic separation requirements are based on  T' xa D/U signal ratio of 0dB at the same hypothetical GradeB service contour.P xPA' x ԍ A 0 dB D/U ratio means that the undesired signal can be as great as, but no stronger than the desired TV signal at the Grade B service contour. These separation distances also would protect the land mobile systems from interference from the TV stations.  T' "149.ؠIn 1985, the Commission proposed to expand land mobile/TV sharing to other TV channels  xand proposed that the geographic separation requirements for cochannel operations be based on a D/U  T ' xgsignal ratio of 40dB rather than 50dB.[^ ^P zP' xM ԍ See Amendment of the Rules Concerning Further Sharing of the UHF Television Band by Private Land  zPd ' x3 Mobile Radio Services, GEN Docket No. 85172, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 101 FCC 2d 852, 861 (1985)  zP.!'(UHFTV Sharing NPRM).[ In doing so, the Commission stated that the 50dB ratio was  Ti ' xDtoo conservative and that a 40dB ratio would result in minimal impact on cochannel TV service.[i P zP#'ԍ See UHFTV Sharing NPRM, 101 FCC 2d at 862.[ That  T6 ' xproceeding was put on hold pending completion of the DTV proceeding, which has now been  T ' xcompleted.d P zP&'ԍ See Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,588.d We now seek a reasonable balance among the needs of existing TV and new DTV stations  xgin this band, public safety needs during the DTV transition period, and the potential interference which" D,l(l(,,u "  x@may be caused to all these operations. In the 470-512MHz band, the Commission relied on minimum  xpseparation distances based on the various heights and powers of the land mobile stations to prevent  T' xDharmful interference.]P zP'ԍ See UHFTV Sharing NPRM, 101 FCC 2d at 865. ] Since this method has been successful, we will continue to administer protection  xcriteria for these services in this same manner. In making our determination herein, we examined the  xprevious methodology with consideration of the more recent technological changes, the physical characteristics of the 700MHz band, and the goals Congress established for us in the 1997 Budget Act.  S' 2. Protection of TV Stations   T5' "[150. The issue of what constitutes adequate interference protection to TV reception in land  xtmobile/TV sharing arrangements has always been a contentious one. Thus, it is not surprising that the  xDcommenters did not agree on what D/U signal ratio should be applied. In general, there are two opposing  xpoints of view. The broadcasters argue that the comments in support of a lower D/U signal ratio standard  Ti ' xM(i.e., 40dB) are unsubstantiated by technical evidence and that the record supports setting geographic  T7 ' xspacing requirements based on, at a minimum, a 50dB D/U signal ratio.7 ZP zP1' x ԍ See, e.g., AMSTV/NAB Comments at 45; Jovon Broadcasting Corporation (Jovon B/C) Comments at 26; Liberman Television, Inc. (Liberman TV) Reply Comments at 2. For the same reason, they  xstate that any proposal to reduce the protection even further as suggested by some commenters should  T ' xbe rejected.X P zP%'ԍ See, e.g., MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 4.X They argue that adopting less stringent protection criteria than those typically used in the  T ' x^470-512 MHz band (i.e., 50dB) will result in an unacceptable loss of TV service, a result that contradicts  Tl'Congressional intent.ZlFP zPR'ԍ See, e.g., MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 23.Z  T' "151.ؠThe public safety community and several land mobile equipment manufacturers, on the  xtother hand, support our proposal to use a D/U signal ratio of 40dB to determine geographic separation  T' xrequirements for cochannel operations.PP zP'ԍ See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 47.P They contend, however, that adopting the lesser D/U signal  xratio of 40dB is still too conservative and that additional reductions should be considered in order not  T:' xVto unduly restrict public safety use of the 24megahertz of spectrum during the transition period.V:j P zPD'ԍ See, e.g., Motorola Comments at 2021.V  xZMotorola recommends that the Commission include an additional 20.3dB reduction in the ratio, which  xincludes a 5.3dB loss for the greater path loss associated with transmissions in the 746-806MHz band  xas compared to transmissions in the 470-512 MHz band and a 15dB reduction for antenna fronttoback  Tn' xratio.n P xP #' xg ԍ The fronttoback ratio of an antenna is the ratio of the maximum gain in the forward direction (the main  xP#'lobe) and the gain in the reverse direction, 180o from the main lobe. This would provide a 19.7dB D/U signal ratio (40dB 20.3dB) for determining the geographic  T;' x*separation requirements between TV and public safety base stations.V;T P zP/&'ԍ See, e.g., Motorola Comments at 2021.V Motorola states that applying this  xadditional 20.3 dB reduction will allow full power (1kw) public safety base stations to be located within"E,l(l(,, "  x145km (90mi) of cochannel TV stations rather than 185km (115mi) and 241km (150mi) for 40dB  T'and 50dB signal ratios, respectively."P zP5' xZ ԍ See Motorola Comments at 21. Under the Commission's proposal of using a 40 db D/U signal ratio, full  x power (1 kw) base stations can be located as close as 185 km (115 miles) if the antenna height is 30.5 m (100 ft)  xg or less. Using a 50 dB D/U signal ratio would require land mobile base stations, with a 30.5 m (100 ft) antenna height, to be located at least 241 km (150 mi) from the TV station.   Tg' "y152.ؠWe have carefully reviewed all the technical information submitted. The suggestion made  xby the broadcasters to retain a 50dB D/U signal ratio is too conservative and seems to be based on a  xydesire to keep the status quo without taking into consideration new technology or differences in  x}propagation of the frequency bands. We believe that this would unnecessarily inhibit the use of the  x700MHz band by public safety entities during the DTV transition period and cannot justify keeping the  xold value of 50dB unless it is based on a technical showing which we find lacking in the record. On the  xother hand, while the recommendations put forth by some commenters would allow more public safety  xentities to use the 700MHz band prior to the end of the DTV transition (December31, 2006), the record  x"before us does not support reducing the D/U signal ratio to the degree suggested based on ideal or  xVoptimistic situations. The plan developed for TV/land mobile sharing in 1970 was deliberately very  Ti ' xconservative in order to safeguard against any possible adverse impact on TV reception.i P zP'ԍ See Geographic Reallocation First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 348. ą Use of a  x@40dB signal ratio is, for purposes of the instant proceeding, further supported by our experience with  x*using this standard to protect TV service from interference from land mobile operations in the New York  x*metropolitan area without serious adverse consequences. Therefore, we are adopting a 40dB D/U signal  xratio for calculating cochannel geographic separation requirements. We believe that the 40dB D/U  xsignal ratio is a reasonable value that will provide sufficient TV protection, as prescribed by the 1997  T7' xBudget Act. Cochannel land mobile base station transmitters will be limited to a maximum signal  T' x strength at the hypothetical TV GradeB contour 40dB below 64dBu, or 24dBu.LZDP xP' x ԍ In terms of miles, if everything else is the same, a 40 dB D/U ratio rather than a 50 dB D/U ratio allows  zP' x base stations to be located approximately 48.3 km (30 mi) closer to a cochannel TV station.  See 47 C.F.R.  90.309, Tables A & B.L We are adopting  T' x&a 0dB D/U signal ratio for adjacent channel operations as described in the Second Notice.af P zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,80117,805. a Adjacent  x&channel land mobile transmitters will be limited to a maximum signal which can equal the TV GradeB  xVsignal of 64dBu at the TV station GradeB contour of 88.5km (55miles). A typical TV receiver's  xadjacent channel rejection is at least 10-20dB which will further safeguard TV from land mobile interference.  S' 3. Protection of DTV Stations  T:' "u153.ؠIn the Second Notice, the Commission noted that its tentative proposals were based on  xprotecting analog TV and asked for comments on the appropriate D/U signal ratios that should be applied  T' xto protect DTV.G P zPm%'ԍ Id. at 17,80317,804. G In doing so, the Second Notice stated that DTV transmissions could exhibit a greater  xtresistance to interference than analog transmissions and therefore, DTV stations may be able to accept"F ,l(l(,,N "  T' xa lesser standard of protection.>P zPh'ԍ Id. at 17,803.> The broadcasters argue that there is insufficient technical data to set  xinterference protection standards for DTV and suggest the Commission form a committee composed of  T' xall interested parties to oversee scientific testing.gZP zP'ԍ See, MSTV/NAB Comments at 89; Jovon B/C Comments at 6.g Motorola contends that given the more robust quality  xVof the DTV signal, the same protection used for analog TV stations can be applied to DTV stations  T4'without experiencing serious interference.R4P zP'ԍ See, Motorola Reply Comments at 7.R  T' "154.ؠIn the UHFTV Sharing NPRM, the Commission established a Land Mobile/UHF Television  xTechnical Advisory Committee to provide assistance to the Commission regarding additional land  Ti' xmobile/TV sharing.e^i~P zP ' xM ԍ See Amendment of the Rules Concerning Further Sharing of the UHF Television Band by Private Land  zPQ' x Mobile Radio Services, GEN Docket No. 85172, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 32,488 (August  zP'12, 1985) (UHFTV Sharing MO&O).e Although this committee provided useful information, no agreement on the  T6' xappropriate sharing criteria was reached.6P zPz'ԍ See Land Mobile Radio/UHF Television Technical Advisory Committee, Final Report, May 7, 1986. Because the 1997 Budget Act directs the Commission to  T' xkestablish technical restrictions necessary to protect DTV service during the transition period,M6 P zP'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  337(d)(2).M we believe  xthat the most expedient approach is to proceed on the DTV information currently on record with the  x<Commission. Thus, we decline to establish such a committee at this time and are adopting rules as  Tj ' xmandated by the 1997 Budget Act. We would reexamine this matter if a consensus agreement was presented by the parties.  T ' "155.ؠAfter examining the record, we have decided to apply similar criteria adopted herein for  T ' xprotecting reception of analog TV stations to protecting DTV reception.\ P xP' x ԍ A TV station's hypothetical Grade B contour is plotted based on a 64 dB signal strength using the F(50,50)  zP' x curve. See 47 C.F.R..  73.699. A DTV station's equivalent contour is based on a 41 dB signal strength using  zP'the F(50,90) curve. See 47 C.F.R.  73.625.  Since the Commission  Tl' xallocated DTV channels to replicate existing TV stations service areas,elP zP'ԍ See Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,681. e we will allow the public safety  xstations to provide the same field strength at the equivalent Grade B contour of the DTV station as they  xcdo for an analog TV station and adjust the D/U ratio accordingly. We allowed a TV station to have  xVprotection ratios of 40 dB for cochannel and 0 dB for adjacent channel at its 64 dB field strength  xtcontour. The equivalent ratios for a DTV station 41 dB field strength contour are 17 dB and 23 dB,  Tm' x@respectively. In making this determination, we note that in the Sixth Report and Order in MMDocket  x No.87-268, the Commission specified a minimum geographic separation of 250km (155mi) for co xgchannel operations between DTV stations and the citycenter in the areas where there are existing land"G~,l(l(,, "  T' xmobile operations.P zPh' x ԍ See Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,664. See also, 47 C.F.R.  90.303(a) for the areas where TV/land mobile sharing is currently permitted. Section 90.305(a) of our rules provides that maximum facility land mobile base  T' x<stations can be located up to 80.5km (50mi) from the citycenter of one of the specified cities.M"P zP'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.305(a).M  T' xkConsequently, under the geographic separation adopted in the Sixth Report and Order, a maximum facility  xland mobile base station could choose to locate its station as close as 169.5km (250km 80.5km), or  x105miles. At this distance, the land mobile base station would provide an interfering signal at the DTV  x<station's 88.5km (55mi.) equivalent GradeB contour which would provide less than a 40dB D/U  xIprotection ratio to a DTV receiver. Thus, our decision to require 700MHz land mobile systems to  x&provide signal ratios for DTV stations which will allow approximately the same separation distance as  xwe did for analog TV stations, represents a reasonable balance between the needs of both DTV stations and public safety entities.  S' 4. TV Protected Service Contour Alternatives  Tj ' "156.ؠIn the Second Notice, the Commission raised the issue of whether to protect TV reception  xbased on a geographic separation table or to use a casebycase approach and protect TV stations based  T ' x@on their actual GradeB contour. The Second Notice listed two possible approaches for specifying the  xTV protected Grade B service contour: (1) use a standard 88.5km (55mi) GradeB service contour, as  xZwe did previously; or (2) use the individual GradeB service contour based on the actual parameters of  Tm' x&the TV license.6mP zP' xp ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,80317,804. The TV Grade B service contour is where the D/U  x signal ratio is applied. Thus, to determine the minimum geographic separation needed between public safety base  x stations and TV stations you add the two distances together (the distance of the public safety base station to the  x contour that meets the appropriate D/U signal ratio and the distance of the Grade B service contour from the TV station).6 Under the first approach, the minimum separation distances could be put in a table,  xthus simplifying communication system planning. This approach would also give broadcasters who are  x<operating at less than the "standard" parameters some flexibility to modify their facilities during the  T' xttransition period without raising interference concerns. The Second Notice noted, however, that in the  xIevent of a less than maximum antenna height and full power station, the use of a standard GradeB  xservice contour and geographic separation tables could unnecessarily inhibit public safety use of the  x"spectrum by prohibiting stations that meet the D/U signal ratio requirement at the existing GradeB  T ' x/service contour._ f P zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,80317,804._ To address this concern, the Second Notice discussed an alternative that bases  T' xZprotection on the actual operating parameters of a TV station (e.g., it provides more of a casebycase  T' xapproach to examining interference)._ P zP="'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,80417,805._ Finally, the Second Notice discussed an additional option of  xpermitting new licensees in this spectrum to reach agreements with licensees of protected TV stations that  T@'would be located closer than that permitted under the geographic separation requirements.X@ P zPj%'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,805.X " H,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "157.ؠThe commenters favor geographic separation requirements in a table form similar to the  xcurrent rules. NPSTC, for example, notes that "[w]hile the use of such tables may mean that the  x3maximum optimization will not be achieved in each and every situation that might be available through  xthe use of specific formulas that can perform calculations based on the exact values for the various  xkcharacteristics such as ERP and HAAT, the ease of use of such tables and licensees' familiarity with them  T' xmore than counteracts for the minuscule loss of optimization."IP zPi'ԍ See NPSTC Comments at 48.I MSTV/NAB also recommends that the  xtCommission not protect TV reception on the basis of actual power and antenna height of a TV station,  T'but instead use a table or hypothetical contour.RZP zP 'ԍ See, MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 8.R  T5' "'158.ؠWe concur with the comments that a geographic separation distance table based on a  xstandard 88.5km GradeB service contour (equivalent Grade B for DTV) would be the most convenient  xform. We remain concerned, however, that limiting TV/land mobile separation to distances specified in  xya table may prevent public safety entities from fully utilizing this spectrum in a number of major  xmetropolitan areas until after the transition period ends. We believe that it is necessary to provide  xalternative methods that will give flexibility to public safety entities to locate base stations closer than the  xdistance specified in the separation table without causing excessive interference to TV/DTV stations.  xTherefore, we conclude that public safety applicants should be allowed to submit engineering studies  xDshowing how they propose to meet the appropriate D/U signal ratio at the existing TV station's authorized  x*or applied for GradeB service contour or equivalent contour for DTV stations instead of the hypothetical  xcontour at 88.5km. This would permit public safety applicants to take into account intervening terrain  xVand engineering techniques such as directional and downtilt antennas in determining the necessary  xxseparation to provide the required protection. Public safety applicants who use the engineering techniques  xmust however, consider the actual TV/DTV parameters and not base their study on the 88.5km  xphypothetical or equivalent GradeB contour. Finally, public safety applicants will also be allowed to  xt"shortspace" (locate closer than the Table permits) if they get the approval of the TV stations they are  x required to protect. Thus, under the rules we adopt herein, public safety applicants can select one of  xthree ways to meet the TV/DTV protection requirements: (1) utilize the geographic separation specified  xxin the Table; (2) submit an engineering study to justify other separations which the Commission approves; or (3) obtain concurrence from the applicable TV/DTV station(s).  T' "4159.ؠIn the Second Notice we requested comment on whether the size of the reference TV  xMcontour should be increased because some TV stations have facilities exceeding those upon which the  T' x88.5km (55mile) contour was based.LP zP-'ԍ See Second Notice at 17,804.L According to Sections73.683 and 73.684 of the Commission's  x*Rules, we stated that a TV station with parameters of 5megawatts with an antenna HAAT of 610meters  T;' xcould have a GradeB contour distance of 107kilometers (66.5miles).T;~P zPY"'ԍ See 47C.F.R.73.68373.684.T In order to protect certain  xTV/DTV stations which have extremely large contours due to unusual height situations, such as a  x&television station mounted on top of Mount Wilson near Los Angeles, California, we are incorporating  xan additional factor which must be used by all public safety base, control and mobile stations to protect  xthese few TV/DTV stations and afford the land mobile stations the necessary protection from the  xgTV/DTV stations. The equation necessary to calculate the additional distance from the hypothetical or equivalent GradeB contour is found in the rules section in AppendixE." I,l(l(,, "Ԍ S'ԙ 5. TV/DTV Protection from Control and Mobile Stations  T' "'160.ؠThe Second Notice asked for comments on whether the Commission should establish  Th' xdifferent separation distances for mobile and fixed stations operating in these bands.XhP zP'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,804.X The only comment  T5' xwe received addressing this request was from Motorola in their letter of May 20, 1998.5ZP zP/' x* ԍ See Letter from Motorola to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated  zP'May 20, 1998, at 23 (Motorola exparte). In the  xpreceding paragraphs, we discussed the TV protection requirements needed for base stations operating  xin a particular TV channel. In the 470512 MHz band, this was all that was necessary because mobiles  T' xoperated in the same TV channel as their companion base station.P zP 'ԍ See UHFTV Sharing NPRM, 101 FCC 2d at 873874. See also, 47 C.F.R.  90.311. Consequently, if you could use the  xTV channel for high power base station operations, you could also use it for lowerpowered mobile  x&operation. For public safety use of the 700 MHz band, however, control station and mobile operation  T' xwill usually be on a different TV channel from its companion base station (e.g., base operation on TV  xchannel 63 and mobile operation on TV channel 68 paired operation). If a particular TV channel is  xtavailable for base station operations in a geographic area, it does not automatically mean that the paired  Tk 'TV channel is available for mobile operations.<Zk HP xPS' x ԍ Motorola states that there are only 18 cities in the top 50 U.S. markets for which a channel pair (63/68 or  zP' x 64/69) can be found if TV transmitters must be more than 260 km from the citycenter. See Motorola exparte at 4. <  T ' "0161.