Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
)
)
The Development of Operational, Technical and )
Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, )
State and Local Public Safety Communication )
Requirements Through the Year 2010
)
WT Docket No. 96-86
FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER
AND
FIFTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Adopted: January 11, 2001
Released: January 17, 2001
Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading
Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................3
III. FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER....................................................................................................6
A. Interoperability Channel Licensing Framework............................................................................6
1. Administrative and Technical Oversight ................................................................................6
a. State Interoperability Executive Committees .................................................................12
b. Regional Planning Committee Responsibilities..............................................................14
c. Pre-coordination Database.............................................................................................17
d. Memoranda of Understanding and Sharing Agreements ................................................21
2. Federal Use of the Interoperability Spectrum.......................................................................25
3. End User Licensing .............................................................................................................28
B. Trunking on the Interoperability Channels .................................................................................34
1. Mandatory Trunking............................................................................................................34
2. Permissive Trunking............................................................................................................36
3. Guard Channels...................................................................................................................46
C. Channel Designation and Access Priority...................................................................................54
1. Channel Designation ...........................................................................................................54
2. Display Labeling (Nomenclature)........................................................................................57
3. Access Priority ....................................................................................................................60
4. Calling Channels .................................................................................................................65
D. Technical Standards...................................................................................................................69
1. Narrowband Digital Voice Standards for Interoperability Channels .....................................69
2. Migration Path to 6.25 kHz Technology ..............................................................................73
a. 700 MHz Band Interoperability Channels......................................................................73
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
b. 700 MHz Band General Use Channels...........................................................................79
3. Narrowband Low Speed Data Transmission Standard and Channel Reservation...................83
4. Encryption ..........................................................................................................................91
5. Receiver Standards and Interference....................................................................................93
IV. FIFTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ........................................................................95
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS..........................................................................................................100
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................................................................100
B. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding ...................................................................101
C. Paperwork Reduction Act ........................................................................................................102
D. Comments ...............................................................................................................................103
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................................109
Appendices:
Appendix A - List of Commenters
Appendix B - Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
Appendix C - Final Rules
I.
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In this Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we adopt various
technical and operational rules and policies regarding the use of frequencies in the 764-776 MHz and 794806 MHz bands (the 700 MHz band) designated for interoperability uses.1 The actions we take today are
based on the recommendations that we received from the Public Safety National Coordination Committee
(NCC), 2 an advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.3 In
the Fourth Notice in this proceeding,4 we sought comment on the NCC’s recommendations and certain
other related issues. 5
1
The Commission has defined “interoperability” as “an essential communications link within public safety and
public service wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more different entities to interact
with one another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable
results.” Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, First
Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 189-90 ¶ 76 (1998) (referred to
herein as "First Report and Order" or "Third Notice" as applicable).
2
See Public Safety National Coordination Committee’s Recommendations to the Federal Communication
Commission for Technical and Operational Standards for Use of the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz Public
Safety Band Pending Development of Final Rules (Feb. 25, 2000) (NCC Report). The NCC Report included
detailed technical information.
A copy of the NCC Report can be obtained via the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html, or from International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, TTY (202) 293-8810, or faxing ITS at (202) 857-3805.
3
5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).
4
Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for meeting Federal, State and Local Public
Safety Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Fourth Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 16899 (2000) (Fourth Notice).
5
For example, we deferred resolution of a reconsideration request concerning “guard channels” for the 700 MHz
band interoperability spectrum. See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16900 ¶ 1 (referring to Com-Net Ericsson
Critical Radio Systems Inc.’s (Com-Net Ericsson) petition for reconsideration of issues related to guard channels
around the Interoperability channels).
2
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
2. We believe that our decisions today promote and facilitate the achievement of nationwide and
regional interoperability in the 700 MHz band.6 We further believe that our actions will enable and
accommodate the expeditious development and deployment of public safety equipment in the 700 MHz
band without compromising our goal of effective and efficient utilization of the spectrum in this band.
The major decisions and proposals in this Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice are as follows:
II.
x
We determine that the administrative and technical oversight of operations on the
Interoperability spectrum should be performed at the state level. In the event that a state
declines to do so, we determine that such functions should be performed by the 700 MHz
band regional planning committee for that state.
x
We make determinations regarding certain operational requirements for use of
the 700 MHz band spectrum, such as channel designation and access priority.
x
While we do not mandate trunking on the Interoperability channels, we permit
trunked operations on eight of the Interoperability channels on a secondary basis under
certain circumstances.
x
We adopt Project 25 Phase I, a standard based on 12.5 kHz channels, as the voice
standard for communications on the 700 MHz band Interoperability channels, and decide
to revisit the issue of migration to a 6.25 kHz technology for these channels at a later
date. In addition, we adopt the data standard incorporated in the Project 25 suite of
standards for narrowband data communications on the 700 MHz band Interoperability
channels.
x
Equipment designed exclusively for voice communications is not required to be
data-capable. Similarly, equipment designed exclusively for data applications is not
required to be voice-capable.
x
Licensees may employ encryption on any Interoperability channel, except the
two calling channels, provided that they use the encryption standard specified by the
Commission. Licensees that employ encryption must ensure that it may be disabled by
the radio user using a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible control.
x
We defer disposition on the issue of receiver standards for the 700 MHz band
pending recommendations from the NCC on this matter.
x
In the Fifth Notice, we seek specific comment on a migration path to 6.25 kHz
technology for the 700 MHz band General Use channels.
BACKGROUND
3. In the First Report and Order in this proceeding, we adopted licensing and service rules for
the 700 MHz band, which consists of twenty-four megahertz of radio spectrum comprised of TV
Channels 63, 64, 68 and 69.7 Specifically, we adopted a band plan for the 700 MHz band whereby 12.6
MHz of spectrum was designated for General Use, 2.6 MHz for Interoperability and 8.8 MHz as Reserve
Spectrum.8 In addition, we found strong support for national planning for both the Interoperability
6
See First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 189-90 ¶ 75.
7
See First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 162-64 ¶¶ 13-16.
8
See id. at 176.
3
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
spectrum and the General Use spectrum in the 700 MHz band.9 Accordingly, we chartered the NCC as an
advisory committee for the purpose of addressing and advising us on certain issues regarding the 700
MHz band.10
4. Among its major responsibilities, the NCC was charged with: (1) formulating and submitting
for Commission review and approval an operational plan to achieve national interoperability that includes
a shared or priority system among users of the Interoperability spectrum, for both day-to-day and
emergency operations, and recommendations regarding Federal users' access to the Interoperability
spectrum; (2) recommending interoperability digital modulation, trunking, and receiver standards for
Commission review and approval; (3) providing voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated
regional plans; and (4) providing general recommendations to the Commission on operational plans of the
public safety community.11 We stated that we intended to provide formality to the NCC and to ensure
participation by representatives of all elements of the public safety community and that the Commission
would not unnecessarily disturb technical standards recommended through this open and neutral
process.12 We explained that the NCC’s recommendations regarding technical standards and operational
requirements would be subject to Commission approval.
5. On February 25, 2000, the NCC submitted its report to the Commission, describing the
participants in the NCC’s decision–making process, the meetings that the NCC conducted, and the
exchanges of information that occurred in developing the NCC’s recommendations.13 On August 2, 2000,
we released the Fourth Notice seeking comments on the NCC Report and its recommendations.
III.
FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER
A.
Interoperability Channel Licensing Framework
1.
Administrative and Technical Oversight
6. Background. In the Third Notice, we sought comment on how best to administer the
Interoperability spectrum. 14 As a general matter, we envision that the entity administering the spectrum
would be responsible for developing an interoperability plan and most likely hold the license for the
Interoperability spectrum under its control.15 In this regard, we believe that some of the responsibilities
involved in administering the Interoperability channels would include the creation and oversight of
incident response protocols, creation of chains of command for incident response and reporting. We
9
See First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 196 ¶ 90.