ؠThe Tables we incorporate into our rules to protect TV/DTV stations are found in  xSection90.309 of the Commission's rules. These existing Tables cover cochannel protection based on  xga 40dB D/U ratio using the separation methods described in Section73.611 of the Commission's rules  x*for base, control, and mobile stations, and for adjacent channel stations for base stations based on a 0dB  xD/U ratio. However, the considerations under Section90.309 were different in that mobiles were limited  xQin their roaming distance from the base station, mobiles were on the same TV channel as the base station,  xand mobile to mobile communication was not allowed. Control and mobile stations (including portables)  xare limited in height and power and therefore shall afford protection to cochannel and adjacent channel  xtTV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in TableD (cochannel frequencies based on  x40dB protection for TV and 17 dB for DTV) in 90.309 of this part and a minimum distance of  x}8kilometers (5miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV station hypothetical or equivalent GradeB  xcontours (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0dB protection for TV and 23 dB for DTV). This  xmeans that control and mobile stations shall keep a minimum distance of 96.5kilometers (60miles) from  xall adjacent channel TV/DTV stations. Since operators of mobiles and portables are able to move and  xcommunicate with each other, licensees or coordinators must determine the areas where the mobiles can  xand cannot roam in order to protect the TV/DTV stations, and advise the mobile operators of these areas  xand their restrictions. Some of the methods used to determine distances and power levels are described  xin Section90.309, and we find no reason to duplicate them. We will instead refer to them in the new rules. See AppendixE for the rules.  T ' "162.ؠWe have determined from our analysis that for systems using a control or mobile frequency  xon the same or adjacent TV/DTV channel, the control or mobile station shall use the same protection  xcriteria for spacing as a base station. In other words, the control or mobile station needs to protect the"Jj ,l(l(,,Q "  xghypothetical or equivalent GradeB contour to the same 40dB signal ratio that a base station does for a  xcochannel TV stations (17 dB for DTV) and 0dB for an adjacent channel TV station (23 dB for DTV).  xUnder the rules we adopt herein, public safety applicants can select one of three ways to meet the  xTV/DTV protection requirements: (1) utilize the geographic separation specified in the Table; (2) submit  xRan engineering study to justify other separations which the Commission approves; or (3) obtain concurrence from the applicable TV station(s). See AppendixE for the rules.  S' [6. Protection of Public Safety from TV/DTV Stations  T5' "163.ؠThe 1997 Budget Act requires that we ensure that public safety licensees are not subject  T' xto harmful interference from TV and DTV stations.MP zPj 'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  337(d)(4).M To fulfill this mandate, we will require public  x safety[ base and mobile operations to have a safe distance between the cochannel or adjacent TV and  xDTV systems. This typically means that a cochannel and adjacent channel base and mobile system  xtcannot operate in areas where TV stations already exist. The public safety systems that will operate in  xthe 700MHz band for some locations in the U.S. and its possessions must wait until the transition period  x&is over and the TV/DTV stations have moved to other channels before beginning operations. In other  xareas, channels will be available for public safety operations. During the transition period, public safety  xstations must be acutely aware of the TV allocations for both TV and DTV stations. We desire to have  xMthe number of situations where the public safety licensee has to coordinate its station with the existing  x TV stations kept to a minimum. We also do not want to have any future TV stations coordinate with  xexisting public safety systems in the 700MHz band. We do not anticipate this to be a problem because  xDthe Commission's decisions in the reallocation of spectrum to DTV implemented two requirements which  xQwill help public safety systems to protect TV/DTV stations and reduce the number of coordinations. The  xfirst requirement is that conventional UHFTV stations can no longer apply for channels60-69 or  xDmodifications in channels60-69 which would increase the stations' service areas, which creates a known  T' xenvironment for public safety licensees. ZP zP' x ԍ See Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,96922,970. Stations with existing channel 6069 TV construction permits must complete their stations and file for a license by January 2, 2001.  The second requirement is that since only existing TV station  T'licensees can apply for DTV channels, the applicants and their proposed locations are already known. P zP&' x ԍ See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,73914,754; See also In the Matter of Advanced  zP' x Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Memorandum Opinion and  zP' xZ Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998). The 11 DTV allotments are:  xPL'  #X\  P6G;P# hddx` !000 h "  X " "R"   STATEl R  CITYl R"\~NTSC TV Ch.l R"rDTV Ch.l R"ERP (kW)l R"DsHAAT (m)X X  "RR"   California!R  Stockton!R"z)64!R"g62!R$- 63.5!R"Xv874X 8 l  "R8"   California"8  Los Angeles"8"z)11"8"g65"8$ 688.7"8"Xv8968 8 ! "88"   California4$8  Riverside4$8"z)624$8"g684$8$ 180.14$8"Xv7238 8 "  Californial%8  Concordl%8"z)42l%8"g63l%8$e61.0l%8"Xv8568 8 4$ "88"   Pennsylvania&8  Allentown&8"z)39&8"g62&8$e50.0&8"Xv3028 8 l% "88"   Pennsylvania'8  Philadelphia'8"}S6'8"g64'8$1000.0'8"Xv332"&,l(l(&&"8 8 & "88"   Pennsylvania8  Philadelphia8"z)108"g678$ 791.88"Xv3548 8  "88"   Puerto Rico8  Aguada8"z)508"g628$ 50.08"Xv3438 8  "88"   Puerto Rico88  Mayaguez88"z)1688"g6388$e50.088"Xv3478 8  "88"   Puerto Ricop8  Naranjitop8"z)64p8"g65p8$e50.0p8"Xv1428 h  8 "8_"   Puerto Rico_  Aguadilla_"z)12_"g69_$691.8_"Xv665h   p_  xP'#X\  P6G;P# "K0 ,l(l(,,G "Ԍ T' "'ԙ164.ؠWe therefore conclude that public safety base and mobile systems can ensure reliable  xinterference protection in the transition period from TV and DTV stations by using the same distance  xseparations required of them to protect the TV/DTV stations to a D/U signal ratio of 40 dB for a TV and  x17 dB for a DTV co-channel station and 0 dB for a TV and 23dB for a DTV adjacent channel station.  xMAs new DTV stations begin to operate, their antenna heights and powers will be known and the public  xsafety stations can use this information to assist them in engineering their systems. The mobile channel shall use the same criteria for spacing as the base station to ensure adequate protection.  Sh' F. CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS  T' "R165.ؠAlthough we did not specifically mention in the Second Notice the requirement that public  x&safety stations be coordinated along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico, applicants are familiar  xwith our coordination requirements when U.S. stations are located near either of the borders and the  xCommission's requirement under international regulations to coordinate its intended use of the spectrum  T7 ' xwith Canada and Mexico.TZ7 0 P zP' x ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.301 which describes station identification and use of frequencies with a view to the  xx elimination of harmful interference and general enforcement of applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements in force.T In fact, two of the commenters recommend that the Commission make every  xeffort to ensure some type of compatible use of the channels in its international agreements along the  T ' xborders._ R P xP'ԍ NYS Police Comments at 8; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 2._ International coordination between the United States and Mexico and between the United  xQStates and Canada concerning the reallocation of spectrum from broadcast to public safety has begun but has not been completed.  T' "166.ؠIn examining this issue, the Commission typically takes one of two approaches. We either  T' xpostpone licensing of land mobile stations within a certain geographic distance (e.g., 120 km (75 miles))  xkof Canada and Mexico, or permit interim authorizations conditioned on the outcome of future agreements.  xZBecause international negotiations can take many months or even years to finalize, we wish to take the  xlater approach and adopt certain interim requirements for public safety licenses along the Canada and  xMexico borders, providing that the licenses are subject to whatever future agreements the United States  xdevelops with the two countries. Nevertheless, existing mutual agreements with Canada and Mexico for  x@the use of these bands for UHF television must be recognized until further negotiations are completed.  x Additionally, public safety facilities within the United States must accept interference from authorized  xchannel60-69 TV transmitters in Canada and Mexico in accordance with the existing agreements. Since  xthe locations of the Canadian and Mexican assignments are known for UHF television, the public safety"L,l(l(,, "  x*applicants can consider the levels of harmful interference to expect from Canadian and Mexican UHF TV  xstations when applying for a license. Both Canada and Mexico have been informally notified that the  xgCommission has changed its allocated use of TV channels60-69, and the Commission will discuss the possibility of mutually compatible spectrum use with Canada and Mexico.  T' "167.ؠFor the above reasons, we adopt rules which specify that all systems within 120km  x(75miles) of the Canadian border (lineA as defined in 47C.F.R.90.7) or Mexican border be granted  xRconditional licenses until final agreements are signed. Licenses will be conditioned that harmful  xinterference may not be caused to, but may be received from, UHF TV transmitters in Canada or  xMexico, and that modifications may be necessary to comply with whatever arrangements are ultimately  xspecified in future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of this band. Pending further  T' xnegotiations, we also adopt the protection criteria for domestic TV and DTV stations as interim criteria  T 'for Canadian and Mexican TV and DTV stations.l P zP 'ԍ See TV/DTV protection criteria, paras. 152157, supra.l  T7 ''  V. THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ă  T ' "E168. In this Third Notice, we seek comment on how to license the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum  T ' x^in the 700 MHz band that has been designated as reserve spectrum in the First Report. We also ask how  xQto license the 2.6 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that has been designated as interoperability  T:' xgspectrum in the First Report. We also offer proposals to facilitate use of nationwide interoperability in  xQpublic safety bands below 512 MHz. Next, we discuss protection requirements for the Global Navigation  T' x7Satellite Systems.cZP xP' x& ԍ GPS (Global Positioning Service) is the civilian portion of the United States Global Navigation Satellite  x& System (GNSS), made available for commercial use, which utilizes the Aeronautical RadionavigationSatellite  xx (spacetoearth) band of 15591610 MHz on a primary basis and is maintained by the United States Department of  x Defense. Our discussion also includes a section on the protection requirements for GLONASS. GLONASS is the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System.c Finally, we ask for comments related to the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer date change  x@problem and efforts involving Y2K component identification, testing, repair, and contingency planning  xdealing with public safety radio systems themselves and the other equipment or systems on which these systems are dependent.  S' A. USE AND LICENSING OF RESERVE SPECTRUM  Tp' "169. In accordance with the 1997 Budget Act, the Commission allocated 24 megahertz of  T=' xspectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services.h= P zP'ԍ Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1997).h Our First Report commences the licensing  xprocess for 12.6megahertz of this new spectrum and designates another 2.6megahertz of this new  T' xspectrum for nationwide interoperability. This Third Notice seeks comments regarding the appropriate  T' xuse of the reserve frequencies 8.8 megahertz of the spectrum. For example, should the Commission  xlicense the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum pursuant to the RPC process? If not, should the Commission  xklicense the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum directly to each state to meet statewide public safety requirements?  xAlternatively, should the Commission hold the 8.8 megahertz in reserve for future use? We seek  xcomment on these proposals, as well as any other alternatives for licensing administration of the 8.8 megahertz of public safety spectrum. "tM,l(l(,,! "Ԍ T' "170. RPC Process. In 1986, the Commission allocated six megahertz of spectrum in the 800  T' x@MHz band for public safety use.P zP6' xx #X\  P6G;P##X\  P6G;P#э See Amendments of Part 2 and 22 of the Commission's Rules Relative to Cellular Communications Systems,  x* Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 90 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Allocate Frequencies in the 900  x Reserve Band for Private Land Mobile Use, Amendments of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to  x* Allocate Spectrum for, and to Establish Other Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a  zPX' x Land Mobile Satellite Service for the Provision of Various Common Carrier Services, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 1825, 1838 (1986). The Commission determined that active participation by the public  T' xsafety community in the assignment of this new spectrum would be a priority.cDP zP '#X\  P6G;P#э Id. at 1869.c In 1987, the  xCommission adopted service rules and technical standards for the 800 MHz band and established RPCs  xto (1) address spectrum requirements for all eligible entities, and (2) determine how the available  T' xspectrum could best be used to satisfy these requirements.P zPx '#X\  P6G;P#э National Plan Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 905. Participation in the RPCs was to be open  T'to any eligible entity.bh P zP'#X\  P6G;P#э Id. at 910.b  T' "171. We believe the RPC approach has been a reasonably successful method of ensuring that the  xIpublic safety spectrum in the 800 MHz band was assigned fairly and efficiently and put to its most  xappropriate and efficient use. The RPC approach has also maximized spectrum efficiency and facilitated  xaccommodation of a wide variety of public safety communication requirements in different areas  xthroughout the Nation. In addition, those involved in the RPC process have had ten years of experience  T ' xkin spectrum management. Many commenters agree that the RPC approach has been successful.d P zP7'ԍ See, e.g., note PRO RPC199, supra. d Some  x3commenters state that management of public safety spectrum is best handled on a local level and by a  T7 ' xglocal organization" one that includes representatives from each discipline (police, fire, EMS, etc.) and  T ' xceach jurisdiction (state, county, city, etc.). P zP1' x #X\  P6G;P#э See, e.g., The City of Richardson, Texas Comments at 23; City of Fort Lauderdale Reply Comments at  xP'1; NYS Police Comments at 9.  Moreover, several commenters suggest that the RPC  x^process for the 800 MHz band has been successful in balancing the needs of one prospective user against  xxthe needs of other prospective users and urge the Commission to retain the RPC process for licensing and  Tm' xmanagement of the public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band.mP zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See, e.g., California Comments at  31; Motorola Comments at 4. We also note that sheriffs, local  x police, and special police clearly preferred local (multijurisdiction) planning over State, multiState, or":Nx,l(l(,, "  xnational interoperability planning according to a 1997 mail survey of the interoperability experiences and  T'needs of law enforcement agencies across the Nation.P zP5' x ԍ See National Institute of Justice Research Report" State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless  zP' x Communications and Interoperability: A Quantitative Analysis, ix, 61 (Jan. 1998) (NIJ Report). The National  zP' x Institute of Justice (NIJ) is a component of U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The NIJ Report  x  is the result of an NIJsponsored study designed to provide a baseline portrait of law enforcement agencies'  zP[' x7 experiences with wireless telecommunications equipment for routine operations and interoperability. Id at 79. A  xI followon study is currently underway to collect similar information from the fire, emergency medical, and  zP'emergency management communities. See id. at ix.    Tg' "172. Several commenters generally support the RPC process, but suggest that it could be  xmodified to provide an even more efficient and effective method to regulate the assignment of  T' xspectrum.P zP '#X\  P6G;P#э See generally FLEWUG Comments at 1719; National League of Cities Comments at 5. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for instance, generally supports the use of the RPC  xprocess, but notes that RPCs may lack adequate tools, training, and experience to effectively and  T' x^efficiently assign spectrum.nP xP'#X\  P6G;P#э Pennsylvania Comments at 9. n The Joint Commenters, on the other hand, argue that the RPC process has  xbeen hampered by local politics, inadequate diversity of representation across the public safety  xcommunity, lack of funding to introduce new technologies, and inability to coordinate statewide channel  T' xassignmentsv4 P xP'#X\  P6G;P#э Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 5.v and advocate the creation of a state, rather than a regional, planning committee to manage  T' xthe 700 MHz band public safety spectrum.i P xP3'#X\  P6G;P#э Joint Comments at 1314.i A number of states have been evolving to statewide systems  xas a costeffective way of sharing advanced technologies with all jurisdictions and increasing the  x efficiency of public safety operations throughout the region. The RPC process may not lend itself as easily to these types of systems as a staterun process might.  T ' "173. We seek comment on the use of the regional planning approach to administer the 8.8  T ' xkmegahertz of spectrum reserved in the First Report. We also seek comment on whether we should retain  Tk' xthe new RPC process established in the First Report for management of the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum  xor whether we should modify or refine the regional planning approach for this spectrum. We encourage  x7commenters to suggest refinements and modifications to the RPC process that will provide an even more efficient and effective method of spectrum management.  Tm' "174. State Licensing. The PSWAC Interoperability Subcommittee noted that shared systems,  T;' x@i.e., large trunked systems that provide service to many governmental entities in a specific geographic  xarea, offer a greater degree of spectrum efficiency than many smaller nontrunked systems or systems  T' xQtrunked on fewer channels.T P zP#' x@ #X\  P6G;P#э PSWAC Final Report at 317318. Shared systems also offer a high level of builtin interoperability. Id. Recent developments in trunking technology have made possible wide area  x^radio systems that can accommodate many distinct user groups on the same system, each with their own  xinsulated communications network. Trunking and other technologies that maximize spectrum use make  xit not only feasible to share systems with a larger universe of users but also to accommodate users from"=O,l(l(,, "  T' xMoutside state government, including county or municipal governments,7P zPh' x #X\  P6G;P#э#X\  P6G;P# See, e.g., State of Michigan system described in PSWAC Final Report at 734; State of Louisiana system  zP2'described in PSWAC Final Report at 735.7 federal government and even  T'private users, that perform public safetyrelated functions.~$P xP' xD #X\  P6G;P#э#X\  P6G;P# The State of Montana system is a public/private project being planned with the Montana Power Company  zPY' x and is projected to have federal users.  See  Letter from Ron Haraseth, Systems Analyst, State of Montana, to John  x Clark, FCC at 2 (March 26, 1998) (Haraseth Letter). The State of South Carolina/SCANA system is a partnership  x between the State and a private utility. Their jointly planned system involves contribution of infrastructure and  x Industrial/Land Transportation frequencies by SCANA and infrastructure and Public Safety and SERS frequencies  zP{ ' xk by the State. See  In the Matter of State of South Carolina and SCANA Communications Inc., Order, 13 FCC Rcd  zPE '8787 (1997) (South Carolina Order).  Tg' "E175. Deploying regional and statewide systems may provide positive incentives for increasing  xaccess by all sectors of the public safety community to the benefit of advanced highly functional  x3technologies. Obtaining the benefits of economics of scale and scope is one incentive for deploying a  xstateofthe art system that serves the entire state and/or region. States deploying such systems have an  xMincentive to be as inclusive as possible in encouraging jurisdictions with public safety communications  x@needs throughout the state to share the system because it will incrementally decrease the cost any one  x*entity needs to bear for infrastructure buildout and allows a greater number of public safety jurisdictions  xEto benefit from access modern technology at affordable prices. Thus, the substantial costs for  T' xtransmission towers, other infrastructure and maintenance for such systemslj P T' x #&a\  P6G;#R&P#э #X\  P6G;P#The State of Florida system, for example, is designed to employ 51 digital trunked channels and is projected  zP' xt to cost $336 million. See  In the Matter of State of Florida, Request for Waiver of the General Category Freeze,  zP{'Order, 12 FCC Rcd 11,567 (1997) (Florida Order). can be more easily borne  xby including as many users on the system as possible in order to lower the peruser cost for the whole  xsystem. We seek comment on whether a regional or statewide system would provide economies of scale  xkand scope that would increase incentives to participate in the regional or statewide system. We also seek  T ' xkcomment on whether our decision in the First Report to allow states to "opt out" and redefine RPCs along  xstate boundaries may provide enough increased flexibility necessary to achieve positive incentives for increasing system use without giving the spectrum directly to the states under a new licensing scheme.  T8' "+176. Conceivably, states could use a state license to provide opportunities to introduce greater  x*competition among equipment manufacturers, network designers, and software companies. Some states  xymay even use the license to provide a "national stage" for local companies with worthwhile new  T' xapproaches to spectrumbased innovation. P zP' x* ԍ Accord Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 13 (arguing that Project 25 has had the unintended effect of producing a highly concentrated market for public safety equipment). We seek comment on whether state governments have the  xDpolicy and technical expertise to determine how best to increase the efficiency of public safety operations  xDthroughout the state through the deployment of spectrumbased technologies. We also seek comment on  xwhether states have more or less policy and technical expertise in this area than those entities currently participating in the RPC process.  Tm' "177. Promoting the use of spectrum to further safety of life and property is one of this agency's  xprimary mandates. How these needs were met was highly dependent upon local professional and financial  xresources. We seek comment on whether by creating a regional or statewide license, each state would"P,l(l(,, "  xkhave the incentive and expertise to experiment with many technologybased alternatives for better meeting  x^the public safety concerns of all residents, not just the betterfunded municipalities and counties. We also  xseek comment on whether the states would have the resources needed to promote the development of a  xstatewide system. We further seek comment on whether some states would have fewer resources than others and how this could affect the viability of grants of state licenses.  T' "178. Over the past several years an increasing number of states have endeavored to construct  T' xstatewide systems. Systems have been built or planned in many states including South Carolina,P zP'#X\  P6G;P#э#X\  P6G;P# See South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd 8787.  Th' xcVirginia, California, New Hampshire,8hZP zPb ' xD #X\  P6G;P#э#X\  P6G;P# See In re Application of State of New Hampshire for Facilities in the Public Land Mobile service at Various Locations in the State of New Hampshire, File No. 27047CDP/L94.8 Montana,DhP zP 'ԍ See Haraseth Letter.D Florida,[hFP zPN'ԍ See Florida Order, 12 FCC Rcd 11,567.[ Delaware,hP zP'ԍ See In the Matter of State of Delaware Station License Authorizations, GN Docket No. 89573. Missouri, Pennsylvania,  T5' xLouisiana,T5j P zP?'ԍ See PSWAC Final Report at 735.T Utah, and Michigan.T5 P zP'ԍ See PSWAC Final Report at 734.T The most significant difficulty in establishing statewide, shared  T' x&systems is that individual agencies and localities must surrender some autonomy.N P zP0'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 316317.N Moreover, those  x@administering a statewide, shared system might be less responsive to local needs and requirements of  xrural areas and more responsive to the needs and requirements of the major metropolitan areas. We seek  xtcomment on whether the public interest would be served by licensing some or all of the 8.8 megahertz  xgof reserved spectrum directly to the state in order to facilitate the construction of a statewide system.  x3We seek comment on how much, if any, of the reserved spectrum should be licensed to the state. In  xaddition, we seek comment on whether the state should adhere to the same planning process as the RPCs.  xIf so, we seek comment on whether the state's plan must contain the same elements as the RPCs plan,  Tj' xas adopted in the First Report. For example, the benefits of RPC planning include an open process,  xinclusion, and accountability. If we conclude that the public interest would be served by licensing some  xor all of the 8.8 megahertz of reserved spectrum directly to the state, what measures are appropriate to  xensure that the state planning process is open, inclusive and accountable? Because no states have asked  xfor state licensing and several states filed comments in support of the RPC, we specifically invite states to comment on these issues.  T' "8179. We also seek comment on whether the state government should be permitted both to use  xand share the use of these frequencies with its local, political subdivisions, as well as Federal and other  xpublic safety service providers. Further, we seek comment on whether additional licenses should be  x3required or granted by the Commission to individual public safety agencies or whether a single license"mQ ,l(l(,, "  T' xshould be granted to the state, which would manage the use of its authorized spectrum statewide. P xPh' x ԍ "Blanket" licensees generally do not need Commission approval prior to constructing or operating facilities  x within the scope of the license. However, the Commission's rules implementing the National Environmental Policy  x Act of 1969, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  43214335, require "blanket" licensees to initially ascertain whether a  x proposed facility may have a significant environmental impact and, if so, the licensee must file required information  zP' x and environmental processing (if invoked) must be completed prior to the initiation of construction. See 47 C.F.R.  xk  1.1312. Similarly, 47 C.F.R. Part 17 contains rules concerning the construction, marking, and lighting of antenna  x3 structures. Moreover, all 700 MHz stations will be subject to any power limitations imposed by international  zP'agreements, see, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  24.132(g), as well as Quiet Zone protection requirements, see, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  22.369.  We  xseek comment on whether, other than interference protection to adjacent and cochannel operations, we  xshould propose any restrictions on use of the state license other than that it serve the public safety needs  x&of all the state's citizens. We seek comment on whether the aggregate limits of 25 kHz (narrowband)  T4' xand 150 kHz (wideband) adopted today in the First Report is appropriate for state licenses,9Z4P zPp ' x ԍ Herein, we are only addressing the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum. As stated in the First Report, we  x believe these aggregation limits are appropriate for general use where several public safety entities need to be accommodated. 9 and if not, what limits are appropriate for a statewide system.  T' "180. We also seek comment on the mechanics of granting licenses to the individual states.  x+Specifically, should these frequencies be granted to the Governor, or his/her designee directly?  x@Alternatively, should the Governor's use of the spectrum be coordinated with the elected legislature of  x&each state? We also seek comment on whether any relevant differences in structures of various state  xpgovernments would affect the licensing of this spectrum to a Governor in coordination with a state legislature.  T7 ' "181. Other Alternatives. We seek comment on what other flexible licensing approaches exist  xQthat might promote the development of a comprehensively planned, public safety communication systems  xin the 700 MHz band. We encourage commenters to suggest alternatives uses of this 8.8 megahertz of  xspectrum that would promote new and innovative ways to better serve public safety community. We also  xxseek comment on whether some or all of the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum should remain in reserve pending future developments. If so, we seek comment on how much should remain in reserve.  T' "182. Administration of Interoperability Spectrum (2.6 megahertz designated in First Report). A  T' xxtotal of 2.6 megahertz of the public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band is designated in the First Report  xgfor nationwide interoperability pursuant to the guidelines to be established by the National Coordination  xCommittee and approved by the Commission. To ensure seamless interoperability nationwide, these  xinteroperable systems must be established in accordance with the technical and operational guidelines to  T' xbe developed by the National Coordinating Committee.$ P zP4"' xx ԍ The First Report establishes rules and policies that designate 2.6 megahertz of 700 MHz band spectrum for  x interoperability. We also define therein the framework for nationwide interoperability and establish a national  x^ planning process that will allow the public safety community to establish a national baseline(s) for operation and  zP$'use of interoperability spectrum. See First Report.  We seek comment on whether the designated  xtinteroperability channels (2.6 megahertz of spectrum) are appropriate for direct state licensing because  xthe development of 700 MHz band interoperable systems will likely be directed by the states or the larger"pR,l(l(,, "  T' x}political subdivisions within each state.ZP zPh'ԍ See section A of the First Report. Z We also seek comment on how the state licensees would  xprovide ongoing and uniform management of statewide systems operating on the interoperability  xchannels, thereby ensuring that use throughout the state remains compatible with the national  xinteroperability guidelines. We seek comment on whether the states are an effective and appropriate  x@"bridge" between local and Federal governments to facilitate the development of interoperable systems  xthat will service all elements of the public safety community. We also seek comment on the use of the  T' xregional planning approach to license the 2.6 megahertz of interoperability spectrum and, if so, whether  xkwe should modify or refine the regional planning approach for this spectrum. We encourage commenters  x7to suggest refinements and modifications to the RPC process that will provide an even more efficient and  T5' x effective method of spectrum management, in accordance with the National Plan adopted in the First  T'Report.  T ' "+183. Conforming Amendments to Section 90.179. Section 90.179A ZP xP 'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.179. A of our rules provides that  xla licensee may share its system with other entities that are eligible to hold a license for the same  x7spectrum. A station is shared when persons not licensed for the station control it for their own purposes  T ' x3pursuant to the licensee's permission.C P xP'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.179(a).C Should we decide to license individual states, we will need to  xZrevise Section 90.179. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to revise Section 90.179 to allow a  xDstate licensees to authorize appropriate public safety agencies within the state and its political subdivisions  xto use the spectrum for their own purposes pursuant to the licensee's authorization. The state, as  x3licensee, would be responsible for assuring that the authorized facility is used only by persons and for  T' xpurposes consistent with Section 90.179.5XzP xP!' x ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.179(b). As with current Section 90.179, the shared use of the spectrum licensed to the  x individual states would be predicated on the authorized user and the state complying with all the provisions of Section 90.179. 5 For example, if the state, as licensee, shares a land station  xon a nonprofit, cost sharing basis, it must do so pursuant to a written agreement between the state and  T' xeach participant that is kept as part of the station records.MP zP'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.179(d).M We also seek comment on whether to amend  x*Section 90.1 of the Commission's Rules to reflect that the scope of Part 90 does not govern the licensing  T;'of radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States.L;, P zP'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  305(a). L  T' "184. Legal Authority. This Third Notice seeks comments regarding the appropriate spectrum  xmanagement process to use for the reserve frequencies (8.8 megahertz of spectrum) and also invite  xkcommenters to suggest alternative methods. We also ask whether the designated interoperability channels  x(2.6 megahertz of spectrum) should be licensed by means of the Regional Planning Committee process  xor licensed directly to each state. While our legal authority to adopt an RPC process is well established,  T' xwe ask commenters to address the Commission's legal authority to adopt other approaches including  T'alternatives described above or suggested in comments to this Third Notice. "rS ,l(l(,, "Ԍ S' 4B. INTEROPERABILITY BELOW 512 MHz  T' "185. In this section, we continue and expand our examination of possible solutions to the lack  Tg' x<of interoperability between and among government public safety entities. In the Second Notice we4  xQtentatively concluded that the establishment of nationwide interoperability channels is in the public interest  T' xand will significantly advance our goal of facilitating communication among public safety agencies.TP zPj'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,727.T  xAlthough we are taking actions herein to provide for significant interoperability in the 700 MHz band, we seek additional comments on interoperability needs below 512 MHz.  T6' "186. In response to the Second Notice, many commenters informed us that higher frequency  T' xbands, i.e., the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands, do not possess the long distance capability or propagation  T' xcharacteristics of lower frequencies.9ZZP zP ' x ԍ  First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,476; FLEWUG Comments at 11; APCO Comments at 89; DOT Comments  x at 9; Ericsson Comments at 1112; New Hampshire Comments at 10; No. Cal. APCO Comments at 4; PG County Comments at 5; Powell Comments at 9.9 Migration to the 800 MHz band has not been a viable option for  xtmany public safety agencies operating in rural areas usually due to investments in existing systems and  Tl ' xthe cost of migrating to a new system.Sl |P zP'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,465.S This results in fragmentation of the use of the spectrum in  xxurban and nonurban areas. In many cases, state and local agencies now operate communication systems  xgin different radio bands using different technologies which often render them incompatible. Similarly,  xfederal agencies licensed by NTIA operate on noncontiguous frequencies scattered throughout the VHF  T ' xand UHF bands.S P zPN'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,469.S Consequently, local, state, and federal public safety agencies often have only limited  xRability to communicate with each other. This inability to communicate hinders cooperation and  T:'coordination among public safety agencies on a daytoday basis.S:P zPz'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,469.S  T' "=187. The PSWAC Final Report proposes the establishment of interoperability channels,  xencouraging the development and use of shared systems, and of building gateways between technically  To' xincompatible Federal, state, and local public safety systems.ro2 P zPA'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 3; First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,472.r The PSWAC Final Report states that the  T=' x@diversity of public safety spectrum resources presents the first obstacle to interoperability.L= P zP 'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 4849.L Federal,  x3state and local public safety agencies use a total of ten radio bands, ranging from 30 MHz to over 800  xMHz, with no single, commercial grade radio having the capability of operating in all of these bands.  xThus, individual public safety agencies may be prevented from communicating with another agency  Tq' xsimply because their individual radio systems operate in different frequency bands.3qV P zPg%'ԍ Id.3 Although the 821 xt824 MHz and 866869 MHz bands are adjacent to frequencies already used for public safety purposes,  x*we believe that most of public safety radio systems, especially smaller ones, operate in the VHF and UHF" T,l(l(,, "  xbands below 512 MHz. Locating interoperability channels above 512 MHz will not help these police  T' xofficers, EMS technicians, firefighters, and other providers of public safety.JP xP5'ԍ Motorola Reply at 3; APCO at 11.J Also, some commenters  T' x*to the First Notice indicated that the 800 MHz band is not as desirable as the bands below 512 MHz from  Th' x^a propagation standpoint.ThXP zP`'ԍ Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,727.T These commenters also noted that interoperability channels should be located  T5' xcin these lower bands because of their proximity to current public safety operations.35P zP'ԍ Id.3 The lack of  xinteroperability channels, lack of a common communications mode and other technical, political and  T' xregulatory obstacles also stand in the way of interoperability.L|P zP 'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 4849.L Moreover, the 700 MHz band spectrum  xwill not be available for public safety use in many of our largest cities until the end of the DTV transition  Ti'period, which is scheduled for the year 2006.eiP zP'ԍ Allocation Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 14,68284.e  T' "l188. After review of the record before us, we tentatively conclude that locating interoperability  xgchannels in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands does not, standing alone, provide a comprehensive short  xgterm solution to the interoperability problem for either voice or data applications and that establishment  xof nationwide interoperability channels here is not mutually exclusive with the establishment of  T7 ' x interoperability channels in other bands.I7 P zPw'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 49.I For this reason, we tentatively conclude that in addition to  x@five interoperability channels in the 800 MHz band and the approximately 2.6 MHz we designate today  xfor interoperability purposes in the 700 MHz band, we will include five nationwide interoperability  xchannels located in the 150174 MHz band and another 5 nationwide interoperability channels in the 450 x/512 MHz band to provide expeditious interoperability capability to public safety agencies and other  xgproviders not relocating in the near future to the 700 MHz or 800 MHz bands. We also seek comment  xgon whether it is necessary to establish a nationwide interoperability band below 512 MHz. We discuss  xbelow the options of locating 10 interoperability channels in the 150174 MHz and 450512 MHz bands and locating interoperability channels in the 138144 MHz band on a shared use basis.  T9' "+189. In the Commission's Maritime Third Report and Order,e^92 P zP ' x ԍ See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, Third  zP' x} Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, PR Docket 92257, FCC 98151 (rel. July 9, 1998)  zP '(Maritime Third Report and Order).e we concluded that designating  xtwo contiguous VHF maritime public correspondence channel pairs for public safety users in each inland  T' xVHF Public Coast Station Areas, but not in the maritime VPCs, would best further the public interest.X P xP#'ԍ The channels designated in each inland VPC are set forth in the proposed rules in Appendix F.  T' xWe stated that the ultimate use for these reserved frequencies, and the procedures for licensing this  Tn' xIspectrum, shall be decided as part of this public safety proceeding.fnP zP&'ԍ See Maritime Third Report and Order at para. 31.f In the section below entitled"nUz,l(l(,,( "  x@"Interoperability Channels from the VHF Maritime Band," we propose rules and procedures to allocate these channels as a short term solution for interoperability in many areas of the country.  Sg' 1. Interoperability Channels in Existing Public Safety Bands  T' "190. In the First Notice, we indicated that we were considering designating universal mutual aid  T' xxchannels or installing crossband repeaters or gateways.SP zP7'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,472.S We added that we hoped inexpensive software  x*programming could modify much of the mobile and portable equipment currently employed by the public  Ti' xsafety agencies and retrofit them for operation on the interoperability channels.RiZP zPc 'ԍ  First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12475.R We tentatively  xconcluded that, possibly, the most expeditious way to provide an interoperability capability was to  xZestablish interoperability bands in frequencies that are preferably central and adjacent to existing public  x&safety bands below 512 MHz for those public safety agencies that will not be moving to the 700 MHz  x4or 800 MHz bands. As the best way to achieve this, we proposed to locate five nationwide  xtinteroperability channels at VHF 150174 MHz, and another five nationwide interoperability channels at  xUHF 450512 MHz. The establishment of these interoperability bands is in accordance with the findings  T 'and recommendations of the PSWAC.I P zP'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 52.I  T ' "191. Five interoperability channels at the VHF band and another five at the UHF band are the  xbest locations for providing immediate nationwide interoperability to a substantial sector of the public  x&safety community with today's equipment because most law enforcement agencies have conventional  T' xanalog systems that operate in high VHF bands.