10
See id., 14 FCC Rcd at 197 ¶ 92. See also Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).
11
See First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 197 ¶ 92.
12
Id. See also Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 8059 (1999) (clarified that
NCC may, but is not required to, become American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited, and the NCC
may make use of the work of existing ANSI-accredited Standards Developers), and Second Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16844 (2000) (Second MO&O) (clarified technical standards regarding automatic power
control and frequency stability).
13
For a discussion of the NCC’s activities from its inception, see NCC Report at 1-4.
14
Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 233-234.
15
Id.
4
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
sought comment on whether the 700 MHz band regional planning committees (RPCs), the states, or some
other entity should administer the Interoperability channels.
7. In its report, the NCC asserted that most states have statutes or regulations governing disaster
response protocols.16 The NCC also noted that most wide-area mutual aid operations are managed and
controlled by state-level organizations,17 and that, in states where there are multiple RPCs, or where one
RPC covers multiple states, RPC administration of Interoperability spectrum may be difficult.18 For these
reasons, the NCC recommended that the states and RPCs work together at the state level. Specifically, the
NCC recommended that the states administer the Interoperability channels while oversight of the
interoperability infrastructure would be the responsibility of the RPCs.19 Under this framework, the states
would plan the use and operation of the Interoperability channels, with the RPCs performing technical
reviews of the applications. If a state were unwilling to administer the channels, however, then the NCC
recommended that the RPCs would assume the states’ administration responsibility as well.20
In the Fourth Notice, we agreed with the NCC that administration of the Interoperability
channels should occur at the state level.21 Thus, we proposed to have the states administer the
Interoperability channels. Under our proposal, applications for Interoperability spectrum would be
approved by a state-level agency or organization responsible for administering state emergency
communications. Under this approach, a state may be the licensee for all stations operating on the
Interoperability channels or it may approve other eligible public safety entities to be licensees. We also
noted that the state could delegate the approval process for Interoperability channels to another entity,
such as a RPC.22
8.
Discussion. Based upon the record in this proceeding, we conclude that administration of the
Interoperability channels should occur at the state level. As noted by the NCC and several commenters,
state-level organizations are usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multi-agency
incidents.23 Given the central role states currently play in managing emergency communications, we
believe that the states are best suited for administering the Interoperability channels. Further, we believe
that state-level control will promote safety of life and property through seamless, coordinated
communications on the Interoperability channels.24 In this connection, we note that states are usually in
the best position to coordinate with Federal Government emergency agencies.
9.
16
NCC Report at Appendix E at 1.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id. at Appendix E at 1, 4.
20
Id. at Appendix E at 1.
21
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16909 ¶ 21.
22
Id.
23
See NCC Report at Appendix E at 1, New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)
Comments at 10. State-level entities may include the Governor of the state or commonwealth or his or her
designee (including a state agency).
24
See 47 U.S.C. § 151 (one of the reasons Congress created the Commission was to promote safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication).
5
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
10. The majority of the commenters who addressed the issue of administrative oversight agree
that administration of the Interoperability channels should be performed at the state-level.25 Thus, the
state, or state-level agency, would hold licenses, resolve licensing issues and develop the statewide
interoperability plan. However, we recognize that certain states may be unable or unwilling to perform
these administrative functions.26 In this regard, we note that the City of Mesa, Arizona (Mesa) contends
that the RPCs should administer the Interoperability channels.27 Mesa maintains that the RPC should
administer these channels because it is the most representative group for the largest number of users.28
However, we are not persuaded by this reasoning. While we recognize that the RPCs may have certain
technical expertise, we nonetheless believe the ability of most states to organize and respond to multijurisdictional incidents and the interests the states have in protecting the lives and property of their
citizens outweighs the concerns expressed by Mesa. Thus, we conclude that the states, in the first
instance, should be responsible for administration of the Interoperability channels.
11. Because some states may not establish a state-level agency for a variety of reasons, we
establish the following safeguards to ensure that a responsible entity maintains responsibility for the
administration of the Interoperability channels. First, each state must decide whether it will administer
the Interoperability spectrum or defer to the RPC. Regardless which entity the state chooses to administer
the Interoperability spectrum, it must notify the Commission by December 31, 2001 what entity will
administer its channels. If a state fails to notify the Commission by December 31, 2001, then effective
January 1, 2002, the RPC will administer the channels. We believe that the 700 MHz band RPC is the
next best entity to administer the Interoperability spectrum based on the familiarity and expertise it will
obtain in the context of planned operations for the General Use spectrum. If a state declines to administer
the Interoperability channels in a situation where more than one RPC provides coverage to the state, then
the state must decide which RPC will administer the Interoperability channels. As stated previously, a
state’s declination may be formal or as a result of inaction. In either scenario, however, the end result
remains the same in that on January 1, 2002, the RPC would begin administering the Interoperability
channels.
a.
State Interoperability Executive Committees
12. Background. In the Fourth Notice, we discussed the NCC’s recommendation that each state
should form a State Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) to administer the Interoperability
channels. 29 Under this approach, the NCC recommends that entities desiring a license to operate on the
Interoperability channels would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the relevant
SIEC.30 The SIEC would be charged with enforcement of the MOU’s terms,31 with final authority vested
25
Joint Commenters (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Forestry
Conservation Communications Association, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International Municipal Signal Association, and the National
Association of State Foresters) Comments at 8; National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
Comments at 4; NYSTEC Comments at 9-10; Orange County, California (Orange County) Comments at 2; David
Buchanan (Buchanan) Comments at 3; State of California (California) Comments at 8; State of Florida (Florida)
Comments at 3; State of Ohio (Ohio) Comments at 2.
26
Orange County Comments at 2; NPSTC Comments at 4; NYSTEC Comments at 9-10; Buchanan Comments at
3.
27
See Mesa Comments at 3.
28
Id.
29
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16909 ¶ 23.
30
See infra para. 21-24 for a discussion of MOUs and sharing agreements.
6
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
with the Commission. The NCC recommended that, among other duties, SIECs develop interoperability
operational plans. If a SIEC or another state agency elected not to oversee development of such plans for
a state, then the NCC recommended that the RPC perform this function.
13. Discussion. Based on the record, we agree with the NCC and the majority of the commenters
and support the creation of SIECs.32 The states best know their own capabilities and the best management
of their resources. Some states already have a mechanism in place that could administer the
Interoperability channels. In such cases, requiring a SIEC would be duplicative and overly burdensome
for the states. Although we support the idea of creating a SIEC or another equally effective state level
agency to administer the Interoperability channels, we decline to require the formation of SIECs.
However, we adopt the NCC’s recommendation that if a SIEC or other state agency elects not to oversee
the administration of its Interoperability channels, the RPCs will assume this responsibility. We believe a
voluntary framework that allows each state to determine its requirements is the best approach. As
previously noted, however, the state does not have an unlimited amount of time to determine whether they
will establish the SIEC, or equivalent state agency. Therefore, if the state has not set forth a plan for
establishing its SIEC, or its equivalent, by December 31, 2001, effective January 1, 2002, then the RPCs
will have the responsibility for administering the Interoperability channels.33
b.
Regional Planning Committee Responsibilities
14. Background. In its report, the NCC recommended that (1) the oversight of the technical
parameters of the interoperability infrastructure should reside with the RPCs; (2) the RPCs should urge
the states to jointly develop interoperability operational plans—and failing that—to develop such plans
independently; and (3) the RPCs should request the states to hold the licenses for infrastructure—and
failing that—to have the licenses held by the next highest level of government.34 In the Fourth Notice, we
requested comment on whether the RPCs should review the technical parameters of applications for
Interoperability channels.35 The RPCs already have a mechanism in place to review the technical
parameters of applications in the 700 MHz band spectrum.36 We also sought comment on whether we
should require the RPCs to verify that the application is in accordance with the state-approved plan for
Interoperability spectrum, or if there is no plan, to certify that the application has been approved by the
appropriate state-level agency.37 Under this approach, RPCs would be free to advocate that the states
develop interoperability plans or, with state approval, develop a plan on their own. In addition, as
discussed above, states could hold the licenses for Interoperability spectrum or approve other entities to
hold licenses.38
(Continued from previous page)
31
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16910 ¶ 23.