~P zP#' xD ԍ National Institute of Justice, Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local Law  zP'Enforcement Agencies, January, 1998 (NIJ Interoperability Study), at 2. Also, one dualband radio that covers this band is  T' xalready available.SP zPL'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,484.S Most commenters to the First Notice and in the Second Notice favor the  T' x3establishment of this interoperability capability in one or more of these locations.l P xP' x ԍ FLEWUG Comments at 12; Quantum Comments at 4; Powell Comments at 1011; Motorola Reply at 2; IACP at 35. The Public Safety  xQCommunications Council (PSCC) proposed very specific channel locations in these two bands: five in the  xVHF band and four in the UHF band. These five VHF band recommendations are: 151.1375,  xR154.4525, 155.7525, 158.7375 and 159.4725 MHz. The four UHF band recommendations are:  T' xQ453.20625, 453.99375, 458.20625 and 458.99375 MHz.j P xP8"'ԍ Letter from Larry Miller to Kathryn Hosford at 1 (Dec. 5, 1997).j Another commenter listed several frequencies  T' xcthat it claims are mostly unused.pT P xP$'ԍ Letter from Peter Szerlag to Secretary of the FCC at 1 (Oct. 7, 1997).p We propose to follow the PSCC proposal because it represents  xMindustries' view that these frequencies are viable and would not require another study to locate unused  xchannels. We seek comment on these frequencies, including recommendations on a specific fifth UHF  xDchannel. We also seek comment on a requirement that every public safety mobile radio have the capacity"V,l(l(,, "  x<to transmit and receive on at least one nationwide interoperability channel in the band in which it is operating.  S'   Sg'2. Interoperability Channels in the 138144 MHz Band   T' " 192. In the First Notice, the Commission said that it viewed relocating all public safety  xcommunications to a new band as a way of meeting interoperability needs, although we recognized that  x'migration to a new public safety band would present several challenges and that a common  Ti' xinteroperability standard for all public safety would be required.SiP zP'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,475.S We said that under this approach  T6' xcertain channels could be designated exclusively for nationwide mutual aid use.S6ZP zP0 'ԍ First Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 12,469.S Many commenters to  T' xMthe First Notice and Second Notice favored the reallocation of some amount of spectrum between 138  T' xMHz and 512 MHz to immediately address interoperability needs.gP zP]' x* ԍ Petition of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council for Further Rulemaking to Allocate  zP'' xb Spectrum in the 138144 MHz Band for Public Safety (Apr. 9, 1998) (NPSTC Petition), at 2, 6; PSWAC Final Report  x* at 21; NPSTC Comments at 89, Appendix A (proposing interoperability channel allocation plan for bands below  zP' x3 512 MHz); California Reply at 3; IACP Comments at 35; FLEWUG Comments at 8. The NPSTC Petition was  zP' x placed on Public Notice on May 13, 1998 and will be handled in another proceeding. See Public Notice, "Office  x of Public Affairs Reference Operations Division Petitions for Rulemaking Filed," Report No. 2276 (rel. May 13, 1998).g The PSWAC ISC recommended  xallocating interoperability spectrum in the UHF band below 512 MHz and that these specific frequencies  Tk ' xand frequency pairs be defined using developed Incident Command System (ICS) guidelines.Ik 4 P zP?'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 52.I NPSTC  T8 ' x&supported this recommendation and proposed reallocating 2.5 megahertz in the 138144 MHz band.g8 P zP'ԍ NPSTC Petition at 2, 6; PSWAC Final Report at 21.g  x3NPSTC indicates that although the 138144 MHz band is not scheduled by NTIA for reallocation until  xthe year 2008, it will be cleared of most federal users before that time and could readily be used on a  T ' xshared basis in the interim.E X P zP'ԍ NPSTC Petition at 6. E The PSWAC Final Report recommended this band for possible public safety  xsharing. NPSTC notes that FEMA is using it in emergencies to coordinate with state and local disaster  T:'response personnel.e:P zP'ԍ NPSTC Petition at 6; PSWAC Final Report at 58. e  T' "A193. NTIA has recently identified 3 megahertz in the 138144 MHz band for reallocation in  T' xresponse to the 1997 Budget Act; 139.0140.5 MHz and 141.5143 MHz.x|P xP#' x ԍ Title III - Communication and Spectrum Allocation Provisions - of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires  x the Secretary of Commerce to provide from the spectrum currently allocated for federal use, an aggregate of at least  xZ 20 megahertz below 3 gigahertz for allocation and assignment by the Federal Communications Commission to  x; non-Federal users through the process of competitive bidding. In February 1998, the National Telecommunications  x and Information Administration, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, published a Spectrum Reallocation Report "&,l(l(&"  x as required by Title III of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Commission is required, not later than one year  x after receipt of the reallocation report, to prepare, submit to the President and the Congress, and implement a plan  x for the immediate allocation and assignment of all such frequencies. We expect to initiate a proceeding in the near  x. future proposing such a plan. We note that the NTIA Spectrum Reallocation Report identified the frequency bands  x 139 - 140.5 MHz and 141.5 - 143 Mhz for reallocation of this spectrum in January 2008. Comments filed in the  x current proceeding will be taken into account in developing the Commission's plan for reallocation and assignment of this spectrum.  This spectrum is currently"W,l(l(,,U "  xZused by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which will  T' xrelocate most of their operations to other frequency bands by the year 2008.FP zPu 'ԍ NPSTC Petition at 4. F NPSTC states there will  xMbe indefinite use of this band at 36 military bases with areas of interference protection ranging in most  Tg' xQcases from 50 to 65 kilometers from those locations.~\gP zP ' x ԍ NPSTC Petition at 4; Spectrum Reallocation Report: Response to Title III of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997  zPk ' xc (NTIA Spectrum Reallocation Report), U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Special Publication 9836 (February 1998). ~ NPSTC believes that the Commission, NTIA and  xCongress must carefully consider withholding a portion of the 138144 MHz band from auctions and  T' xreallocating it for public safety use.F P zP_'ԍ NPSTC Petition at 3. F Since the foreseeable need for wideband data channels will be  xgaccommodated in the 700 MHz band, interoperability channels located in the 138144 MHz band could  xbe limited to those relatively few frequencies needed for voice interoperability purposes, which PSWAC  Th' xISC estimates to be 21 paired channels and 20 simplex channels.IhP P zPX'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 52.I The frequencies could be used with  xNequipment employing the simple, inexpensive and easily accessible technical and modulation  xrequirements, for example, a 2.5 kHz analog FM channel. These technical requirements could allow  xmany users to operate on these channels by programming or retuning their own radios. Other users could  T ' xtoperate on this band by purchasing small, lightweight, inexpensiveJ P xP'ԍ Approximately $100200 dollars. J radios that might be snapped on a  Ti ' x@belt or carried in a pocket. Comments in reply to the Second Notice rarely addressed our proposal for  xrequiring interoperability radios, and those comments did not address communicating through  xinteroperability channels located in the 138144 MHz band. We seek comment on the need to establish  T ' xan interoperability band below 512 MHz as suggested by the PSWAC Final Report and supported by  T ' xcomments.<Z rP zP' x& ԍ NPSTC Petition at 2, 6; PSWAC Final Report at 21; NPSTC Comments at 89, Appendix A (proposing  x7 interoperability channel allocation plan for bands below 512 MHz); California Reply at 3; IACP Comments at 35; FLEWUG Comments at 8. < We are particularly interested in comment regarding the establishment of an interoperability  xband in the 138144 MHz band. We also seek comment on the practicality of providers of public safety  xservices acquiring small, inexpensive radios that are capable of communicating in the 138144 MHz  T'frequency band.P xP:%' x ԍ We note that the comments received on this matter will be analyzed in the context of a future proceeding regarding the allocation of 138144 MHz band. "X,l(l(,,k "Ԍ S' 53. Interoperability Channels from the VHF Maritime Band  T' "194. The Commission's Maritime Third Report and Order designated two contiguous 25 kHz  xMchannel pairs in the VHF (156162 MHz) maritime band in the VHF Public Coast Station areas (VPCs)5  x^that are not near major waterways, a region stretching from the western Great Plains to eastern California  T' x&and Oregon, exclusively for public safety users.mP zPj'ԍ See Maritime Third Report and Order at Appendix C, D, and E. m Channel 25 (157.250/161.850 MHz) was set aside  xfor public safety use throughout the region, but, due to incumbent licensees (whose operations were  T' xgrandfathered and continue to be protected), no contiguous channel pair was equally available.\ZP zP 'ԍ Maritime Third Report and Order at para. 18.\  xpAccordingly, in some parts of the region the public safety setaside consists of Channels 25 and 84  x(157.225/161.825 MHz), and in the other areas it consists of Channels 25 and 85 (157.275/161.875  T' xMHz).^P zP 'ԍ Maritime Third Report and Order at Appendix E.^ The Third R&O did not decide the intended use, method of allocation, or standards for  T' x3licensing of these frequencies.\~P zP'ԍ Maritime Third Report and Order at para. 31.\ We propose to license these channels under Part 90 and utilize them  xNfor interoperability in the selected 33 VPCs to assist the short term need for interoperability.  xUnfortunately, this will not alleviate the greatest need for spectrum, which occurs in the largest cities in  T8 ' xthe United States. We did not raise this issue in the Second Notice since the Maritime Third Report and  T 'Order was not completed at that time, and thus, have not yet asked for comment on this proposal.  T ' "y195. One of the concerns we have is that public safety channels are usually allowed under Part  x90 to have maximum effective radiated power of 1000 watts. The public coast stations which utilize these  T;' xchannels are limited to a transmitter output power of 50 watts.F;P xP'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  80.215(c)(1).F Ideally, we would prefer to allow the  xpublic safety stations to use the same facilities and standards that we adopted for the 700 MHz band and  xother Part 90 land mobile systems. However, the public coast channels may not only be used by coast  T' xstations but are shared with users under Part 90 that were licensed pursuant to Section 90.283.P zP'ԍ See former 47 C.F.R  90.283 (removed by the Maritime Third Report and Order at Appendix F). All of  To' xthese users are limited to transmitter power of 50 watts.o2 P zPA' x ԍ See former 47 C.F.R.  90.283(c) (1997) (limiting transmitter power of part 90 users sharing VHF public coast spectrum to 50 watts). Therefore, we propose that public safety  xDlicensees also use these channels in accordance with the rules, standards, and procedures formerly found  xMin Section 90.283 and be subject to coordination of their stations with Canada and Mexico in the same  xmanner as the public coast stations. We seek comment on establishing these channels and standards for  xIpublic safety interoperability use and its affect on the Act. See Appendix F for the proposed rules, definitions, and locations of the 33 economic areas.  S=' "=Y ,l(l(,, "Ԍ x1C. GLOBAL ORBITING NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GLONASS) AND GLOBAL  S'POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)  Tg' e 196.` ` The Second Notice sought comment on the potential for interference to GLONASSeXgP xP' x ԍ GLONASS is the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System which will use the 1598 x 1605 MHz portion of the RadionavigationSatellite Service (spacetoEarth) allocation at 15591610 MHz, when the GLONASS system reaches its final frequency configuration after 2005.e and  T5' xGPS 5P xP' x3 ԍ GPS (Global Positioning System) is also in operation, and it will be the United States component of the  x Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). GPS utilizes the lower portion of the RadionavigationSatellite Service  x (spacetoEarth) allocation from 15591610 MHz on a primary basis, and is maintained by the United States Department of Defense. satellites from public safety systems operating in the 794806 MHz band (TV channels 6869).`5P zP 'ԍ See Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,77817,779. `  T' x1Specifically, we sought comment on the effects of second harmonic transmissionswb P xP' x ԍ Radio transmitters produce energy not only on the desired frequency (such as 794 MHz) but also lesser  x amounts of energy on multiples of the desired frequency, known as harmonics. In this example, the second  x harmonic (twice the desired frequency) would be 1588 MHz, and the third harmonic (three times the desired  x frequency) would be 2382 MHz. Although most of the power generated is on the desired frequency, very sensitive receivers can detect the smaller amounts of power generated on the harmonic frequencies. w to GPS and  xGLONASS receivers, and the potential impact of additional requirements to public safety systems in the  xnewly reallocated 746806 MHz band. Aeronautical interests, specifically the Federal Aviation  xDAdministration (FAA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) express concern about this issue  x*and strongly encourage the Commission to set strict technical standards to protect the sensitive nature of  T' x*these systems.[P zP'ԍ See FAA Comments at 1; USDOT Comments at 1.[ NTIA also recommends that stringent standards to ensure that public safety equipment  T' xZdoes not cause radio frequency interference to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)P xP' xk ԍ GNSS as currently envisioned will consist of the GPS and GLONASS systems that provide radionavigation satellite services worldwide. when  T ' xused for precision approach and landing. P xP9'ԍ See NTIA letter dated July 30, 1998, to Mr. Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. The public safety community, however, questions whether  xIthe reductions in the outofband emissions cited by the aeronautical community can practically be  x3achieved, and asserts that the recommended standards would have a severe negative impact on public  T ' xsafety use of the 794806 MHz band (TV Channels 68 and 69).D P xP0!'ԍ NPSTC Reply Comments at 9.D We recognize that this issue is of  xcritical importance to both navigation and public safety interests and therefore we desire to obtain as  xcomplete a record as possible before making a decision. We believe that additional information is needed  xtbefore we arrive at a final decision with respect to this matter. We are particularly concerned with the  ximpact of imposing the stringent standards recommended by the commenters on the design of public safety equipment so as to make the 700 MHz band impractical for public safety use.  T' "+197. NTIA advocates that outofband emissions limits for GNSS be limited to 70 dBW/MHz  xtfor wideband emissions and 80 dBW/700 Hz for narrowband emissions at the transmitter based on an"lZ,l(l(,,% "  xassumed separation distance of 30 meters (100 feet) from the GPS or GLONASS receiver for spurious  T' xDor harmonic signals in the 15591605 MHz band. P xP5' x ԍ See letter dated September 18, 1997 from Mr. Richard Parlow, Associate Administrator of NTIA, to Mrs. Regina Keeney, Chief, International Bureau. These levels are consistent with levels recommended  T' xby the FAA.<  P xPZ'ԍ FAA comments at 1.< These limits are based on international recommendations by RTCA and ETSI for mobile  Tg' xtearth terminals in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). gP zP' x ԍ See RTCA Inc. Special Committee 159, Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the GNSS,  x Document No, RTCA/DO235, January 27, 1997. The RTCA report contained two appendices ! one was endorsed  x by the aviation community and the other by the MSS community. The MSS community arrived at a value that was  zP ' x less stringent (i.e., 54 dBW/MHz) than that arrived at by the aviation community with respect to protection of  zP ' x! GLONASS. See also, European Testing and Standards Institute (ETSI) standards TBR041 and TBR042 for Mobile Earth Terminals in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2.0 GHz range, respectively. The USDOT expresses its concerns regarding  xinterference from certain portions of the 746806 MHz band (TV Channels 6069) to GPS and  T' xQGLONASS.> . P xP'ԍ USDOT Comments at 1.> The U.S. GPS Industry Council (Council)  P xP_' x ԍ The U.S. GPS Industry Council is comprised of American companies which promote civil applications of the GPS. echoes the concerns of the FAA and USDOT  x*and advises that the GPS system is a critical component of many public safety services such as maritime  xoperation in harbors and coastal waterways, police, fire and emergency rescue operations, and in  Th' xwidespread use by the FAA in commercial aviation.@hP xP'ԍ Council Comments at 2.@ The Council notes that it would indeed be ironic  xif a public safety wireless telecommunications caused interference to the safety applications being served  T'by the GPS.9P zPH'ԍ Id. at 3.9  T ' " 198. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) questions whether the  xsevere reductions in the outofband emissions for the proposed equipment needed to protect GPS systems  T6 ' xcan practically be achieved by the manufacturers.D6 8P xP'ԍ NPSTC Reply Comments at 9.D NPSTC asserts that the radios could become more  x costly, heavier, and larger than desired for public safety use. NPSTC suggests that one solution is to  x&remove the location and elevation errors feature (the selective availability feature) from GPS receivers  xtand to require aircraft to use GPS rather than GLONASS when operating within U.S. boundaries since  Tj' xthe GPS is more impervious to interference than GLONASS.:jP zP"'ԍ Id. at 10.: APCO argues that the FAA's proposed  T7' xlevels are unnecessary and may be unattainable by land mobile radio equipment manufacturers.D7ZP xP1%'ԍ APCO Reply Comments at 15.D  xgMotorola states that only a small portion of the 24 megahertz of public safety spectrum is impacted by  xthis issue and does not see a need to impose onerous, spurious attenuation requirements on public safety"[,l(l(,, "  xkequipment that pose no interference risk to GLONASS or GPS, or delay deployment of systems operating  T'in the band.AP xP5'ԍ Motorola Comments at 9.A  Tg' "_199. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the GNSS is protected adequately against  x*interference. We observe that the GNSS will be used for radionavigation and safety applications. Based  xMon the record before us at this time, we propose to adopt the emissions limits requested by NTIA. We  xRagree with Motorola, however, that it is imperative that all parties fully understand the need and  T' xramifications of this standard on use of the 700 MHz band for public safety.3XP zP 'ԍ Id.3 Therefore, we request  xcomment on the validity of the assumptions that underlie the standard recommended by NTIA to protect  xGNSS operations. We note that the focus of our discussion herein is the future configuration of the  T' xGLONASS (15981605 MHz), as part of the GNSS to be deployed worldwide after 2005. P xP ' x ԍ The GPS currently operates at 1563.421587.42 MHz and thus would be affected by second harmonic  x7 emissions in the 776794 MHz band (TV Channel 6567). Since our concern herein is with the public safety , GPS  x^ will not be impacted by public safety systems operating in 794806 MHz (TV Channels 6869) portion of the band .  We invite  x comment as to whether the assumed separation distance of 30 meters is appropriate for public safety  xmobile operations. We also invite comment as to whether extenuating conditions such as low antenna  xheight, propagation losses, body suppression of signals, and wall attenuation, should be taken into account  xin calculating the outofband emission requirements. In addition, we are interested in obtaining a better  xpunderstanding of the levels of radio energy that currently exist in the GNSS spectrum as a result of  x*spurious emissions from other communications systems and electronic equipment. This information will  x3enable us to determine whether stringent limits for public safety equipment are necessary and likely to  xtbe effective in accomplishing the desired objective. We note that the standard recommended by NTIA  xis necessary only to protect the GNSS band at 15591605 MHz. We propose to apply the recommended  T' x&standard to that portion of the public safety spectrum (i.e., 794806 MHz) which could cause second  xharmonics emissions in the GNSS band. Outside the 15591605 MHz GNSS band, our traditional  T'standard (i.e., generally 43 + 10 log P) would apply.JP zP'ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.210.J  T:' "200. We observe that, under the 700 MHz band plan we adopt in the First Report, the proposed  xstandard would primarily affect mobile equipment and not base stations and control stations. Mobile  xequipment will operate in the 794806 MHz band and the second harmonic of this equipment will fall  xwithin the GNSS spectrum. Base stations will operate in the 764776 MHz band and the second harmonic  To' xof this equipment will fall below the 1559 1605 MHz band used for GNSS.Nod P zPs!'ԍ See paras. 3032, supra.N Our current rules  x3typically require full power mobile units to suppress outofband emissions to be approximately 60 dB  T ' xbelow the carrier; handhelds and portables generally require 50 dB suppression.#"  P xP$' x7 ԍ The present rules require out of band emission to be 35 dB down from the carrier for signals removed from  x the carrier by more that 150 percent but not more than 250 percent. For frequencies removed more than 250  x percent, the value is 43 + 10 log P (dB), where P is the output power. This gives value of 73 dB down for base  zP&'stations, 57.8 dB for 30 watt mobiles, and 47.8 dB for 3 watt mobiles. See 47 C.F.R.  90.210. # The standard" \,l(l(,, "  xrecommended by NTIA and the FAA would require approximately 8590 dB suppression for fullpower  T' xmobile equipment and approximately 7580 dB for handhelds and portables. P xP5' x ԍ Wideband transmissions in the context of mobile satellite and television broadcast typically refers to  x megahertz range, not the 150 kHz public safety systems referred herein as "wideband" transmissions. Thus, for  xQ the purposes of the GLONASS standard, we have assumed the narrowband limit of 80 dBW/700Hz as sufficient for public safety bandwidths of up to 150 kHz. (See Appendix G for  x7technical analysis.) We are very much concerned about whether the proposed emissions standard would  xseverely curtail the availability of the 24 megahertz of spectrum designated by Congress for public safety  xtuse. Specifically, we request factual data and technical information as to the impact this proposal may  xhave on the use of the 700 MHz band for public safety purposes. We also seek information on how the  xproposal may affect the equipment cost, size, weight and battery life of handheld or portable equipment.  xgWe are aware that Global Mobile Personal Communications via Satellite (GMPCS) terminals have been  Th' xproposed to meet the same standard we have proposed herein.<XhP xP ' x ԍ In accordance with Section 25.213 (b), 47 C.F.R.  25.213 (b), MSS equipment operating in 16101626.5  x MHz is required to meet essentially these levels within the band 1574.397 1576.443 MHz. Additional proposals have been made by NTIA. < We invite comment as to whether it is  x feasible for public safety mobile equipment to meet the same standards as commercial mobile satellite  xsystems. We solicit suggestions as to any and all alternative approaches or measures that the Commission  xQcan take to alleviate the impact of the proposed standard. For example, we invite comment as to whether  xthere may be a way to restrict mobile use near airports. We seek comment on whether a transition plan to more stringent levels would be appropriate to protect the future GNSS.   T ' "201. We note that Motorola suggests that we form a "technical committee" so that all interested  xparties can debate the problems associated with operation of public safety services in the 700 MHz band  T ' xwhile still providing adequate protection to the GPS and GLONASS systems.G P xP 'ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 8.G The Commission  xDtentatively concludes, however, that the most timely approach for resolution of this issue is to expand the  xMrecord concerning harmonic emission interference to GNSS from public safety stations. Longer term solutions might well be considered at a future date.  S' D. PREPARATION OF COMPUTERS TO ACCOMMODATE YEAR 2000  T8' "202. Many of the automated and intelligent machines and systems on which public safety entities  xdepend for their operations were not designed to take into account the date change that will occur on  T' xJanuary 1, 2000.LZ` P zP' x ԍ See Statement of William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, before the  x Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate, on Year 2000, April 28, 1998, at 1,2 (Chairman Kennard's Y2K Senate Statement).L This problem, called the Year 2000 problem, the millennium bug, or simply the Y2K  x7problem, arises because of an old computer programming convention from the 1950s consisting of using  xtwo digits, not four, to indicate a year in program code. These codes are still in use in many computers,  xeven in some recently built computers, and in thousands of other kinds of smart machines and  xDcomponents with imbedded microprocessor chips, like those that control advanced radio systems. If not  xrepaired before the turn of the century, these machines may read the code "00" as the year 1900, or may  xQnot be able to read the code at all, and will therefore be unable to compute correctly the date change from the year 1999 to the year 2000."m] ,l(l(,, "Ԍ T' "ԙ203. Because it is difficult to determine all the ways in which this problem can affect computer  xsystems or microprocessors, it is not easy to predict what will happen on January 1, 2000. Companies  xare still testing their systems and finding new problems. What is certain is that all sectors of the global  xeconomy, including financial markets, electrical utilities, and food distribution systems, as well as public  xsafety service providers, depend upon reliable communications networks. And we also know that every  xcompany, every government agency, and every organization that has looked into the problem has found  T' xthat it is more complicated, serious, and costly than originally estimated.WP xP6'ԍ Chairman Kennard's Y2K Senate Statement at 2.W Significant network failures  x3due to computer inability to recognize the Year 2000 could be calamitous. Therefore, it is critical that  xpthe U.S. telecommunications community, including all sectors of the public safety communications  xcommunity, take prompt, comprehensive and effective action to address the Year 2000 problem in their organizations.  T ' "204. Government agencies cannot solve the Year 2000 problem. This is a job that individual  xentities must undertake on their own, and the involvement of the public safety communications community  xis critical to solving the problem. The Commission has little information regarding the efforts of the  xpublic safety community to address the Year 2000 problem. Therefore, in this proceeding, we seek  xcomment on how best to ascertain the extent, reach, and effectiveness of Year 2000 compliance initiatives  xthat have been or are being undertaken by public safety entities, so that we can better understand the  xQnature of the Year 2000 problem and the potential risks posed to public safety communications networks.  T' "205. Recent events have raised our concerns about the state of Y2K compliance in the public  xsafety communications community. On June 1, 1998, the Commission sponsored a Public Safety Y2K  T' xRound Table at the Commission offices in Washington, D.C. XP zP' x ԍ See Public Notice "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Hold a Round Table Discussion on June 1, 1998 to Address Year 2000 Computer Date Change Issues Affecting Public Safety Communications," May 26, 1998.  Some twentyfive representatives from  x}the manufacturing, consulting, organizational and user sectors of the public safety communications  x^community gathered to discuss the Y2K problem. At the Round Table, participants expressed the opinion  xthat although police, fire and EMS service providers in big agencies or in the larger cities across the  x3country were aware of, and had taken steps to address the problem for their agencies, awareness and  x*compliance initiatives appeared to be lacking among the smaller or more rural agencies that make up over  x7twothirds of the total number of public safety agencies. On May 29, 1998, the Commission sent letters,  x to the Chairs of the fiftyfive Regional Planning Committees. The letter asked that the Chairs provide  xinformation to the Commission on their Year 2000 compliance initiatives. To date, the Commission has received little information in response to the letters.  Tm' "u206. Accordingly, we conclude that it is important to increase our efforts to alert the public  x/safety communications community to the nature and seriousness of the Year 2000 problem and to  xascertain both the current state of Y2K readiness and the progress and range of compliance initiatives in  xMthat community. When we refer to compliance initiatives, we mean efforts involving Y2K component  x_identification, testing, repair, and contingency planning dealing with public safety radio systems  xthemselves and the other equipment or systems on which these systems are dependent. We note at least  xthree possible ways of accomplishing this goal. We could require the Regional Planning Committees to  xfile amendments to their 800 MHz band plans to describe the state of Y2K readiness and the nature,  xprogress and estimated completion schedule of Y2K compliance initiatives being undertaken by licensees  x in their regions. Alternatively, we could require the frequency coordinators to obtain this information  x from the licensees for whom they have provided coordination services and either file this information"o"^,l(l(,, # "  xthemselves or ask the licensees to do so; or we could require individual licensees to file this information with the Commission.  T' "8207. We seek comment on these or other possible alternative methods of obtaining the desired  xinformation on Y2K compliance initiatives in the public safety communications community. We intend  x<that the ultimate method employed to obtain this information do so effectively and efficiently while  xplacing the least burden on licensees, frequency coordinators, Regional Planning Committees, or the Commission.  Sh' VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  T' "E208. Ex Parte Presentations. This First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule  T' x*Making is a permitbutdisclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are  T 'permitted, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission Rules.i P zP 'ԍ See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.i  T8 ' "N209.   Pleading Dates. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on before [60 days after publication in the  xtFederal Register], and reply comments on or before [90 days after publication in the Federal Register].  xComments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing  Tm' xpaper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).  T' " 210. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to  xt. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be  xcfiled. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however,  xcommenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number  xreferenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full  xname, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also  xsubmit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments,  x*commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body  x of the message, "get form &'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э Id.  601(6). In addition, the term "small business" has the"c ),l(l(,,h "  T' xgsame meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.*P xPh' xc #X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C.  xI 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after  x consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public  x comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) is  xindependently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any  Tg' xadditional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). +gxP xP '#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996). A small organization is  xgenerally "any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant  T' xin its field.",P xP '#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(4). Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.)-P xP9' x #X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 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).) "Small  xgovernmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,  T' x&school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.". P xP+'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(5). As of 1992, there were  Th' xapproximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States./h P xP'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments." This number includes 38,978 counties,  T5' xQcities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.Z05P zP'#]\  PCP#э Id.Z The Census  xBureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the  x85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91percent) are small entities. Below, we further  xdescribe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  T ' " 6. Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees  xinclude police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency  T ' xmedical services.J1b  P zP' x #]\  PCP#э See Subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 90.1-90.22. Police licensees  x include 26,608 licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy  x (code) and teletype and facsimile (printed material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of private  x volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool  x licensees also include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use radio for official  x purposes. There are also 7,325 forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state departments of  x conservation and private forest organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and  x ground crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency  x and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  x Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for emergency medical service communications related to  x the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include medical services, rescue  xZ organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,"z'0,l(l(['"  xH establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications  xPX'facilities. J Spectrum in the 700MHz band for public safety services is governed by" d 1,l(l(,, "  x47U.S.C.337. NonFederal governmental entities as well as private businesses are licensees for these  T' xZservices.  As indicated supra in para.5 of this FRFA, all governmental entities with populations of less  T'than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.f2 P xP['ԍ #X\  P6G;P#5 U.S.C.  601(5).f  T5' "d7. Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio  xequipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the SBA's  xregulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have  T' x750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.y3P xP '#X\  P6G;P#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.y Census Bureau data indicate  xthat there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications  xequipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified  T' xas small entities.4@P zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663. We do not have information that indicates how many of the six radio equipment  xmanufacturers associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. However, Motorola and  xEricsson are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and, thus, we conclude that these  Tk 'manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses.  T ' "`8. Television Stations. This First Report will affect full service TV station licensees  x(Channels6069), TV translator facilities, and low power TV (LPTV) stations. The Small Business  xAdministration defines a TV broadcasting station that has no more than $10.5million in annual receipts  Tn' x8as a small business.5nP xP'#X\  P6G;P#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833 (1996). TV broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in  T;' xbroadcasting visual programs by TV to the public, except cable and other pay TV services.Z6X;* P xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census  x of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series UC92S1, Appendix A9 (1995) (ESA 1992 Census).Z Included  T' xin this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other TV stations.7zJ P zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э See Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), at 283, which describes TV Broadcasting Station (SIC Code 4833) as:  J XEstablishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public,  h except cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious,   educational and other television stations. Also included here are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.  Also included are  T' xestablishments primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped TV program materials.q8P xP&'#X\  P6G;P#э ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A9.q "e8,l(l(,,^ "  xSeparate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped TV program materials are classified under  T'another SIC number.#9P xP5' x #X\  P6G;P#э ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A9; SIC 7812 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production); SIC 7922 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (producers of live radio and TV programs).#   Tg' "9. There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the Nation in 1992.:g P zP'' x} #X\  P6G;P#э Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22,953 (1998), at Appendix C; and ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A9. That number has remained  xfairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,551 operating TV broadcasting stations in the Nation  T' xas of February 28, 1997.;zP zP '#X\  P6G;P#э  Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1998) at Appendix C. For 1992< P zP ' x #X\  P6G;P#э A census for communications establishments is performed every five years ending with a ``2'' or ``7.'' See ESA 1992 Census at III. the number of TV stations that produced less than $10.0million  T' xin revenue was 1,155 establishments, or approximately 77percent of the 1,509 establishments.=Xf P xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number of small business establishments because the  xx relevant Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available information. There  xare currently 95 full service analog TV stations, either operating or with approved construction permits  Th' xon channels60-69.>h P zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See Allocation Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,142. In the DTV Proceeding, we adopted a DTV Table which provides only 15  T6' xallotments for DTV stations on channels60-69 in the continental United States.?6P zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See DTV Proceeding, 12 FCC Rcd 14,588. There are seven DTV  T' x_allotments in channels60-69 outside the continental United States.@P zPM'#X\  P6G;P#э See Allocation Notice 12 FCC Rcd 14,142, n.5. Thus, the rules will affect  T' x^approximately 117 TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered small businesses.A<P xP' x #X\  P6G;P#э We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 117 TV stations to arrive at 90 stations categorized as small businesses.  xThese estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are  x3based do not include or aggregate revenues from nonTV affiliated companies. We recognize that the  x7rules may also impact minorityowned and womenowned stations, some of which may be small entities.  x7In 1995, minorities owned and controlled 37 (3.0percent) of 1,221 commercial TV stations in the United" fA,l(l(,, "  T' xStates.BP zPh' x #X\  P6G;P#э Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United States, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, National  x Telecommunications and Information Administration, The Minority Telecommunications Development Program  x (``MTDP'') (Apr. 1996). MTDP considers minority ownership as ownership of more than 50 percent of a broadcast  xZ corporation's stock, voting control in a broadcast partnership, or ownership of a broadcasting property as an  x individual proprietor. The minority groups included in this report are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27  T'(1.9percent) of 1,342 commercial and noncommercial TV stations in the United States.CBP zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э See Comments of American Women in Radio and TV, Inc. in MM Docket No. 94149 and MM Docket  zPy ' x No. 91140, at 4 n.4 (filed May 17, 1995), citing 1987 Economic Censuses, WomenOwned Business, WB871,  xM U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August 1990 (based on 1987 Census). After the 1987 Census  x7 report, the Census Bureau did not provide data by particular communications services (fourdigit SIC Code), but  x rather by the general twodigit SIC Code for communications (#48). Consequently, since 1987, the Census Bureau  x has not updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by women, nor does the Commission collect such data.  x However, we sought comment on whether the Annual Ownership Report Form 323 should be amended to include  x; information on the gender and race of broadcast license owners. Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female  zP'Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 2788, 2797 (1995).  Tg' "10. There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV stations.DgP zP'#X\  P6G;P#э See Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,986 at Appendix C. Approximately  T4' x1,309 low power TV and TV translator stations are on channels60-69E4P zP~'#X\  P6G;P#э See Allocation Notice at 12 FCC Rcd 14,142, n.3. which could be affected by  xpolicies in this proceeding. The Commission does not collect financial information of any broadcast  xVfacility and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these broadcast  xfacilities. We will assume for present purposes, however, that most of these broadcast facilities,  xincluding LPTV stations, could be classified as small businesses. As indicated earlier, approximately 77  xpercent of TV stations are designated under this analysis as potentially small businesses. Given this,  x LPTV and TV translator stations would not likely have revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as small businesses.  