32
American Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 14; Illinois State
Police Comments at 3; Joint Commenters Comments at 8-9; NPSTC Comments at 4; Public Safety Wireless
Network (PSWN) Comments at 5-6; California Comments at 8; Florida Comments at 3.
33
See supra paras. 10-11.
34
NCC Report at 12 ¶ 36.
35
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 30.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
The licenses referred to here are for base and control stations.
7
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
15. Discussion. Several commenters concur with the NCC that the RPCs should exercise some
form of review over the technical parameters of applications for Interoperability channels. 39 We believe
that there are benefits associated with the RPCs being responsible for reviewing the technical parameters
of applications for Interoperability channels and verifying that the applications are in accordance with the
state-approved interoperability plan. The RPCs have a review mechanism in place for the 700 MHz
General Use spectrum. At times, this expertise puts them in a superior position to efficiently review the
technical parameters for the Interoperability channels. Technical review is necessary to assure continuity
between separate systems, as well as the proper support of the administration of the Interoperability
channels in the region. 40 We believe, then, that RPC review can help ensure compliance with the
interoperability plan developed for the states. 41
16. If the state agrees to administer the Interoperability channels, it will have primary
responsibility and authority over these channels, with technical review of applications being handled in
the context of the frequency coordination process. For example, if a state decides it will be the sole
licensee on the Interoperability channels, the state will file the necessary FCC applications for each base
station, following the normal application process, including frequency coordination. If a state’s
interoperability plan authorizes a base station in a particular county with the license to be held by that
county, the county will file the necessary FCC application. Finally, if the state plan contemplates using
the Interoperability channels only for mobile to mobile communications, no applications would be filed
with the Commission, because mobile units will be blanket licensed. In each of these cases, we
encourage (but do not require) the state to include the pertinent RPC, with the state defining the RPC’s
role. We believe that setting detailed rules on the RPC’s role would be inconsistent with our decision to
give the states administrative responsibility. If the state declines to administer the Interoperability
channels, the relevant RPC(s) will have primary responsibility and authority over these channels. Under
this scenario, the RPC will develop the interoperability plan, review applications for base stations, and
provide pre-coordination technical review.
c.
Pre-coordination Database
17. Background. In the Fourth Notice, we sought comment on the NCC’s recommendation that
we require RPCs to use a “pre-coordination database” that would be developed for the 700 MHz band.42
Under the NCC’s proposal, the pre-coordination database, which would be provided and maintained by
the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center and funded by the National Institute
of Justice, would be a source of real-time data regarding interoperability assignments, including preapplication requests. The NCC believes that our mandating use of the pre-coordination database would
ensure the avoidance of co-channel and adjacent channel interference.43
39
City of College Station, Texas (College Station) Comments at 1; Mesa Comments at 4; Illinois State Police
Comments at 4; Joint Commenters Comments at 9-10; Orange County Comments at 2; PSWN Comments at 4-5;
Buchanan Comments at 3; Florida Comments at 4.
40
College Station Comments at 1.
41
Illinois State Police Comments at 4.
42
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922-23 ¶¶ 61-63. We note that the NCC’s recommendation pertains to the
public safety 700 MHz band as a whole. However, we address the issue only with regards to the interoperability
channels.
43
NCC Report at 23-24 ¶ 74, Appendix K (Letter from Marilyn Ward, Chair, National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council, to Kathleen Wallman, Chairperson, NCC, dated Apr. 22, 1999).
8
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
18. Discussion. While the majority of those commenting on this issue support the use of a precoordination database,44 they disagree on whether such use should be required by our Rules. While we
agree with the commenters that a pre-coordination database has great merit, we decline to mandate use of
the pre-coordination database at this time. We believe that use of a pre-coordination database could be
deemed desirable not only for the planning purposes of individual states but also for the purpose of
facilitating smooth and effective coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. As a result, we concur with
the Joint Commenters’ contention that such a database could be used as an effective planning tool in
administering the Interoperability spectrum. 45 We are not persuaded, however, that it would be the most
prudent course of action to require the use of a database that has not yet been developed, completed, and
tested. We are concerned that our decision could inadvertently delay the actual utilization of the
Interoperability spectrum.
19. Moreover, we believe the pre-coordination database may have the greatest benefit in planning
for the General Use channels, given that we expect to have more applications filed for the General Use
channels, and to have more licensees in the General Use channels. Indeed, it is not clear to what extent
public safety entities will build infrastructure for use on the Interoperability channels requiring the filing
of applications, as opposed to using the Interoperability spectrum for mobile-to-mobile communications.
20. We fully support the efforts underway to complete development of a pre-coordination
database for the 700 MHz band. We believe it is appropriate to direct the NCC to revisit the issue of
mandating use of the pre-coordination database once the database is developed and has begun operation.
Moreover, we encourage those entities administering the Interoperability spectrum to consider using the
database in their planning and oversight of the spectrum. In addition, our decision not to mandate use of
the pre-coordination database should not be viewed as a statement on the feasibility or usefulness of such
database. We note that nothing precludes the states from voluntarily using the pre-coordination database
once it is operational. In addition, we ask the NCC to continue to monitor the efforts under way to
develop the database and report to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, once the database is
complete.
d.
Memoranda of Understanding and Sharing Agreements
21. Background. In the NCC Report, the NCC Interoperability Subcommittee proposed that
states use templates for: (i) memoranda of understanding between the SIECs and interoperability channel
applicants; and (ii) sharing agreements whereby a licensee authorizes non-licensees, federal government
agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate mobiles on the licensee’s system.46 The
sharing agreement template was designed for the non-licensees, NGOs and federal agencies.47
22. Based on that recommendation, the NCC developed a model Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) that would govern the use of the Interoperability channels, and proposed that we require an
44
APCO Comments at 16; College Station Comments at 2; Orange County Comments at 18; Federal Law
Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) Comments at 10; Illinois State Police Comments at 7;
International Association of Chief of Police (IACP) Reply Comments at 2; Joint Commenters Comments at 16;
NCC Comments at 19-20; NPSTC Comments at 8; PSWN Comments at 11; California Comments at 18; Florida
Comments at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.
45
Joint Commenters Comments at 16. But see Ex Parte Letter filed in the captioned proceeding on December 4,
2000, by Forestry Conservation Communications Assn. (“FCCA,” one of the Joint Commenters) clarifying
FCCA’s view that a pre-coordination database should be in the Commission’s Rules.
46
NCC Report at 13 ¶ 37.
47
Id.
9
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
applicant and the relevant SIEC, or other entity that is charged with administering the Interoperability
channels, to sign an MOU before a license could be granted. The model MOU requires, inter alia,
licensees to use plain language on the Interoperability channels; to monitor the calling channels and
coordinate use of the tactical channels; to limit secondary trunking on the Interoperability channels; and
to follow a set of priority levels when using the channels. 48 The NCC noted that the SIECs and RPCs
might adapt the model MOU to their own needs. 49 The NCC also has developed a model sharing
agreement for use of the Interoperability channels.50 The NCC contemplated that when foreign users (i.e.,
non-licensees, federal government agencies, or NGO) respond to a particular incident, sharing of the
Interoperability channels would be done on the basis of an ad hoc “virtual sharing agreement” that would
begin at the time of the response and end at the conclusion of the incident.51 Use of the virtual sharing
agreements would be restricted to licensees eligible for Interoperability channels and non-licensees,
NGOs and federal agencies that have executed written sharing agreements in their home jurisdictions.52
23. We have determined that the states (or their designees) will administer the Interoperability
spectrum.53 In order to receive a license to operate a base or control station on Interoperability channels,
the applicant must secure approval from the state. The exact procedures that a state may use to administer
its channels were not clearly explained by the NCC. We therefore sought comment on the NCC’s
proposals on the issues of MOUs and sharing agreements and how these proposals would work in
practice.54
24. Discussion. The commenters were divided concerning how to implement the MOUs and
sharing agreements. With such inconsistency among the commenters, at this time, we do not believe that
a formal rule requiring states to use MOUs is appropriate. We are not convinced that our Rules should
dictate the specific details of this approval process. Requiring a formal rule at this juncture could only
serve to increase the administrative burden placed on the states, many of whom may be poised to
implement the MOUs and sharing agreements or similar documents voluntarily. Thus, we strongly
encourage states to follow the NCC’s proposal and have the relevant SIEC, or other entity that is
responsible for the administration of the Interoperability channels, sign an MOU before a license can be
granted.