Si ' 4. Summary of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements  T ' "11. The First Report and Order adopts a number of rules that will entail reporting,  xrecordkeeping, and/or third party consultation. However, the Commission believes that these  T ' x@requirements are the minimum needed. The First Report and Order establishes a 700MHz band plan,  xDand establishes and requires planning committees to develop and submit to the Commission organizational  T9' x&and operational plans for the use of this spectrum. Accordingly, this First Report and Order imposes  xrecordkeeping and reporting requirements on individuals or organizations involved in establishing the  xnational and regional planning processes including the nationwide interoperability plan, and on individuals  xand organizations that assist us in developing technical standards, and on entities such as applicants and  xDlicensees, that are subject to these plans, including small government agencies who may request extended implementation.  "12. Additionally, in accordance with 47 U.S.C.  337(f)(1)(B)(ii), nongovernmental  xMorganizations (NGO) are required to submit, along with their request to operate in the 700MHz band, a written statement by the authorizing state or local government entity supporting the NGO's application."g<E,l(l(,,1 "Ԍ S' x ԙ 5. Steps Taken by Agency to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  S'Significant Alternatives Considered  "13. We have reduced economic burdens wherever possible. The regulatory burdens we have  xretained, such as filing applications on appropriate forms, are necessary in order to ensure that the public receives the benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient manner.  "14. We have incorporated technical rules that promote competition in the equipment market.  xWe believe that the rules we adopt must be as competitively and technologicallyneutral as possible to  xallow for competing equipment designs and to avoid hindering or precluding future innovative  xZtechnological developments. We note that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense  T' xspectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs.  Conversely, while wider tolerances may allow  xmanufacturers to use less costly component parts in transmitting equipment, they may also result in less  xefficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe the technical regulations we adopt herein provide a reasonable balance of these concerns.  "15. Under the regional planning process, frequency coordination is now competitive. Frequency  xcoordination is the process by which a private organization recommends to the Commission the most  Tj' xappropriate frequencies for private land mobile radio (PLMR) service applicants. FjP zP' x3 ԍ See Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 83737, Report  zP'and Order, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986) (Frequency Coordination Report and Order).  Frequency  x coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by eliminating common application errors,  xthereby improving the quality of the applications, resolving potential interference problems at the  T' xsource.G$P xP' x ԍ We note that in the future frequency coordinators will provide an even greater service by filing applications electronically. There are currently four frequency coordinators certified to coordinate frequencies for public  T' xsafety applicants.H |P xP' x ԍ The coordinators are: Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational (APCO);  x International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC)/International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA); Forestry  x Conservation Communications Association (FCCA); and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).  We have authorized, for the general use portion of this band, each of the four  x*currently certified frequency coordinators to coordinate public safety spectrum, whereas in the 800 MHz  xNational Plan, coordination is limited to APCO, the sole frequency coordinator. We continue to believe  xQthat by encouraging competition among coordinators, we will promote costbased pricing of coordination  T' xservices and provide incentives for enhancing service quality.hId P zP'ԍ Refarming Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,327.h Therefore, we will allow any of the certified public safety coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band.  "16. To minimize any negative impact from the licensing plan we adopt for the 700 MHz band,  xwe have offered each state and local governments the option of utilizing the existing infrastructure of the  xregional planning process. Of the nation's 55 public safety regional planning committees, most were  T' xdesigned along state boundaries.vJ P zP6&'ԍ See Appendix D for a list of the current regions for the 800 MHz band.v There were, however, states that were divided into different regions"h J,l(l(,,N "  T' xand states in multistate regions;VKP xPh' x ԍ Portions of the following states were either in more than one region or in regions comprised of more than  x} one state (Regional numbers are shown as follows (8)): Connecticut (8, 19), Delaware (28), Illinois (13, 54),  xM Indiana (14, 54), Maine (19), Maryland (20), Massachusetts (19), Michigan (21, 54), New Hampshire (19), New  x Jersey (8, 28), New York (8, 30, 55), Pennsylvania (28, 36), Rhode Island (19), Vermont (19), Virginia (20, 42), Washington, D.C. (20), and Wisconsin (45, 54).V 700 MHz band committee memberships within each of these states will  xhave the option to agree to be part of only one multistate region, or to form a region designated along state boundaries.  T4' "M Report to Congress : The Commission will send a copy of this First Report and Order and Third  T' x*Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the  T' xSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, See 5U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A). In addition,  T' xthe Commission will send a copy of this First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule  Tl' xMaking, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  T:' xA copy of this First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making and FRFA (or  T'summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b). "ixK,l(l(,, "  S' j @A - B - @Z APPENDIX B Բ  S's INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  Pg4 Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making \  T' xAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),bLZP zPi' x #X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э  See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#x6X@K^X@##]\  PCP#, has been amended by the Contract With  xy America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the  xP'CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).#x6X@K^X@#b the Commission has prepared this present Initial  x@Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by  T' xthe policies and rules proposed in the present, Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Third Notice).  xWritten public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the  T6' xIRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Third Notice as provided above in the  T' xProcedural Matters section of this First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  T' xThe Commission will send a copy of the Third Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for  T ' x@Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5U.S.C.603(a). In addition, the Third Notice  Tn 'and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id.  S ' 1. Paperwork Reduction Analysis  T ' "I In addition, comments on information collections contained in the Third Notice of Proposed Rule  Tq' xNMaking should be filed with Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234,  x1919MStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov. Furthermore,  xa copy of any such comments should be submitted to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236NEOB,  x725 17thStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet at fain_t@al.eop.gov. For additional information regarding the information collections contained herein, contact Judy Boley.  S@' 2. Ex Parte Presentations  T' "E1. This Third Notice is a permitbutdisclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex  T'parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.MP xP2' x< #X\  P6G;P#э See generally Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).  SB' 3. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules  T' "2. In the Third Notice herein, we are continuing our evaluation of rules applicable to existing  xpublic safety spectrum allocations as well as those in the 700MHz band. We seek comment on whether  xMwe should license a portion of the 700 MHz band to the regional planning committees, directly to each  xstate or in some other manner. In addition, we propose technical criteria to protect satellitebased global  xnavigation systems from interference. We also seek comment on proposals to promote interoperability  xon public safety channels below 512MHz. Additionally, we seek comments related to the Year 2000 computer date change problem.  SE' 4. Legal Basis " jBM,l(l(,,! "Ԍ "83. The proposed action is authorized under Sections4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47U.S.C.154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.  Sg' x" 5. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will  S4'Apply  T' "4. This IRFA may affect the same entities described in detail in the FRFA, supra. We hereby incorporate that analysis into this section.  T6' "5. Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees  xinclude police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency  T' xmedical services."N P zP9 ' x #]\  PCP#э See Subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 90.1-90.22. Police licensees  x include 26,608 licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy  x (code) and teletype and facsimile (printed material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of private  x volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool  x licensees also include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use radio for official  x purposes. There are also 7,325 forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state departments of  x conservation and private forest organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and  x ground crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency  x and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  x Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for emergency medical service communications related to  x the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include medical services, rescue  xZ organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,  xH establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications  xPc'facilities. " Spectrum in the 700MHz band for public safety services is governed by  x47U.S.C.337. NonFederal governmental entities as well as private businesses are licensees for these  Tk ' x3services.  As indicated supra in para.5 of the FRFA, all governmental entities with populations of less  T9 ' x@than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.fO9 P xP['ԍ #X\  P6G;P#5 U.S.C.  601(5).f In addition, the term "small business" has the  T ' xgsame meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.P P xP' xc #X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C.  xI 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after  x consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public  x comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3). A small business  xconcern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of  T ' xoperation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Q P xP"'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).  x A small organization is generally "any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and  T:' xoperated and is not dominant in its field."R:RP xP,%'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(4). Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801":kR,l(l(,, "  T' xsmall organizations.)SP xPh' x #X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э 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).) "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally means  xZ"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with  T' xa population of less than 50,000."T P xPZ'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP##]\  PCP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(5). As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in  Tg' xMthe United States.UgP xP'#X\  P6G;P##]\  PCP#э U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments." This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96  T4' xpercent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.ZV4@P zP '#]\  PCP#э Id.Z The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is  xapproximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we  xestimate that 81,600 (91percent) 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.  T5' "d6. Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio  xequipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the SBA's  xregulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have  T ' x750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.yW P xP'#X\  P6G;P#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.y Census Bureau data indicate  xthat there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications  xequipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified  T ' xas small entities.X b P zP' x #X\  P6G;P#э U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663. We do not have information that indicates how many of the six radio equipment  xmanufacturers associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. However, Motorola and  xEricsson are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and, thus, we conclude that these  Tk'manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses.  S' 6. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements  T'  T' "7. The Third Notice proposes a number of rules that will entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/or  x3third party consultation. However, the Commission believes that these requirements are the minimum  T;' xneeded. The Third Notice asks for comment on alternative licensing methods for certain portions of the  x"700 MHz band. The licensing methods under consideration in the Notice include the possibility of  ximposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements on applicants for public safety licenses who may be  xrequired to make submissions to planning committees justifying their requests for spectrum. These entities will be required to submit applications for spectrum licenses on Form601.  S ' x)! 7. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered  Tq' "< 8. We have reduced economic burdens wherever possible. This item seeks comment on whether  xMwe should license a portion of the 700 MHz band to the regional planning committees, directly to each">l X,l(l(,," "  xstate or in some other manner to meet public safety needs, and contains proposals to promote  x interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz. This approach will allow the public safety  xcommunity to help determine better efficiencies for all licensees subject to the new service rules, which  xif adopted, will provide technically advanced communications capabilities, including small entities that are often unable to fund the required infrastructure to support these modern systems.  "+9. Recognizing the budgetary constraints that public safety entities face as a matter of course,  xcthe PSWAC Steering Committee's findings and recommendations included the following: (1) more  Th' xsharing and joint use should be encouraged;AYhP zP'ԍ See id. at 34. A (2) broad based efforts, such as projects on the state and  xregional level, to coordinate and consolidate operations are critical to articulating and meeting the needs  T' xcof public safety with cost effective, spectrally efficient radio systems;TZZP zP 'ԍ See id. at 19 (Key Finding 2.1.7). T (3) more flexible licensing  xpolicies are needed to encourage the use of the most spectrallyefficient technology to meet user defined  T 'needs;A[ P zP('ԍ See id. at 24. A and (4) the Commission should consider block allocations for public safety use.`\ ~P zP'ԍ  See id. at 2223 (Key Recommendation 2.2.3). `  T6 ' "10. The PSWAC Interoperabilty Subcommittee noted that shared systems, i.e., large trunked  xDsystems which provide service to many governmental entities in a specific geographical area, offer a high  x"greater spectrum efficiency than many smaller nontrunked systems or systems trunked on fewer  T ' xtchannels.] P zPN' x@ ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 317318. Shared systems also offer a high level of builtin interoperability. Id. The most significant difficulty in establishing these types of shared systems, according to  Tk' xthe PSWAC Final Report, is probably that they require individual agencies to surrender some autonomy  T9' xDin return for the efficiencies and better coverage of the larger system.5^9j P zPC'ԍ Id. 5 In addition, the funding required  xto develop the infrastructure necessary to support some of the newer technologies is often too great to  xpermit small public safety agencies to participate in new, sophisticated, spectrum efficient wireless radio  xsystems. These same agencies, however, might be able to participate in a countywide or statewide  x^system. The use of shared systems in the public safety community has also been hindered by the current  T:' xlicensing process, according to the PSWAC Final Report.L_: P zP'ԍ PSWAC Final Report at 315. L In fact, the Commission has long encouraged  T'public safety agencies to develop widearea multiagency trunked public safety radio systems.+`$ P xP6"' x ԍ Areawide licenses often encourage the rapid development and deployment of innovative service, facilitate  xU interoperability and operational standards while allowing economies of scale that encourage the development of low  zP#' x cost equipment. See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless  zP$'Communications Service, GN Docket No. 96228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814 (1997). + "mz`,l(l(,,{ "Ԍ "+11. With these considerations in mind, the Third Notice seeks comment on whether to license  xa portion of the 700 MHz band to the regional planning committees, directly to each state or in some other manner to meet public safety needs.  "12. To minimize any negative impact resulting from the implementation of licensing, we have  xoffered the option of utilizing the existing infrastructure of the Public Safety Regions. The regulatory  xburdens we have retained, such as filing applications on appropriate forms, are necessary in order to  xensure that the public receives the benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient manner.  S' 8. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules  T ' 13. None." n`,l(l(,, "  T'  @B - C - @Y APPENDIX C ă  S' K;LIST OF PLEADINGS  T4' x The following is a list of parties filing comments and reply comments in response to the Second Notice  T' x7of Proposed Rulemaking in The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for  xcMeeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the  xYear2010, WT Docket No.9686, 12FCCRcd17,706(1997). Submissions that included or  xexclusively addressed the issues pertaining to the Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access Service (CPAS) are preceded by an asterisk (*).  S' Comments *360 Communications Company (360 Co.) *American Petroleum Institute (API) *American Red Cross (Red Cross) *American Water Works Association (AWWA) *AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC) APCO Project 25 Steering Committee (Project 25 Committee) Association For Maximum Service Television, Inc. and National Association of Broadcasters (AMSTV/NAB) *Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational (APCO) *Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM) *BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) Brazos County Emergency Communications District (Brazos) California, State of (California) *California PublicSafety Radio Association (CA/PSRA) *Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) CompuDawn, Inc. (CompuDawn) Department of Transportation (USDOT) *Ericsson (Ericsson) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) *Florida Power and Light Company (Florida Power) Florida, State of (Florida) *Griffin, Frederick G. (Griffin) *GTE Service Corporation (GTE) International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) *Joint Comments of (Joint Commenters)  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  National Association of State Foresters Irving, City of (Irving, TX) *Long Beach, City of (Long Beach, CA) M/ACOM (M/A COM) Major Cities Police Chiefs Association (Police Chiefs) *Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)"?'o`,l(l(,,( "Ԍ*National Communications System (NCS) *National Emergency Number Association (NENA) National League of Cities (NLC) National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) National Sheriff's Association (NSA) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) *New York State Police (NYS Police) *New York Transit Authority (NY Transit) *Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of (Pennsylvania) *Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) *Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. (Primeco) Public Safety Communications Council (PSCC) Region 20Washington Metropolitan Area (Region 20) Region 49Austin, Texas (Region 49) Richardson, City of (Richardson,TX) Ridgeland, City of (Ridgeland, TX) *Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS) Szerlag, Peter W. (Szerlag) U.S. Global Positioning System Industry Council (GPS Council) *UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC)  S' Reply Comments  T8' Alameda, County of (Alameda) American Association of State Hwy & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) *American Petroleum Institute (API) AspenPitkin County Communications Center (AspenPitkin) Association For Maximum Service Television, Inc. and National Association of Broadcasters (AMSTV/NAB) Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc.(APCO) *Bell Atlantic Mobile (BAM) California Public Safety Radio Association (CAPSRA) California, State of (California) CBS Broadcasting,Inc. (CBS) CompuDawn (CompuDawn) Cordillera Communications, Inc. (Cordillera) Ericsson, Inc. (Ericsson) Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) Fort Lauderdale, City of (Fort Lauderdale, FL) *GTE Service Corporation (GTE) International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Joint Reply Commenters (Joint Reply Commenters)  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  National Association of State Foresters Jovon Broadcasting Corporation (Jovon B/C)"='p`,l(l(,,' "Ԍ Kenwood Communications, Inc. (Kenwood) Liberman Television, Inc. (Liberman TV) Littlerock, City of (Littlerock) Max Media Properties, LLC (Max Media) Motorola (Motorola) Mountain Broadcasting Corporation (Mountain B/C) *National Communications Systems (NCS) National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) *Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) *Northern Telecom, Inc. (Nortel) Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) Powell, John S. (Powell) *Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. (Primeco) Project 25 Steering Committee (Project 25 Committee) Region 6 Northern California Public Safety Area (Region 6) Region 9 Florida Public Safety Area (Region 9) Sonoma, County of (Sonoma, CA) *Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. and Pacific Bell Mobile Services (SBMS) Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN) *UTC, The Telecommunications Association (UTC) WRNNTV Associates Limited Partnership, L.P (WRNNTV)  S' ExParte Filings APCO Joint Commenters: (Joint Commenters)  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  National Association of State Foresters Los Angeles County Internal Services Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Los Angeles Board of Supervisors (LAISD, LACSD and LABOS) Motorola National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Joe Bruno Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) Ericsson Frederick G. Griffin, P.E. Cerulean Technology, Inc." q`,l(l(,, "  T'@C - D - @  Y #&a\  P6G;#R&P#APPENDIX D DLIST OF REGIONS  Tg'(#(#҇X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: 42DDVirginia (all except area in Region 20, above)  T'43.Washington  T'44.West Virginia  Tn'45.Wisconsin (all except area in Region 54)  T;'46.Wyoming  T '47.Puerto Rico  T '48.U.S. Virgin Islands  T!' 0 49.Texas Austin (including the counties of  [ Bosque, Hill, Hamilton, McLennan, Limestone,  J Freestone, Mills, Coryell, Falls, Robertson,  ~ Leon, San Saba, Llano, Burnet, Williamson,   Burleson, Lee, Washington, Blanco, Hays, Travis, Caldwell, Bastrop, and Fayette) Hp&r`,l(l(,,'' $(r`%gr$l(l(,,HԌ T' 0 50.Texas El Paso (including the counties of   Knox, Kent, Stonewall, Haskell, Throckmorton,   Gaines, Dawson, Borden, Scurry, Fisher, Jones,   Shakelford, Stephens, Andrews, Martin,  W Howard, Mitchell, Nolan, Taylor, Callahan,  J Eastland, Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland,  A Glasscock, Sterling, Coke, Runnels, Coleman,  N Brown, Comanche, Culberson, Reeves, Ward,   Crane, Upton, Reagan, Irion, Tom Green,  4 Concho, McCulloch, Jeff Davis, Hudspeth, El   Paso, Pecos, Crockett, Schleicher, Menard,   Mason, Presidio, Brewster, Terrell, Sutton, and Kimble)  Ti ' 0 J 51.Texas Houston (including the counties of  A Shelby, Nacogdoches, San Augustine, Sabine,  z Houston, Trinity, Angelina, Walker, San   Jacinto, Polk, Tyler, Jasper, Newton,   Montgomery, Li berty, Hardin, Orange,   Waller, Harris, Chambers, Jefferson, Galveston,  z Brazoria, Fort Bend, Aus tin, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda)  T' 0 52.Texas Lubbock (including the counties  [ of Dallam, Sherman, Hansford, Ochiltree, Lip  ' scomb, Hartley, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts,   Hemphill, Oldham, Potter, Carson, Grey, Whee   ler, Deaf Smith, Randall, Armstrong, Donley,   Collingsworth, Parmer, Castro, Swisher,   Briscoe, Hall, Childress, Bailey, Lamb, Hale,   Floyd, Motley, Cottle, Hardeman, Foard,  q Wilbarger, Witchita, Clay, Montague, Jack,   Young, Archer, Baylor, King, Dickens, Crosby,   Lubbock, Kock ley, Cochran, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, and Garza)  Tm' 0  53.Texas San Antonio (including the   counties of Val Verde, Edwards, Kerr,   Gillespie, Real, Bandera, Kendall, Kinney,  J Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe,  = Bonzales, Lavaca, Dewitt, Karnes, Wilson,  = Atascosa, Frio, Zavala, Maverick, Dimmit,   LaSalle, McMillen, Live Oak, Bee, Goliad,  A Victoria, Jackson, Calhoun, Refugio, Aransas,   San Patricio, Nueces, Jim Wells, Duval, Webb,  ' Klegerg, Kennedy, Brooks, Jim Hogg, Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron)  T<#' 0 v 54.Chicago Metropolitan (Winnebago,   McHenry, Cook, Kane, Kendall, Grundy,   Boone, Lake, DuPage, DeKalb, Will, and   Kankakee Counties, Illinois; Kenosha,   Milwaukee, Washington, Dodge, Walworth,  N Jefferson, Racine, Ozaukee, Waukesha, Dane,"='s`,l(l(,,' "   and Rock Counties, Wisconsin; Lake, La Porte,   Jasper, Starke, St. Joseph, Porter, Newton,  [ Pulaski, Marshall and Elkart Counties, Indiana;   Ottawa, Kent, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Barry,  # Muskegon, Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and St. Joseph Counties, Michigan)  T' 0 55.New York Buffalo (including the   counties of Niagara, Chemung, Schuyler,  S Seneca, Erie, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus,  9 Allegany, Wyoming, Genesee, Orleans,  u Monroe, Livingston, Steuben, Ontario, Wayne, and Yates)Hs`,l(l(,, $(sNs/&l(l(,,H   Ԉ Figure 1  Figure 1 y! X%q88( 4ddps55rgns.wpght'qy$(#(#(#(#!pW'$Xt`,l(l(,, 3p(W'("!t8h\==X  T'@D - E - @  p` P @ 0 p`P@0  !"#$%p&`'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:!'(d)Combining channels. At the discretion of the appropriate regional planning committee, contiguous channels may be used in combination in order to accommodate requirements for larger bandwidth emissions, in accordance with this paragraph. As an exception to this general rule, channels designated for nationwide interoperability use must not be combined with channels that are not designated for nationwide interoperability use. "@%z`,l(l(,,%:"  T'(1)Narrowband. Two or four contiguous narrowband (6.25kHz) channels may be used in combination as 12.5kHz or 25kHz channels, respectively. The lower (in frequency) channel for two  T'channel combinations must be an odd (i.e. 1, 3, 5...) numbered channel. The lowest (in frequency) channel for four channel combinations must be a channel whose number is equal to 1+(4'n), where  T6'n=any integer between 0and479, inclusive (e.g. channel number 1,5, ...1917). Channel  T'combinations are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a hyphen, e.g. "1-2" for a two channel combination and "1-4" for a four channel combination.  Tl'(2)Wideband. Two or three contiguous wideband (50kHz) channels may be used in combination as 100kHz or 150kHz channels, respectively. The lower (in frequency) channel for two channel combinations must be a channel whose number is equal to 1+(3'n) or 2+(3'n), where  T'n=any integer between 0and79, inclusive (e.g. channel number 1, 2, 5, 6, ...238, 239). The lowest (in frequency) channel for three channel combinations must be a channel whose number is  To 'equal to 1+(3'n), where n = any integer between 0 and 79, inclusive (e.g. channel number 1, 5, ... 238). Channel combinations are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a  T 'hyphen, e.g. "1-2" for a two channel combination and "1-3" for a three channel combination.  T '(f)Channel pairing. In general, channels must be planned and assigned in base/mobile pairs that are separated by 30MHz. However, until December31, 2006, channels other than those listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1), may be planned and assigned in base/mobile pairs having a different separation, where necessary because 30MHz base/mobile pairing is precluded by the presence of one or more cochannel or adjacent channel TV/DTV broadcast stations.  St' 90.533Transmitting sites near the U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico border. This section applies to each license to operate one or more public safety transmitters in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz bands, at a location or locations North of LineA (see 90.7) or within 120kilometers (75miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border, until such time as agreements between the government of the United States and the government of Canada or the government of the United States and the government of Mexico, as applicable, become effective governing border area non-broadcast use of these bands. Public safety licenses are granted subject to the following conditions: (a)Operation of public safety transmitters must not cause harmful interference to the reception of television broadcasts transmitted by UHF TV broadcast stations located in Canada or Mexico. In addition, public safety base, control, and mobile transmitters must comply with the interference protection criteria in Section 90.545 for TV/DTV stations in Canada and Mexico. (b)Public safety facilities must accept any interference that may be caused by operations of UHF television broadcast transmitters in Canada and Mexico. (c)Conditions may be added during the term of the license, if required by the terms of international agreements between the government of the United States and the government of Canada or the government of the United States and the government of Mexico, as applicable, regarding nonbroadcast use of the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz bands.  S$' 90.535 Modulation and spectrum usage efficiency requirements. Transmitters designed to operate in 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must meet the following modulation standards:"F'{`,l(l(,,':"Ԍ(a)All transmitters in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must use digital modulation. Mobile and portable transmitters may have analog modulation capability only as a secondary mode in addition to its primary digital mode. (b)Transmitters designed to operate in the narrowband segment using digital modulation must be capable of maintaining an data throughput of not less than 4.8kbps in a 6.25kHz bandwidth. (c)Transmitters designed to operate in the wideband segment using digital modulation must be capable of maintaining an data throughput of not less than 384kbps in a 150kHz bandwidth.  S' 90.537Trunking requirement. All systems using six or more narrowband channels in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must be trunked systems, except for those using the designated nationwide interoperability channels.  S ' 90.539 Frequency stability. Transmitters designed to operate in 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must meet the frequency stability requirements in this section. (a)Mobile, portable and control transmitters must normally use automatic frequency control (AFC) to lock on to the base station signal. (b)The frequency stability of base transmitters operating in the narrowband segment must be 100parts per billion or better. (c)The frequency stability of mobile, portable and control transmitters operating in the narrowband segment must be 400parts per billion or better when AFC is locked to a base station, and 2.5parts per million or better when AFC is not locked. (d)The frequency stability of base transmitters operating in the wideband segment must be 1part per million or better. (e)The frequency stability of mobile, portable and control transmitters operating in the wideband segment must be 1.25parts per million or better when AFC is locked to a base station, and 5parts per million or better when AFC is not locked.  Sn' "n|`,l(l(,,:"  S'90.541Transmitting power limits. The transmitting power of base, mobile, portable and control stations operating in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must not exceed the maximum limits in this section, and must also comply with any applicable effective radiated power limits in 90.545. (a)The transmitting power of base transmitters must not exceed the limits given in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 90.635. (b)The transmitter output power of mobile and control transmitters must not exceed 30Watts. (c)The transmitter output power of portable (handheld) transmitters must not exceed 3Watts. (d)Mobile and portable transmitters must be designed to employ automatic power control.  S ' 90.543Emission limitations. Transmitters designed to operate in 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must meet the emission limitations in this section. (a) The adjacent channel coupled power (ACCP) requirements for transmitters designed for various channel sizes are shown in the following tables. Mobile station requirements apply to handheld, car mounted and control station units. The tables specify a maximum value for the ACCP relative to maximum output power as a function of the displacement from the channel center frequency. In addition, the ACCP for a mobile station transmitter at the specified frequency displacement must not exceed the value shown in the tables. For transmitters that have power control, the latter ACCP requirement can be met at maximum power reduction. In the following charts, "(s)" means a swept measurement is to be used.  S's 6.25 kHz Mobile Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă T A ddx`za _ aZZ}@@@@T       oOffset from Center vFrequency (kHz)Measurement   Bandwidth (kHz) Maximum ACCP Relative (dBc)9Maximum ACCP <Absolute (dBm)   6.250k6.259ԩ40Eynot specified  12.50k6.259ԩ60_ԩ45  18.750k6.259ԩ60_ԩ45  25~0k6.25~9ԩ65~_ԩ50  37.5{ 625{ 9ԩ65{ _ԩ50~  62.5x!625x!9ԩ65x!_ԩ50{   87.5u"625u"9ԩ65u"_ԩ50x!  150r#2100r#9ԩ65r#_ԩ50u"  250o$2100o$9ԩ65o$_ԩ50r#  j->400 to receive bandl%,830 (s)l%9ԩ75l%_ԩ55  o$  qin the receive bandy&,830 (s)y& ԩ100y&_ԩ70   l%s "F'}`,l(l(,,(=&"Ԍ S'v 12.5 kHz Mobile Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă ^aZZ}@@@@ZZ~@@@@^    l%  oOffset from Center vFrequency (kHz)Measurement   Bandwidth (kHz)Maximum ACCP Relative (dBc)9Maximum ACCP <Absolute (dBm)   9.375/g6.255ԩ40Eynot specified  o15.625/g6.255ԩ60_ԩ45  o21.875/g6.255ԩ60_ԩ45  37.55255ԩ65_ԩ50  62.55255ԩ65_ԩ50  87.55255ԩ65_ԩ50  150 1100 5ԩ65 _ԩ50  250 1100 5ԩ65 _ԩ50   j->400 to receive band +430 (s) 5ԩ75 _ԩ55     qin the receive band +430 (s) ԩ100 _ԩ70   v  SC'y E 25 kHz Mobile Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă ^ZZ~@@@@ZZ~@@@@^       pOffset from Center wFrequency (kHz)Measurement   Bandwidth (kHz)Maximum ACCP Relative (dBc)9Maximum ACCP <Absolute (dBm)   t15.6250l6.255ԩ40Eynot specified  t21.8750l6.255ԩ60_ԩ45  37.56255ԩ65_ԩ50  62.56255ԩ65_ԩ50  87.56255ԩ65_ԩ50  15021005ԩ65_ԩ50  25021005ԩ65_ԩ50  k2>400 to receive band,930 (s)5ԩ75_ԩ55    rin the receive band,930 (s)ԩ100_ԩ70   y  T'  150 kHz Mobile Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă ^ZZ~@@@@ZZV~@@@@^      pOffset from Center wFrequency (kHz)@Measurement   Bandwidth (kHz)@Maximum ACCP Relative (dBc)@9Maximum ACCP <Absolute (dBm) V  100=650=5ԩ40=Eynot specified@  200: 650: 5ԩ50: _ԩ35=  3007!6507!5ԩ507!_ԩ35:   4004"6504"5ԩ504"_ԩ357!  600 to 10001#,930 (s)1#5ԩ601#_ԩ454"  l_1000 to receive band.$,930 (s).$5ԩ70.$_ԩ55  1#  rin the receive band;%,930 (s);%ԩ100;%_ԩ75  .$ "&~`,l(l(,,'%"Ԍ S'ԙ T 6.25 kHz Base Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă YZZV~@@@@ZZ e @@@Y    .$  5Offset from VCenter Frequency (kHz)BAMeasurement Bandwidth x(kHz)0dMaximum )ACCP (dBc)   F 6.25{>6.25Cjԩ40  F 12.5{>6.25Cjԩ60   18.75{>6.25Cjԩ60   25{>6.25Cjԩ65  F 37.525Cjԩ65  F 62.525Cjԩ65  F 87.5 25 Cjԩ65  d 150 }\100 Cjԩ65   d 250 }\100 Cjԩ65   >400 to receive band w 30 (s) ԩ80 (continues @6dB/oct)     in the receive band w 30 (s) @<ԩ100     T@'v T  12.5 kHz Base Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă TZZ e @@@ZZ  e @@@T       5Offset from VCenter Frequency (kHz)BAMeasurement Bandwidth x(kHz)0dMaximum )ACCP (dBc)     9.375{>6.25Cjԩ40  15.625{>6.25Cjԩ60  21.875{>6.25Cjԩ60  F 37.525Cjԩ60  F 62.525Cjԩ65  F 87.525Cjԩ65  d 150}\100Cjԩ65  d 250}\100Cjԩ65  >400 to receive bandw 30 (s)ԩ80 (continues @6dB/oct)    In the receive bandw 30 (s)@<ԩ100   v "`,l(l(,,t"Ԍ T'  25kHz Base Transmitter ACCP Requirements ă TZZ  e @@@!ZZ  e @@@T      5Offset from VCenter Frequency (kHz)BAMeasurement Bandwidth x(kHz)0dMaximum )ACCP (dBc)   15.625{>6.25Cjԩ40  21.875i{>6.25iCjԩ60  F 37.5N25NCjԩ60i  F 62.53253Cjԩ65N  F 87.525Cjԩ653  d 150}\100Cjԩ65  d 250}\100Cjԩ65  >400 to receive band w 30 (s) ԩ80 (continues @6dB/oct)   in the receive band w 30 (s) @<ԩ100    SV ' s 150kHz Base Transmitter ACCP Requirements T!ZZ  e @@@AZZ#  e @@@T      5Offset from VCenter Frequency (kHz) @#Measurement Bandwidth x(kHz) 0dMaximum )ACCP (dBc) #   d 100 50 Cjԩ40   d 20050Cjԩ50   d 30050Cjԩ55  d 40050Cjԩ60  (600 to 1000w 30 (s)Cjԩ65  1000 to receive bandw 30 (s)ԩ75 (continues @ 6dB/oct)    in the receive bandw 30 (s)@<ԩ100    T'(b)ACCP measurement procedure. The following are procedures for making transmitter measurements. For time division multiple access (TDMA) systems, the measurements are to be made under TDMA operation only during time slots when the transmitter is on. All measurements must be made at the input to the transmitters antenna. Measurement bandwidth used below implies an instrument that measures the power in many narrow bandwidths (e.g. 300Hz) and integrates these powers across a larger band to determine power in the measurement bandwidth.  Tq'(1)Setting reference level: Using a spectrum analyzer capable of ACCP measurements, set the measurement bandwidth to the channel size. For example, for a 6.25kHz transmitter, set the measurement bandwidth to 6.25kHz; for a 150kHz transmitter, set the measurement bandwidth to 150kHz. Set the frequency offset of the measurement bandwidth to zero and adjust the center frequency of the spectrum analyzer to give the power level in the measurement bandwidth. Record this power level in dBm as the "reference power level".  T "'(2)Measuring the power level at frequency offsets <600kHz: Using a spectrum analyzer capable of ACCP measurements, set the measurement bandwidth as shown in the tables above. Measure the ACCP in dBm. These measurements should be made at maximum power. Calculate the coupled power by subtracting the measurements made in this step from the reference power measured in the previous step. The absolute ACCP values must be less than the values given in the table for each condition above. "&`,l(l(,,'{"Ԍ T'(3)Measuring the power level at frequency offsets >600kHz: Set a spectrum analyzer to 30kHz resolution bandwidth, 1MHz video bandwidth and sample mode detection. Sweep 6MHz from the carrier frequency. Set the reference level to the RMS value of the transmitter power and note the absolute power. The response at frequencies greater than 600kHz must be less than the values in the tables above.  T'(4)Upper Power Limit Measurement: The absolute coupled power in dBm measured above must be compared to the table entry for each given frequency offset. For those mobile stations with power control, these measurements should be repeated with power control at maximum power reduction. The absolute ACCP at maximum power reduction must be less than the values in the tables above.  T '(c)Outofband emission limit. On any frequency outside of the frequency ranges covered by the ACCP tables in this section, the power of any emission must be reduced below the unmodulated carrier power(P) by at least 43+10log(P)dB.  T '(d)Authorized bandwidth. Provided that the ACCP requirements of this section are met, applicants may request any authorized bandwidth that does not exceed the channel size.  S;' 90.545 TV/DTV interference protection criteria. Public safety base, control, and mobile transmitters in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must be operated only in accordance with the rules in this section, to reduce the potential for interference to public reception of the signals of existing TV and DTV broadcast stations transmitting on TVChannels 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 or 69.  T'(a)D/U ratios. Licensees of public safety stations must choose site locations that are a sufficient distance from co-channel and adjacent channel TV and DTV stations, and/or must use reduced transmitting power or transmitting antenna height such that the following minimum desired signal to undesired signal ratios (D/U ratios) are met: (1)The minimum D/U ratio for cochannel stations is 40dB at the hypothetical GradeB contour (64dBV/m) (88.5kilometers or 55.0miles) of the TV station or 17dB at the equivalent GradeB contour (41dBV/m) (88.5kilometers or 55.0miles) of the DTV station. (2)The minimum D/U ratio for adjacent channel stations is 0dB at the hypothetical GradeB contour (64dBV/m) (88.5kilometers or 55.0miles) of the TV station or 23dB at the equivalent GradeB contour (41dBV/m) (88.5kilometers or 55.0miles) of the DTV station.  T@'(b)Maximum ERP and HAAT. The maximum effective radiated power (ERP) and the antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of the proposed land mobile base station, the associated control station, and the mobile transmitters shall be determined using the methods described in this section. (1)Each base station is limited to a maximum ERP of 1000watts. (2)Each control station is limited to a maximum ERP of 200watts and a maximum HAAT of 61m. (200ft). "v&`,l(l(,, '{"Ԍ(3)Each mobile station is limited to a maximum ERP of 30watts and a maximum antenna height of 6.1m. (20ft.). (4)Each portable (handheld) transmitter is limited to a maximum ERP of 3watts. (5)All transmitters are subject to the power reductions given in FigureB of 90.309 of this chapter, for antenna heights higher than 152meters (500ft).  