2.
Federal Use of the Interoperability Spectrum
25. Background. In the Fourth Notice, we noted the NCC’s recommendation that our Rules
should be sufficiently flexible to allow state and local authorities to enter into contractual agreements with
Federal authorities. 55 In this connection, the NCC correctly observed that Section 2.103(b) of our Rules56
48
Id. at Appendix E at 5-6. See infra, ¶¶ 65-68 (discussion of calling channels), ¶¶ 36-45 (discussion of secondary
trunking), and ¶¶ 60-64 (discussion of access priority).
49
NCC Report at 13 ¶ 41.
50
Id. at 13 ¶ 37, Appendix E at 7.
51
Id. at 13 ¶ 37.
52
Id.
53
See supra, ¶ 9.
54
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16912 ¶ 32.
55
NCC Report at 22 ¶ 72, Appendix J.
56
47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).
10
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
already offers flexibility in this regard. Specifically, Section 2.103(b) permits Government entities to use
channels in the public safety 700 MHz band with non-government entities if the Commission finds such
use necessary where:
(a) The stations are used for interoperability or part of a Government/nonGovernment shared or joint-use system;
(b) The Government entity obtains the approval of the non-Government
(State/local government) licensee(s) or applicant(s) involved;
(c) Government operation is in accordance with the Commission's Rules
governing operation of this band and conforms with any conditions agreed upon
by the Commission and the [NTIA]; and
(d) Interoperability, shared or joint-use systems are the subject of a mutual
agreement between the Government and non-Government entities. This section
does not preclude other arrangements or agreements as permitted under Part 90
of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.179, 90.421.57
26. In the Fourth Notice, we referenced our earlier conclusion that there is no impediment to
Federal use of the 700 MHz band through the use of sharing agreements.58 As a result, we tentatively
concluded that an additional rule was not necessary to facilitate Federal sharing of the Interoperability
spectrum and sought comment on our tentative conclusion.59
27. Discussion. Most commenters agreed with our tentative conclusion that no further changes to
our Rules are necessary in order to facilitate or accommodate Federal use of the 700 MHz band
Interoperability spectrum. Because Section 2.103(b) of our Rules already provides this flexibility, we
will not amend our Rules further. In this regard, we reiterate that Federal stations may be authorized in
the 700 MHz band provided certain conditions are met.60 One of these conditions is that the operation of
such stations, whether for the purposes of interoperability, shared or joint-use systems, be the subject of a
mutual agreement between the Federal entity and the non-Federal licensee.61 We nonetheless note that
our Part 90 rules permit other arrangements or agreements whereby a Federal entity can be a user on a
system that is owned and operated by a non-Federal licensee.
3.
End User Licensing
28. Background. The NCC recommended in the Fourth Notice that we license subscriber
equipment (mobiles and portables),62 asserting that such licensing would forestall abuse of the
57
47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b) (1999). Use of the terms “government” and “non-government” are pursuant to the language
in the First Report and Order, which notes, “In the United States, radio spectrum may be allocated exclusively or
for shared use to either government (Federal government) or non-government (state/local governments and
civilians).” First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 185 ¶ 67.
58
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922 ¶ 60, citing Second MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 16865-68 ¶¶ 46-53.
59
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16922 ¶ 60.
60
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b).
61
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b)(4). In the Second MO&O, we noted that the interoperability and reserve spectrum
were subject to further Commission action in the captioned proceeding; accordingly, our conclusion on the validity
of Federal use of the 700 MHz band through sharing agreements was operative only as to the general use
spectrum. See Second MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 16867-68 ¶ 50. We clarify that our conclusion in the Second
MO&O is now operative as to all 700 MHz band spectrum.
62
NCC Report at 12 ¶ 35, Appendix E at 2.
11
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
Interoperability channels in the 700 MHz public safety band.63 In support of its recommendation, the
NCC stated that we should take measures to guard against abuses that allegedly have occurred in the five
mutual aid channels in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands (800 MHz band).64 Because the NCC
believed that abuses had occurred, we sought comment concerning the nature and type of abuses. 65
29. Currently, an entity must have a license to operate a base or control station on the five 800
MHz band mutual aid channels.66 Mobile operation, however, is permitted on these channels without an
individual license by any entity operating in accordance with an approved 800 MHz regional plan (i.e., a
blanket licensing approach).67 Thus, we presumed that the NCC was recommending that we require
entities that want to operate mobile units, including portables, on the 700 MHz Interoperability channels
to obtain an individual license. In the Fourth Notice, we stated that we favor blanket licensing, as
opposed to individual licensing. Therefore, we proposed to allow public safety entities to operate mobile
units on the 700 MHz band Interoperability channels without an individual license if (1) such entities are
eligible to hold a 700 MHz band license, or (2) such entities otherwise are licensed under Part 90 of our
Rules.68 We sought comment on these proposals, the NCC’s recommendation for licensing end users, as
well as the issue of whether the NCC’s suggestions would require amendments to Sections 90.179 and
90.421 of our Rules.69 A number of commenters support our proposal for blanket licensing.70
30. Discussion. We do not believe that the current record supports the NCC recommendation.
As explained in the Fourth Notice, the primary objective in setting aside Interoperability spectrum and
requiring all 700 MHz equipment to be capable of operating on these channels was to ensure that all
public safety entities could communicate with one another, especially during disaster situations.71
Blanket licensing all public safety licensees so that they are authorized for mobile operation, rather than
requiring an individual license, better supports this objective. Furthermore, blanket, rather than
individual, licensing eliminates many administrative burdens associated with licensing (i.e., entities
would not have to apply for a mobile license, and the Commission would not have to process the
applications).72
63
Id.
64
Id. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.617(a); Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National
Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/866869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, GEN Docket No. 87-112, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 90809 (1987) (800 MHz Band Report and Order) (discussing “mutual aid channels”), as modified by Memorandum
Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 3 FCC Rcd 5391 (1988), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd
2113 (1988).
65
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 27.
66
See 800 MHz Band Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶¶ 30, 33-34; see generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.16, 90.20,
90.603, 90.617, 90.619(a)(2).
67
See 800 MHz Band Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 909 ¶¶ 30, 33-34.
68
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 28.
69
Id.; 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.179 (Shared use of radio stations); 90.421 (Operation of mobile units in vehicles not under
the control of the licensee).
70
Joint Commenters Comments at 9; Mesa Comments at 4.
71
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16910 ¶ 26.
72
Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 26.