Th'(c)Methods. The methods used to calculate TV contours and antenna heights above average terrain are given in 73.683 and 73.684 of this chapter. Tables to determine the necessary minimum distance from the public safety station to the TV/DTV station, assuming that the TV/DTV station has a hypothetical or equivalent GradeB contour of 88.5kilometers (55.0miles), are located in 90.309 and labeled as TablesB, D, and E. Values between those given in the tables may be determined by linear interpolation. The locations of existing and proposed TV/DTV stations during the transition period are given in Part73 of this chapter and in the final proceedings of MMDocket No.87268. The DTV allotments are: #X\  P6G;P# cAZZ#  e @@@a0H0 |' c "  e " "l"   STATEl  CITYl"ZcNTSC TV Ch.l"DTV Ch.l"MERP (kW)l"lqHAAT (m)e e   "ll"   Californiahl  Stocktonhl"x64hl"62hl$: 63.5hl"t 874e E  "lR"   CaliforniaR  Los AngelesR"x11R"65R$4 688.7R"t 896E E h "RR"   CaliforniaR  RiversideR"x62R"68R$4 180.1R"t 723E E  "RR"   California7R  Concord7R"x427R"637R$= 61.07R"t 856E E  "RR"   Pennsylvania|R  Allentown|R"x39|R"62|R$= 50.0|R"t 302E E 7 "RR"   PennsylvaniaR  PhiladelphiaR"{86R"64R$1d1000.0R"t 332E E | "RR"   PennsylvaniaR  PhiladelphiaR"x10R"67R$1G 791.8R"t 354E E  "RR"   Puerto RicoKR  AguadaKR"x50KR"62KR$4b 50.0KR"t 343E E  "RR"   Puerto RicoR  MayaguezR"x16R"63R$= 50.0R"t 347E E K "RR"   Puerto RicoR  NaranjitoR"x64R"65R$= 50.0R"t 142E u   "Ry"   Puerto RicoJy  AguadillaJy"x12Jy"69Jy$7691.8Jy"t 665u   y  T'#&a\  P6G;#R&P#The transition period is scheduled to end on December31, 2006. After that time, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, public safety stations will no longer be required to protect reception of cochannel or adjacent channel TV/DTV stations. (1)Licensees of stations operating within the ERP and HAAT limits of paragraph(b) must select one of three methods to meet the TV/DTV protection requirements, subject to Commission approval: (i)utilize the geographic separation specified in the tables referenced below; "<%`,l(l(,,&"Ԍ(ii)submit an engineering study justifying the proposed separations based on the actual parameters of the land mobile station and the actual parameters of the TV/DTV station(s) it is trying to protect; or, (iii)obtain written concurrence from the applicable TV/DTV station(s). If this method is chosen, a copy of the agreement must be submitted with the application. (2)The following is the method for geographic separations. (i)Base stations having an antenna height (HAAT) less than 152m. (500ft.) shall afford protection to cochannel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in Table B (cochannel frequencies based on 40dB protection) and TableE (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0dB protection) in 90.309 of this part. For base stations having an antenna height (HAAT) between 152914 meters (5003,000 ft.) the effective radiated power must be reduced below 1 kilowatt in accordance with the values shown in the power reduction graph in Figure B in  90.309 of this part. For heights of more than 152 m. (500 ft.) above average terrain, the distance to the radio path horizon will be calculated assuming smooth earth. If the distance so determined equals or exceeds the distance to the hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contour of a co Tj'channel TV/DTV station (i.e., it exceeds the distance from the appropriate Table in 90.309 to the relevant TV/DTV station) an authorization will not be granted unless it can be shown in an engineering study (method2) that actual terrain considerations are such as to provide the desired protection at the actual GradeB contour (64dBV/m for TV and 41dBV/m for DTV stations), or that the effective radiated power will be further reduced so that, assuming free space attenuation, the desired protection at the actual GradeB contour (64dBV/m for TV and 41dBV/m coverage contour for DTV stations) will be achieved. Directions for calculating powers, heights, and reduction curves are listed in 90.309 for land mobile stations. Directions for calculating coverage contours are listed in 73.683685 for TV stations and in 73.625 for DTV stations. (ii)Control and mobile stations (including portables) are limited in height and power and therefore shall afford protection to cochannel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in TableD (cochannel frequencies based on 40dB protection) in 90.309 of this part and a minimum distance of 8kilometers (5miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV station hypothetical or equivalent GradeB contours. (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0dB protection for TV stations and 23 dB for DTV stations). Since control and mobile stations may affect different TV/DTV stations than the associated base station, particular care must be taken by  T'applicants to ensure that all the appropriate TV/DTV stations are considered (e.g. a base station may be operating on TV Channel64 and the mobiles on TV Channel69, in which case TVChannels 63, 64, 65, 68, and 69 must be protected). Control and mobile stations shall keep a minimum distance of 96.5kilometers (60miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV stations. Since mobiles and portables are able to move and communicate with each other, licensees or coordinators must determine the areas where the mobiles can and cannot roam in order to protect the TV/DTV stations, and advise the mobile operators of these areas and their restrictions. (iii)In order to protect certain TV/DTV stations and to ensure protection from these stations which may have extremely large contours due to unusual height situations, an additional distance factor must be used by all public safety base, control and mobile stations. For all cochannel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an HAAT between 350 and 600 meters, public safety stations must add the following DISTANCE FACTOR to the value obtained from the referenced Tables in 90.309 and to the distance for control and mobile stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5km)."?'`,l(l(,,'"ԌXDISTANCE FACTOR=(TV/DTVHAAT350)14 in kilometers, where HAAT is the TV or DTV station antenna height above average terrain obtained from its authorized or proposed facilities, whichever is greater.  For all cochannel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an antenna height above average terrain greater than 600meters, public safety stations must add 18kilometers as the DISTANCE FACTOR to the value obtained from the referenced Tables in 90.309 and to the distance for control and mobile stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5km). Note: The 88.5km (55.0mi) GradeB service contour (64dBV/m) is based on a hypothetical TV station operating at an effective radiated power of one megawatt, a transmitting antenna height above  T'average terrain of 610meters (2000feet) and the Commission's R6602 F(50,50) curves. See 73.699 of this chapter. Maximum facilities for TV stations operating in the UHF band are  Tj '5megawatts effective radiated power at an antenna HAAT of 610meters (2,000feet).  See 73.614 of this chapter. The equivalent contour for DTV stations is based on a 41dBV/m signal strength  T 'and the distance to the F(50,90) curve. See 73.625 of this chapter.  S ' 90.547 Interoperability channel capability requirement. Mobile and portable transmitters designed pursuant to standards adopted by the National Coordination Committee to operate in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must be capable of operating on any of the designated nationwide narrowband interoperability channels approved by the Commission.  S;' 90.549 Transmitter certification. Transmitters operated in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must be certificated as required by 90.203.  S<' 90.551Construction requirements. Each station authorized under this subpart to operate in the 764-776MHz and 794-806MHz frequency bands must be constructed and placed into operation within 12months from the date of grant of the authorization. However, licensees may request a longer construction period, up to but not exceeding 5years, pursuant to 90.155(b)."=`,l(l(,,"  S'@E - F - @   XAPPENDIX F  S'PROPOSED RULES FOR THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ă  I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  T'1.ؠThe authority citation for Part90 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 2512, 303, 309, 332 and 337, 48 Stat 1066, 1082, as amended; 47U.S.C.154, 2512, 303, 309 and 337, unless otherwise noted.  T'2.ؠSection90.1 is amended by revising paragraph(b), to read as follows:  Si ' 90.1 Basis and purpose. *****  T '(b)Purpose. This part states the conditions under which radio communications systems may be licensed and used in the Public Safety, Special Emergency, Industrial, Land Transportation and Radiolocation Services. These rules do not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States. *****  T9'3.ؠSection 90.20 is amended by adding "78" to the "Limitations" column for nine of the existing entries in the table in paragraph (c)(3), by adding a new paragraph (d)(78), and by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:  Sm' 90.20Public Safety Pool. ***** (c)*** (3)***  PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE ha0H0 |'  ddx` h u     "qFrequency or band W" } Class of station(s) W"Limitations W"HCoordinator     ***** ! ***** ! ***** ! ***** W   151.1375" Base or mobile" 27, 28, 78." PH !   *****V$ *****V$ *****V$ *****"   154.4525% Base or mobile% 27, 28, 78.% PFV$   *****' *****' *****' *****"s&`,l(l(,,'&"%   155.7525 Base or mobile 27, 78. PX   *****J *****J *****J *****   158.7375 Base or mobile 27, 78. PPJ   ***** ***** ***** *****   159.47259 Base or mobile9 27, 78.9 PO   *****  *****  *****  *****9   453.20625  Base or mobile  44, 78.  PX    *****(  *****(  *****(  *****    453.99375 Base or mobile 44, 78. PX(    *****r *****r *****r *****   458.20625 Mobile 44, 78. PXr   ***** ***** ***** *****   458.99375a Mobilea 44. 78.a PX   *****6 *****6 *****6 *****a (d)*** (78)These channels are designated for interoperabilityonly use. *****  T'(g) VPC interoperability frequencies.  Tl'(1) Working channels in the VHF 156-162MHz band. The channel pairs listed in the tables below were formerly allocated in 80.371 of this chapter for VHF Public Coast Stations as public correspondence channels numbered 25, 84, and 85 and were also shared under former 90.283 by Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Service (I/LT) stations and grandfathered public safety stations. The 25kHz channel pairs are available exclusively for assignment to public safety entities for interoperable channels of communication only in the Economic Areas (EAs) as shown below in Table A. (2) Service areas in the marine VHF 156-162MHz band are VHF Public Coast areas (VPCs). As listed in TableA to this paragraph, these areas are based on, and composed of one or more of, the U.S Department of Commerce's 172Economic Areas (EAs). See 60FR13114"o&`,l(l(,,W& " (March10, 1995). Maps of the EAs and VPCs are available for public inspection and copying at the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, room 8010, 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC.  Tg' Table A List of Channels Available by Public Coast Area Y ddx`  ddH04  Y ua y  ", VHF Public Coast Areas (VPCs)uu 4 yy  VPCsy EAsy Channel Pairsu v  yy   T'1 (Northern Atlantic)y 15, 10y nonev V  y_   T'2 (MidAtlantic)_ 9, 1123, 25, 42, 46_ noneV V  __   TB '3  (Southern Atlantic)@ _ 24, 2634, 37, 38, 40, 41, 174@ _ noneV "  _/   T '4  (Mississippi River) _ 34, 36, 39, 4345, 4753, 67107, 113, 116120, 122125, 127, 130134, 176b / none" V @  /_   T '5  (Great Lakes) _ 68, 5466, 108, 109 _ noneV V b  __   T'6 (Southern Pacific)_ 160165_ noneV V   __   Tf'7  (Northern Pacific)d_ 147, 166170d_ noneV V  __   T'8 (Hawaii)_ 172, 173, 175_ noneV V d __   T'9 (Alaska)_ 171_ noneV V  __   Th'10  (Grand Forks)f_ 110f_ 25, 84V V  __   T'11  (Minot)_ 111_ 25, 84V V f __   T'12  (Bismarck)_ 112_ 25, 84V V  __   Tj'13  (Aberdeen)h_ 114h_ 25, 84V V  __   T'14  (Rapid City)_ 115_ 25, 84V V h __   T'15  (North Platte)_ 121_ 25, 84V V  __   Tl'16  (Western Oklahoma)j_ 126j_ 25, 85V V  __   T'17  (Abilene)_ 128_ 25, 85V V j __   T'18  (San Angelo)_ 129_ 25, 85V V  __   Tn'19  (OdessaMidland)l _ 135l _ 25, 85V V  __   T '20  (Hobbs)!_ 136!_ 25, 85V V l  __   T"'21 (Lubbock)#_ 137#_ 25, 85V V ! __   Tp#'22  (Amarillo)n$_ 138n$_ 25, 85V V # __   T$'23 (Santa Fe)%_ 139%_ 25, 84V V n$ __   T&'24 (Pueblo)'_ 140'_ 25, 84"&`,l(l(,, '&"V V % __   TX'25 (DenverBoulderGreeley)V_ 141V_ 25, 84V V  __   T'26  (Scottsbluff)_ 142_ 25, 84V V V __   T'27  (Casper)_ 143_ 25, 84V V  __   TZ'28  (Billings)X_ 144X_ 25, 84V V  __   T'29  (Great Falls)_ 145_ 25, 84V V X __   T'30  (Missoula)_ 146_ 25, 84V V  __   T\'31 (Idaho Falls)Z _ 148Z _ 25, 85V V  __   T '32  (Twin Falls) _ 149 _ 25, 85V V Z  __   T '33  (Boise City) _ 150 _ 25, 84V V   __   T^ '34  (Reno)\ _ 151\ _ 25, 84V V   __   T '35  (Salt Lake CityOgden)_ 152_ 25, 85V V \  __   T '36  (Las Vegas)_ 153_ 25, 84V V  __   T`'37  (Flagstaff)^_ 154^_ 25, 84V V  __   T'38  (Farmington)_ 155_ 25, 84V V ^ __   T '39  (Albuquerque) _ 156 _ 25, 84V V  __   Tb'40  (El Paso)`_ 157`_ 25, 85V V   __   T'41  (PhoenixMesa)_ 158_ 25, 84V   ` _   T'42  (Tucson)< 159< 25, 84   +  T '  Table B List of Channel Center Frequencies by Corresponding Channel Number T ddH04   ddH0( ( ( T   B  I  "  XChannel Number I"6Base Station Transmit Center T&Frequency in MHz I" kMobile Station Transmit Center Frequency in MHzB U  I_  " 25 m_"r161.850 m_"8157.250U U  __  " 84 _"r161.825 _"8157.225U   m _  " 85 G "r161.875 G "8157.275    (3) Public safety eligible applicants shall apply for these channel pairs only for the purpose of interoperability using the following standards and procedures: (i) All applicants must comply with the relevant technical sections under this part unless otherwise stated in this section and provide evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with 90.175. (ii) Station power, as measured at the output terminals of the transmitter, must not exceed 50Watts for base stations and 20Watts for mobile stations, except in accordance with the provisions"|'`,l(l(,,_(" of paragraph(vi). Antenna height (HAAT) must not exceed 122meters (400feet) for base stations and 4.5meters (15feet) for mobile stations, except in accordance with paragraph(vi). Such base and mobile channels shall not be operated on board aircraft in flight. (iii) Frequency protection must be provided to other stations in accordance with the following guidelines for each channel and for each area and adjacent area: (a) Protect coast stations licensed prior to July 6, 1998, by the required separations shown in Table C below. (b) Protect I/LT stations by frequency coordination in accordance with 90.175 of this part. (c) Protect other public safety stations by frequency coordination and by agreement with the other public safety stations.  T '(d) Where the Public Safety designated channel is not a Public Safety designated channel in  T 'an adjacent EA: Applicants shall engineer base stations such that the maximum signal strength at the boundary of the adjacent EA does not exceed 5dBV/m. (iv) The following table, along with the antenna height (HAAT) and power (ERP), must be used to determine the minimum separation required between proposed base stations and co-channel public coast stations licensed prior to July6, 1998 under Part 80 of this chapter. Applicants whose exact ERP or HAAT are not reflected in the table must use the next highest figure shown.  T:' Table C Required Separation in Kilometers (Miles) of Base Station From Public Coast Stations  c ddH0( ( ( ddx` 88888 c     U "R" "9Base Station CharacteristicsUU  "RR"  HAATR"ERP (watts)U U \ "RR"  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:NB2"""INB3"$WB2 "[+NB4% BB  BB  % T'  T' NB = Narrowband Segments WB = Wideband Segments " ,,"  mAQ` Narrowband Segment 1 (NB1)ă  b6* 764 to 767MHză  XG*u(Lower half of TV Channel 63) ă  X*" 6.25kHz Channels Shown Individually ă  mJ#P\  P6G; P# r AH0VV  a<<H0@ r  B"% a  "(  General Use (312 channels) a"w Reserved for Third Notice (136 channels) j Nationwide Interoperability Use (32 channels)" aa  " mJ# A   mJ A  I1 52 x a" mJ# 2"~~~~~~  mJ 2"~~~~~~ Q 53 80 aa  " mJ A   mJw A  Q81 132 a" mJ 2"~~~~~~  mJw 2"~~~~~~ Q 133 160x  aa  " mJ]A   mJA  D161 212 a" mJ]2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ Q 213 240 aa  " mJA   mJA  D241 292 Oa" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ Q 293 320 aa  " mJA   mJNA  D321 372 a" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJN2"~~~~~~ Q 373 400O aa  " mJ4A   mJA  D401 452 a" mJ4R"~~  mJR"~~ Q 453 480a  mJV` ` r General Use Channels orpp:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠNationwide Interoperability  mJV` ` r Channels Reserved for Third Notice:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠChannels  Xe*# Xj\  P6G; XP#"exUT"  s&? Narrowband Segment 2 (NB2)ă  b6* 773 to 776MHză  XG*y(Upper half of TV Channel 64) ă  X*" 6.25kHz Channels Shown Individually ă  mJ#P\  P6G; P# J a<<H0@  <<H0@ J " a  "(  General Use (312 channels) a"w Reserved for Third Notice (136 channels) j Nationwide Interoperability Use (32 channels)" aa  " mJ# A   mJ A  D481 532 x a" mJ# 2"~~~~~~  mJ 2"~~~~~~ 8 533 560 aa  " mJ A   mJw A  D561 612 a" mJ 2"~~~~~~  mJw 2"~~~~~~ Q 613 640x  " mJ]A   mJA  D641 692 a" mJ]2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ Q 693 720 " mJA   mJA  D721 772 Oa" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ Q 773 800 " mJA   mJNA  D801 852 a" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJN2"~~~~~~ Q 853 880O " mJ4A   mJA  D881 932 a" mJ4R"~~  mJR"~~ Q 933 960a  mJV` ` r General Use Channels orpp:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠNationwide Interoperability  mJV` ` r Channels Reserved for Third Notice:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠChannels  Xe*# Xj\  P6G; XP#"exUT"  s&? Narrowband Segment 3 (NB3)ă  b6* 794 to 797MHză  XG*u(Lower half of TV Channel 68) ă  X*" 6.25kHz Channels Shown Individually ă  mJ#P\  P6G; P# J <<H0@  <<H0@ J " a  "(  General Use (312 channels) a"w Reserved for Third Notice (136 channels) j Nationwide Interoperability Use (32 channels)" aa  " mJ# A   mJ A  8961 1012 x a" mJ# 2"~~~~~~  mJ 2"~~~~~~  1013 1040 " mJ A   mJw A  +1041 1092 a" mJ 2"~~~~~~  mJw 2"~~~~~~ 8 1093 1120x  " mJ]A   mJA  +1121 1172 a" mJ]2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ 8 1173 1200 " mJA   mJA  +1201 1252 Oa" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ 8 1253 1280 " mJA   mJNA  +1281 1332 a" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJN2"~~~~~~ 8 1333 1360O " mJ4A   mJA  +1361 1412 a" mJ4R"~~  mJR"~~ 8 1413 1440a  mJV` ` r General Use Channels orpp:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠNationwide Interoperability  mJV` ` r Channels Reserved for Third Notice:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠChannels  Xe*# Xj\  P6G; XP#"exUT"  s&? Narrowband Segment 4 (NB4)ă  b6* 803 to 806MHză  XG*y(Upper half of TV Channel 69) ă  X*" 6.25kHz Channels Shown Individually ă  mJ#P\  P6G; P# J <<H0@  <<H0@ J " a  "(  General Use (312 channels) a"w Reserved for Third Notice (136 channels) j Nationwide Interoperability Use (32 channels)" aa  " mJ# A   mJ A  +1441 1492 x a" mJ# 2"~~~~~~  mJ 2"~~~~~~  1493 1520 " mJ A   mJw A  +1521 1572 a" mJ 2"~~~~~~  mJw 2"~~~~~~ 8 1573 1600x  " mJ]A   mJA  +1601 1652 a" mJ]2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ 8 1653 1680 " mJA   mJA  +1681 1732 Oa" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJ2"~~~~~~ 8 1733 1760 " mJA   mJNA  +1761 1812 a" mJ2"~~~~~~  mJN2"~~~~~~ 8 1813 1840O " mJ4A   mJA  +1841 1892 a" mJ4R"~~  mJR"~~ 8 1893 1920a  mJV` ` r General Use Channels orpp:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠNationwide Interoperability  mJV` ` r Channels Reserved for Third Notice:  Wxxs (#(#~ؠChannels  Xe*# Xj\  P6G; XP#"exUT"  s&? Wideband Segment 1 (WB1)ă  b6* 767 to 773MHz ă  X0* ' 50kHz Channels Shown as Groups of 3 (150kHz) ă  FF   X*y (Upper half of TV Channel 63) ă  <<H0@ FH0 8B  BB    A  A  I8 ZZ  "IR U "bR U "v NIO U " GU U " GU U "GU U "GU U "#GU U "-GU U "'8GU U "@HGU U "W0NIO U "uR U " R U ""R U "$R U "&R U "(R U " +R U ",NIO$  A  A  I$ ZZ "I13f "b46f "{ 79f " 1012f " 1315f "1618f "1921f "2224f ")2527 f "'42830 f "@D3133 f "YN3436 f "rY3739 f "i 4042f "y"4345f "$4648f "&4951f "(5254f "*5557f "!,5860U  Xf *  X8 *u (Lower half of TV Channel 64) ă FH0 FH0!  $ A  A  A  U $ ZZ  "DNIO "bR "{, R "< R "FR "QR "aR "qR "  NIO "'8GU "@HGU "YRGU "r]GU "m GU "}"GU "$GU "&GU "(NIO " +R "$-R$ A  A  A  ! $ ZZ "F6163"_6466"x 6769" 7072" 7375"7678"7981"8284")8587 "'48890 "@D9193 "YN9496 "rY9799 "- 100102"="103105"G$106108"R&109111"b(112114"r*115117"~,118120 X* FH0!  !FH0Wj N 7  I  ""  "CNIO  Nationwide Interoperability "tR  Reserved for Third Notice "~$GU  General Use I W FF "x."  s&? Wideband Segment 2 (WB2)ă  b6* 797 to 803MHz ă  X0* ' 50kHz Channels Shown as Groups of 3 (150kHz) ă  FF   X*y (Upper half of TV Channel 68) ă !FH0Wj N 7 AFH0 . I   A  A  IW. ZZ  "IR U "bR U "v NIO U " GU U " GU U "GU U "GU U "#GU U "-GU U "'8GU U "@HGU U "W0NIO U "uR U " R U ""R U "$R U "&R U "(R U " +R U ",NIO$  A  A  I$ ZZ "C121123f "\124126f "u 127129f " 130132f " 133135f "136138f "139141f "142144f " 145147 f "$148150 f "=151153 f "V154156 f "o157159 f "- 160162f "="163165f "G$166168f "R&169171f "b(172174f "r*175177f "~,178180U  Xf *  X8 *u (Lower half of TV Channel 69) ă AFH0 aFH0!  $ A  A  A  U $ ZZ  "DNIO "bR "{, R "< R "FR "QR "aR "qR "  NIO "'8GU "@HGU "YRGU "r]GU "m GU "}"GU "$GU "&GU "(NIO " +R "$-R$ A  A  A  ! $ ZZ "C181183"\184186"u 187189" 190192" 193195"196198"199201"202204" 205207 "$208210 "=211213 "V214216 "o217219 "- 220222"="223225"G$226228"R&229231"b(232234"r*235237"~,238240 X* aFH0!  FH0Wj N 7  I  ""  "CNIO  Nationwide Interoperability "tR  Reserved for Third Notice "~$GU  General Use I W FF   =%  =%