12
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
31. Several commenters, however, support licensing end users. 73 The Illinois State Police, for
example, fear that if subscribers are not licensed, control of the channels will be diminished. 74 In
addition, the FLEWUG has concerns that unless equipment is licensed directly by the Commission,
potential problems could arise with equipment compatibility and security.75 However, FLEWUG
maintains that blanket licensing will not provide a benefit if licensees develop and adhere to appropriate
equipment licensing procedures and interoperability plans.76 In addition, FLEWUG takes issue with
Florida’s statement that subscriber licensing will not improve the effectiveness of interoperability and that
it will likely hinder, rather than promote, acceptance of the interoperability system by local agencies. 77
The PSWN shares this view and disagrees with both the NPSTC and of Florida.78
32. The record does not support the conclusion that abuses exist to an extent that would justify
the administrative burdens of individual licensing. The NCC did not identify in its Report any specific
abuses it believes have occurred in the 800 MHz public safety band. Accordingly, we sought comment
on the types of abuses that have occurred allegedly as a result of not requiring licensing of end users.79
Few commenters provided responses regarding the types of abuse that have resulted from not requiring
licensing of end users. Florida explained that during the implementation of the NPSPAC channels, there
was sporadic abuse. No mention of the type or nature of abuse was provided. It is our understanding,
however, that such abuse was resolved through improved understanding and cooperative use. Florida also
stated that it could not cite any ongoing occurrences of abuse that are significant enough to warrant
licensing of end users.80 In addition, the NCC stated that abuses are difficult to document because they
are generally received and addressed verbally.81 Thus, the record contains little evidence of abuses.
Moreover, parties have commented that end user licensing would not eliminate all abuses that have
occurred. 82
33. In response to our request for comment on whether adoption of the NCC’s suggestion
requires amendment to Sections 90.179 and 90.421 of our Rules, FLEWUG stated that maintaining
individual licensing of base and mobile equipment could obviate the need to amend Sections 90.179 and
90.421.83 We believe that the limitation of blanket licensing to entities eligible under the two-part
standard referenced above will help prevent abuses without being overly burdensome. Thus, we will
73
Illinois State Police Comments at 3; FLEWUG Comments at 5; APCO Comments at 14 (APCO suggests
requiring licensing of end users where a user is not otherwise a 700 MHz band licensee. In the alternative,
however, APCO suggests requiring all users to enter into a MOU with the SIEC or RPC.).
74
Illinois State Police Comments at 3.
75
FLEWUG Comments at 5; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 3.
76
FLEWUG Comments at 5.
77
FLEWUG Reply Comments at 3.
78
PSWN Reply Comments at 3-4.
79
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16911 ¶ 27.
80
Florida Comments at 3.
81
NCC Comments at 9.
82
See Joint Commenters Comments at 9; California Comments at 9-10.
83
FLEWUG Comments at 5.
13
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
make necessary amendments to Sections 90.179 and 90.421 of our Rules in order to implement this
standard.
B.
Trunking on the Interoperability Channels
1.
Mandatory Trunking
34. Background. In the Fourth Notice, we tentatively concurred with NCC’s recommendation that
we not mandate trunking on the thirty-two Interoperability channel sets because trunking can occur only
when communications take place through a system infrastructure.84 The NCC asserted that most
interoperability communications would occur at the scene of an incident on a mobile unit-to-unit basis,
not through an infrastructure.85 Accordingly, only a few infrastructure interoperability channels are
required in most cases.86 The NCC therefore contended that the cost of configuring a small number of
infrastructure channels for trunked operations would not be justified by the slight increase in spectrum
efficiency that would result with trunking.
35. Discussion. Our review of the record shows that if we mandate trunking, then all mobile units
nationwide must have trunking capability. We believe the small benefit gained in spectrum efficiency
does not outweigh the disadvantages associated with mandatory trunking, specifically, the expense of
added cost, weight, and complexity to the units. We believe the availability, lower cost, and simplicity of
direct unit-to-unit and conventional repeated communications87 will result in true interoperability between
two or more different entities on a larger scale than by mandating trunking. We note, too, that trunking
requires a communications system infrastructure, which generally will not be found in rural areas. 88
Similarly, only large metropolitan areas would employ a sufficient number of Interoperability channels to
justify trunking from a cost standpoint.89 The alternative to a nationwide database would be to have
“foreign” units responding to a major incident register at the scene of an incident, thereby possibly
introducing unacceptable delays. We note that the ability of foreign units to respond to emergencies
could be compromised if those units were required to register with the trunked system before they could
be used. We concur with the NCC that registration during an emergency could cause unacceptable
delays. 90 Thus, we will not mandate trunking on the Interoperability channels.
2.
Permissive Trunking
36. Background. The NCC recommended that we allow trunking on a limited number of
Interoperability channel sets.91 The NCC maintained that jurisdictions would likely implement trunked
84
Sixty-four 6.25 kHz channels are designated for interoperability; used as 12.5 kHz channels there are 32
channels.
85
NCC Report at 7 ¶ 17.
86
Id. at 7 ¶ 18.
87
See Florida Comments at 1.
88
See Joint Commenters Comments at 7.
89
See NCC Report at 7 ¶ 18.
90
Emergencies tend to be local in nature and are often difficult to predict. Thus, in many instances, an extensive
trunking capability—built at considerable public cost—would lie dormant. See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at
16904 ¶ 8, n.26.
91
NCC Report at 10 ¶ 27.
14
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
interoperability systems if they could use the Interoperability channels as part of their General Use
systems when the channels were not needed for interoperability purposes.92 At the same time, the NCC
noted that with such trunking, some jurisdictions’ systems might fail to release, or “de-trunk,” the trunked
channels immediately when the channels were required for unit-to-unit conventional interoperability
communications.93 Thus, the NCC recommended adoption of a number of safeguards. First, to help
ensure that Interoperability channels were always available when necessary, the NCC recommended that
we permit trunking only on a secondary basis and then only on ten of the thirty-two Interoperability
channels designated for interoperability use. Trunking would be prohibited on the remaining
Interoperability channels. Second, the NCC recommended that we permit secondary trunking only if a
jurisdiction maintains a continuous (twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week) dispatch facility at
which the facility operator releases the Interoperability channels for conventional (i.e., non-trunked) use
on demand, with no discretion on the operator’s part.94
37. The NCC further recognized that secondarily trunked channels might become so integral to
the jurisdiction’s trunked system that it could become “politically impossible” to release them for
interoperability communication. To prevent a jurisdiction from holding the channels hostage, the NCC
recommended a third safeguard that would permit systems to use secondary trunking only as follows: (1)
systems with ten or fewer general use channels could use one Interoperability channel for secondary
trunking, and (2) systems with more than ten general use channel sets could use two Interoperability
channels for secondary trunking. 95 Systems with twenty or more general use channel sets could request to
use more than two channel sets for secondary trunking. These requests for more than two channels would
be decided on a case-by-case basis by the entity that administers the Interoperability spectrum.96
38. In the Fourth Notice, the Commission asked for comments on the NCC’s trunking
recommendations. In doing so, the Commission tentatively concluded that some limited trunking
capability had merit. The Commission also stated, however, that it was not convinced that it should
establish rules other than the secondary restriction to safeguard conventional use. Further, it asked for
comment on whether ten channels was the appropriate number of channels to designate for secondary
trunking. 97 In addressing the issue of trunking Interoperability spectrum, the Commission noted that the
spectrum immediately adjacent to the Interoperability channels is part of the reserve spectrum. Rather
than combine two 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs, the Commission raised the option of
combining 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs with 12.5 kHz reserve channel pairs to form 25 kHz
channels. The Commission requested comments on this option.98 Further, to insure that this operation
was available, the Commission designated spectrum adjacent to the narrowband Interoperability channels
as temporary guard band channels.99
92
Id. at 7 ¶ 20.
93
Id. at 8 ¶ 21.
94
Id.
95
Id.
96
Id.
97
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶ 13.
98
Id at 16908 ¶ 17.
99
Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Third Memorandum
(continued….)
15
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
39. The Joint Commenters disagreed with the NCC proposal regarding permitting ten of the
Interoperability channels to be trunked on a secondary basis, out of concern about the ability to revert to
conventional use in an emergency situation.100 The Joint Commenters stated that, should the Commission
adopt NCC’s proposal to allow such trunking, then continuous “24/7” monitoring is absolutely
essential.101
40. Discussion. As noted above, we have decided not to mandate trunking. We agree with the
NCC and others, however, that allowing trunking on a permissive basis has merit. Governmental entities
largely supported the idea of permissive trunking on a limited number of Interoperability channels. For
example, Florida, Ohio, and California noted the role that local sharing arrangements and the regional
planning committees have in ensuring the integrity of the Interoperability channels for their intended
purpose. 102 Further, California stated that it “supports the idea of permitting some of the Interoperability
channels to be integrated into the trunked systems that may be constructed by specific agencies,”103 but
expressed concern about the proposal that “ . . . operation must immediately be discontinued whenever
any channel sets are needed for interoperability communications,”104 suggesting there are many instances
in which a particular emergency can be handled without requiring the release of a channel that is being
used in the trunked system. 105
41. Orange County and Mesa concurred with the NCC recommendation.106 Mesa noted that “[I]f
jurisdictions are going to the expense of building emergency capacity into their trunked systems, they
must be getting something for it. Allowing them secondary use for their normal, day-to-day operations
gives them something . . . . [Mesa is] not going to spend $160,000 per channel for equipment we cannot
routinely use just so it’s there in case of emergency.”107 Buchanan stated that permissive trunking “will
aid large multi-agency systems like the County of San Bernardino system, where most day-to-day
interoperability and some large scale emergencies are conducted on the trunked system among the
(Continued from previous page)
Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19844 (2000) (referred to hereinafter as “Third
MO&O” or “Third R&O” as applicable), Appendix G.
100
Joint Commenters Comments at 8.
101
Id.
102
See Ohio Comments at 2, “The why’s, when’s and how’s of de-trunking should be clearly defined in [a]
Memorandum of Understanding and Sharing Agreement.” Florida Comments at 2, “[w]hile disputes could arise in
some cases, we believe the Commission’s proposal to limit permissive trunking to only ten channel sets, and on a
strict secondary basis, will be sufficient to prevent any significant long-term problems.” But see Baltimore County,
Maryland, Comments at 1, “It is out contention that until such time that there is an authority appointed over the
users of the system, there is not a guaranteed methodology that will eliminate the channels necessary in a timely
manner.”
103
California Comments at 6-7.
104
Id. at 7, citing Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶13.
105
California Comments at 7.
106
See Mesa Comments at 1-2; Orange County Comments at 1-2.
107
Mesa Comments at 1-2.
16
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
different agencies involved.”108 Nokia and Kenwood also supported the NCC recommendation, stressing
the need for quick clearance of the Interoperability channel when it is needed for conventional use.109
42. Based on the record in this proceeding, we believe that jurisdictions are more likely to
implement interoperability capability in their trunked infrastructure if they could use some of the
Interoperability channels pairs as part of their general use trunked systems during the majority of the time
when the channels are not needed for interoperability purposes. Further, we agree with the NCC that to
obtain the benefits here we need only to allow trunking on a few of the Interoperability channels. The
majority of Interoperability channels should remain available for the most likely interoperability
communications scenario, conventional communications on a unit-to-unit basis. Therefore, we will allow
trunking on a limited number of Interoperability channels. To ensure that these Interoperability channels
are always available when necessary for conventional interoperability operations, we will allow trunking
only on a secondary basis as recommended by the NCC. Further, as recommended by the NCC, we will
put a limit on the number of Interoperability channels that can be used in a trunked system.
43. With respect to the NCC’s recommendation that a jurisdiction must maintain continuous
monitoring so that the channels can be released immediately when needed for interoperability
communications, we believe it is appropriate to require such monitoring when the channels are being used
in trunked operation. The majority of the commenters support such monitoring.110 We believe that the
entities charged with administering the Interoperability channels are in an appropriate position to
determine the specific means by which they will comply with this monitoring requirement. Accordingly,
we adopt a rule regarding the monitoring and clearance of the Interoperability channels.
44. The final questions that must be answered here are how many channels we intend to allow for
permissive trunking use, and which ones. As noted above, we recently revised the 700 MHz band plan in
the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order.111 Based on the changes made in this item, we will permit
trunking on eight 12.5 kHz Interoperability channels on a secondary basis to conventional operations,
instead of allowing trunking on ten Interoperability channels as recommended by the NCC.112 The NCC
recommendation of ten was based on the previous band plan. Each of the eight channels that we are
allowing 25 kHz trunked operation on will consist of a 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel (two contiguous
6.25 kHz channels) and one of the adjacent guard band channels (two contiguous 6.25 kHz channels).
45. Entities will be able to use one Interoperability 12.5 kHz channel pair in the trunked mode for
every ten 12.5 kHz general use channels trunked. The maximum number of Interoperability channels that
can be used by any individual licensee is four. Taking this option minimizes the impact that trunked
operations have on the spectrum set aside for interoperability, and ensures that one licensee does not
prevent other licensees from using these channels. The guard band channels will be called secondary
108
Buchanan Comments at 2.
109
Nokia Comments at 18, “To ensure that secondary trunking does not interfere with interoperability, a simple
and foolproof method of ensuring that these channels are released when required for emergency purposes must be
utilized.” Nokia then asserts that its TETRA-compliant system is just such a method. Kenwood Corporation
Comments at 3-4, “ . . . a simple and reliable method of assuring release of the channels for [interoperability] use
on a timely basis is necessary.”
110
APCO Comments at 11-13; E.F. Johnson Comments at 1; Joint Commenters Comments at 8; Kenwood
Comments at 4; NPSTC Comments at 3-4; NYSTEC Comments at 7-8; Nokia Comments at 18; PSWN Comments
at 3-4
111
See Third MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 19851-19860 ¶¶ 16-39.
112
The eight channels represent 25% of the Interoperability channels.
17
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
trunking channels and can only be used in connection with the adjacent Interoperability 12.5 kHz channel
pair in a trunked system. Because the secondary trunking channels (guard band channels) are combined
with Interoperability spectrum, they will be administered by the State. The specific 6.25 kHz channels
that can be combined to form the eight 25 kHz trunked channels are as follows: 21, 22, 23 and 24; 61, 62,
63 and 64; 101, 102, 103 and 104; 141, 142, 143 and 144; 181, 182, 183 and 184; 221, 222, 223, and 224;
261, 262, 263 and 264; and 301, 302, 303, and 304.113 The remaining guard band channels that were held
in reserve pending our decision on this matter are allotted to the reserve pool.
3.
Guard Channels
46. Background. As noted in the Fourth Notice, the NCC asserted that we should preserve the
possibility of converting specified two-channel groups in the Interoperability band to four-channel groups
to accommodate technologies that require more than a 12.5 kHz bandwidth.114 The NCC recommended
that if we did not adopt Com-Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc.’s (Com-Net Ericsson) proposal,115
that we should preserve as “guard channels” the two contiguous 6.25 kHz reserve channels immediately
below the ten 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel sets on which the NCC recommends we permit secondary
trunking.”116 This designation would allow users to combine the guard channels with certain
Interoperability channels to form 25 kHz channel blocks. The NCC proposed that the guard channels
should not be available except for use in conjunction with secondary trunking on the Interoperability
channels. It also stated that guard channels could be combined to form 25 kHz channel blocks if we
decide at some later date to increase the bandwidth of the Interoperability channels to 25 kHz.117 The
NCC further notes that if the Com-Net Ericsson proposal were approved, then guard channels would no
longer be necessary.118
47. In the Fourth Notice, we proposed to prohibit trunking on all but ten Interoperability channels
because the remaining channels are reserved for conventional operations. Thus, we did not anticipate that
entities would employ technologies requiring 25 kHz bandwidths—such as TETRA—on these channels.
We also expressed concern about, and solicited comment on, the potential adjacent channel interference
that may result from repositioning the Interoperability channels into groups of four contiguous channel
sets, as proposed by Com-Net Ericsson.119 Specifically, we requested comments on the allocation of the
temporary guard channels. We also sought comments on the potential for adjacent channel interference if
the Interoperability channels were reallocated in groups of four, as previously suggested by Com-Net
Ericsson. Finally, we sought comments on the need to provide 25 kHz aggregated blocks on all the
Interoperability channels, or only on the channels where secondary trunking is permitted.
113
Although not specifically listed, the mobile side of the pair is included. See Appendix C, 47 C.F.R. §§
90.531(b)(1)(iii), 90.531(b)(7).
114
NCC Report at 11 ¶ 32.
115
Com-Net Ericsson initially had sought a plan that would allow for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz, to make 25
kHz. Interestingly, in its Comments to the Fourth Notice, Com-Net Ericsson abandons this position, and asks that
we not consider any interoperability spectrum with a potential channel bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz. Com-Net
Ericsson Comments at 11-12.
116
NCC Report at Appendix C at 2-3.
117
Id. at Appendix C at 2.
118
Id. at 11 ¶ 32.
119
See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16920-21 ¶¶ 57-58 (discussing receiver standards and interference issues).
18
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
48. We note that in June 2000, the NCC offered a revised band plan, wherein four contiguous
6.25 kHz channels make up each Interoperability channel set.120 The center channels of each set comprise
the 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, with 6.25 kHz channels on either side serving as guard channels.
The four channels could be aggregated to form a single 25 kHz channel.121
49. Discussion. While we intend to allow permissive trunking on eight Interoperability channels,
with its concomitant need for four 6.25 kHz channels, we decline to adopt a band plan that has guard
channels. Instead, as we noted when discussing permissive trunking, we recently revised our 700 MHz
band plan. 122 This plan, while not incorporating guard channels per se, does provide one of the benefits
of having guard channels, i.e., the ability to aggregate four 6.25 kHz channels (two 6.25 kHz
Interoperability channels, plus two 6.25 kHz reserve channels) so that secondary trunking may occur.
50. Interestingly, while most commenters generally agreed with NCC’s recommendation, their
reasons spoke not so much of “guarding” against adjacent channel interference, as adopting a band plan
allowing for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels to 25 kHz. For example, the Joint Commenters
concurred that the band plan should provide for aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels for 25 kHz
operation, 123 while APCO supported NCC’s recommendation, as well as the NCC’s June 2000 band plan.
APCO believes that “[a]doption of that plan will facilitate flexibility to create contiguous spectrum
blocks, without posing new adjacent channel interference problems.124 Mesa supported the assignment
of four contiguous channels for some Interoperability use. It suggested that the two middle channels in
the four contiguous blocks should be used for the 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, to ensure freedom
from interference. Mesa also suggested that all four channels in this contiguous group should be labeled
“Interoperability/guard band” so their use is assured in interoperability situations regardless of future
technology.125
51. California, Florida, NYSTEC, and Kenwood all agreed, with minor variations, with the NCC
proposal to develop a scheme allowing the aggregation of four 6.25 kHz channels to form a 25 kHz
contiguous block of spectrum for interoperability operations.126 Florida supported a 6.25 kHz guard
channel be positioned on each side of the 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel, instead of implementing two
contiguous 6.25 kHz (i.e., 12.5 kHz) channels above or below the 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel pairs.
While the total bandwidth is the same (25 kHz), Florida argues that there should be less adjacent channel
interference with guard bands on each side. 127 The FLEWUG asked the Commission to adopt the June
2000 version of NCC’s band plan. 128
120
NCC Comments, Attachment 1.
121
NCC Comments at 8.
122
See Third Memorandum MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 19851-19860 ¶¶ 16-39.
123
Joint Commenters Comments at 8.
124
APCO Comments at 13.
125
Mesa Comments at 2-3.
126
See Kenwood Comments at 4-5; NYSTEC Comments at 9; California Comments at 7-8; Florida Comments at
2.
127
Florida Comments at 2.
128
FLEWUG Comments at 3.
19
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
52. Others were even more circumspect in their view toward guard channels. E.F. Johnson
favored leaving the Interoperability channels as 32 channel sets of 12.5 kHz, but agreed that the 6.25 kHz
guard channels on either side of the Interoperability channels should be available for aggregation. E.F.
Johnson believes that such aggregation should be allowed only on the ten defined trunking channels.129
Nokia, while not commenting explicitly on what band plan to adopt, “wishes to emphasize that the
alignment of the Interoperability channels must be maintained in a technologically neutral manner so as
not to preclude use of any valid technology in the future.”130 Meanwhile, Com-Net Ericsson, following
up on its assertion that permissive trunking should not be allowed, argued that “[n]ot allowing permissible
(sic) trunking removes the need to provide four (4) contiguous channels in the Interoperability spectrum.
In fact, Com-Net Ericsson no longer sees any need to reorganize the Interoperability spectrum such that
four 6.25 kHz Interoperability channels are contiguous.” Com-Net Ericsson further argued that the
Interoperability spectrum not entertain any channel bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz.131
53. We do not discern among the commenters an overriding urgency to adopt a band plan that
has guard channels; there was little discussion of adjacent channel interference. Rather, the commenters
stated that the band plan we adopt should be configured so that four 6.25 kHz channels could be
aggregated into 25 kHz. As noted previously, the band plan in the Third MO&O provides for such
aggregation, and we here reiterate our adoption of that plan.
C.
Channel Designation and Access Priority
1.
Channel Designation
54. Background. The NCC recommended that we adopt a table of channel assignments for the
Interoperability channels.132 The table would assign a particular purpose and name to each
Interoperability channel set (two 6.25 kHz channels). In the Fourth Notice, we indicated that certain
benefits as well as disadvantages were inherent in a table of channel assignments.133
55. Discussion. Upon review of the record, we believe the disadvantages associated with limiting
flexibility of channel use outweigh the advantages. Thus, we will not adopt a table of channel
assignments. We agree, with the majority of commenters who, while generally supportive of channel
designation, expressed concern about codifying the recommendation. Florida, for example, while noting
that such designation “has considerable value to the effective and cooperative use” of mutual aid
channels, expressed concern about “the degree of specificity and exclusiveness incorporated in the NCCrecommend (sic) naming and use designation . . . .”134 For their part, the Joint Commenters asserted that
adoption of a table of assignments would be Federal micro-management of a local issue, resulting in the
deprivation of the states’ flexibility to address local situations.135
129
E.F. Johnson Comments at 1-2.
130
Nokia Comments at 19.
131
Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 11-12.
132
NCC Report at 14 ¶ 42.
133
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16912-13 ¶ 33.
134
Florida Comments at 4.
135
Joint Commenters Comments at 10.
20
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
56. We are concerned, too, about the administrative problems inherent in adoption of such a
table. For example, each time the public safety community wished to revise a channel label, we would
have to initiate a rulemaking proceeding or rule upon a waiver request before the table could be amended.
We believe this procedure would be cumbersome, and can be avoided by simply deferring to the states to
devise a suitable channel designation scheme. In addition, such a “hard and fast” table would limit
system flexibility. For example, a channel designated for Fire Services could not be used for Police
Services. Such inflexibility would seem to defeat a main purpose of Interoperability, i.e., interagency
cooperation. Accordingly, we will not adopt a table of channel assignments into our Rules.
2.
Display Labeling (Nomenclature)
57. Background. Generally, transmitters used under Part 90 of our Rules must be certificated for
use. 136 In its report, the NCC recommended that we require mobile units certificated for use under Part 90
of the Rules be capable of displaying Interoperability channel labels alphanumerically if the radios are
equipped with alphanumeric displays.137 The NCC also recommended that when a mobile radio is
operating in the direct (simplex) mode, 138 the letter “D” should be appended to the end of the displayed
channel label.139 The NCC asserted that adoption of these rules would allow the establishment of a
nationally standardized format to communicate on Interoperability channels, as well as to eliminate
guesswork during a multi-agency response.140
58. Discussion. In general, the commenters believed the recommendation was appropriate, but
differed as to whether we ought to codify it. At a minimum, however, all commenters agreed that
establishment of a minimum national standard that was available to public safety entities and equipment
manufacturers was necessary. For example, the Joint Commenters and Florida offered tepid support of the
recommendation.141 Florida was “hesitant to encourage this degree of detail [i.e., requiring alphanumeric
channel labeling] as a requirement of the Commission’s Rules, particularly considering that the provision
of alphanumeric display is not itself a requirement for equipment certification.”142 Kenwood rejected the
recommendation, asserting that it represented too much Federal regulation over essentially local matters,
and that what NCC recommended would not fit, physically, on some of the equipment favored by local
public safety entities.143
59. We believe the practical and administrative burdens of such a requirement outweigh the
benefits. It strikes us as excessive Federal involvement in the equipment certification process. Thus, we
will not adopt a rule codifying the NCC’s recommendation. Instead, we agree with those commenters,
like Kenwood, who urge development of an industry standardized display labeling scheme for the
136
47 C.F.R. § 90.203. See 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.
137
NCC Report at 14 ¶ 43, Appendix D at 4.
138
In this case, simplex operation is mobile to mobile communications on one-half of the channel pair. The
communications do not go through an infrastructure. Simplex operation is often the dominant mode of
communications between multiple public safety agencies at the scene of an accident. Id.
139
Id.
140
Id. at Appendix D at 1-2.
141
Joint Commenters Comments at 10; Florida Comments at 4.
142
Florida Comments at 4-5.
143
Kenwood Comments at 7.
21
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
Interoperability channels, including numbering and display schemes for conventional and trunked mode
operation. An industry standard would provide the flexibility that is necessary to accommodate changes.
Additionally, manufacturers will have an incentive to provide radio equipment with user programmable
display options, capacity and modes satisfying the industry standards of the public safety user
community.”144 Given that its membership is drawn from a wide range of interests in the public safety
community, we believe the NCC would be an appropriate body to develop such an industry standardized
scheme. Accordingly, we direct the NCC to consider the development of an industry standardized
scheme for display labeling.
3.
Access Priority
60. Background. The NCC recommended that we adopt a priority scheme for the use of the
Interoperability channels.145 The NCC recommends that users receive priority access only for “mission
critical” communications, not for administrative or other non-mission critical communications. 146 Under
the NCC’s scheme, a party wishing to use an Interoperability channel in use by another party would
declare its level of priority. The higher level of priority would gain use of the channel; the party with the
lower priority level would be required to cease its communications immediately. Under the NCC’s
proposal, the highest level of priority, Level 1, would be for disaster and extreme emergency operations
for mutual aid and interagency communications. The next level, Level 2, would be for emergency or
urgent operations involving imminent danger to life or property. Level 3 would be for special event
control, generally of a preplanned nature (including task force operations). Finally, Level 4, the lowest
level (and the default when no higher priority level has been declared) would be for single agency
secondary communications. 147 Conventional use of the Interoperability channels always would have
precedence over secondary trunked use.148 Within the same level of priority, the NCC recommends
giving access to the organization with the wider span of control or authority. The NCC states that the
proposed priority levels are taken from the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report
and represent the consensus opinion of experts in the field. 149
61. Discussion. In the Fourth Notice, we expressed our view that, while we found merit in a
priority scheme, we were not convinced that such a scheme should be codified in our Rules. We believed
the states were in a better position to determine priority use and resolve disputes. We also noted that the
priority levels the NCC recommends differed from the Priority Access Service (PAS) levels we adopted
to allow commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to provide PAS for national and security and
emergency preparedness (NSEP) personnel. 150
62. The majority of commenters agreed with our tentative conclusion in the Fourth Notice, and
sought to preserve the ability of localities to devise appropriate priority levels, and not have priority levels
144
Id. at 8.
145
NCC Report at 14 ¶ 44.
146
Id. at Appendix D.
147
NCC Report at 14 ¶ 44.
148
See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16906 ¶ 13.
149
NCC Report at 15 ¶ 47.
150
See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Second
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16720, 16721 (2000).
22
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
imposed on them. 151 These commenters opposed the access priority scheme as a rule for a variety of
reasons, including excessive Federal involvement in an essentially local matter; concepts of federalism,
and over-regulation. 152 Yet, some commenters sought codification of the NCC’s recommendations.
NYSTEC, for example, opined that some form of priority access scheme must be introduced, and that
mere recommendation (as opposed to codification) would have the unintentional consequence of allowing
different regions to implement different, perhaps confusing or conflicting, priority schemes, which would
be detrimental in region border areas.153 For similar reasons, Baltimore County, Maryland urged that
rules governing priority access “should be clearly defined . . . . To have an operation moved [from an
Interoperability channel] based on priorities that another jurisdiction defines as ‘higher’ will lead to either
confusion on the first or second incident or the lack of support by all jurisdictions within a region to adopt
the standards.”154
63. As first noted in the Fourth Notice,155 we continue to believe that states, not the Commission,
are in the superior position to devise, coordinate and operate an appropriate access formula. Priority
levels are determined as part of a state’s plan, and states should coordinate frequency use and priority
levels to develop a seamless Interoperability system at mutual border areas. Thus, the states should
address these border issues when devising their Interoperability plans with the goal of a seamless
Interoperability system.
64. In addition to our desire to provide the states with flexibility to adopt a priority access
system, we still observe that the priority levels the NCC recommends are different from the PAS levels
that we recently adopted in rules allowing CMRS providers to provide PAS for NSEP personnel. We are
not persuaded that codifying new Federal access levels would be appropriate at this time. We believe that
another set of priority levels would serve only to create confusion during a large-scale or multi-agency
response. Therefore, after consideration of the record, we decline to codify an access priority scheme for
the Interoperability channels. We nonetheless encourage states, as they adopt priority access schemes, to
consider Federal access levels associated with communications during disaster or emergency situations.
4.
Calling Channels
65. Background. The NCC recommended, and we agreed, that we should designate two
Interoperability channels as calling channels to use as gateways to other channels.156 Public safety
entities, particularly those from “outside the system,” would use calling channels to access the public
151
See Ohio Comments at 2, “As long as these recommendations are not codified and left to the local RPC for
interpretation, [Ohio] supports the recommendation;” Florida Comments at 5, “We believe that each state should
consider the priority schemes proposed by the NCC, but should be free to implement and manage its own priority
schemes to the extent necessary in their particular case;” California Comments at 12, “The State supports the
priority levels proposed by the NCC and opposes the use of Priority Access Service (PAS) levels.” Kenwood
Comments at 8-9, “[an access priory scheme] is . . . an administration issue, best left to the administrators of the
[interoperability] channels;” See also PSWN Comments at 6-7; NPSTC Comments at 6; Illinois State Police
Comments at 5; FLEWUG Comments at 5-6; Orange County Comments at 3-4; College Station Comments at 2;
Mesa Comments, at 5.
152
See commenters cited at n.151, supra.
153
NYSTEC Comments at 11-12.
154
Baltimore County, Maryland (Baltimore County) Comments at 1-2.
155
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16907 ¶ 37.
156
NCC Report at 15 ¶ 45.
23
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
safety communications infrastructure in the area where they are located. For example, a fire department
responding to an incident in another county could use the calling channels to find out the appropriate onscene tactical channel or how to contact other public safety entities such as the police. In addition, the
NCC recommended that we require licensees using the associated Interoperability channels to monitor the
calling channels. In addition to normal calling channel use, the NCC recommends using the channels to
declare emergencies and to request the immediate release of any channels being used for secondary
trunking. 157 Finally, the NCC recommends that we forbid the use of encryption on calling channels.
66. We agreed that calling channels were a key part of any Interoperability system. Accordingly,
we proposed to specify two of the 700 MHz Interoperability channels as nationwide calling channels.158
We indicated that these channels would be reserved for activities such as coordination of multiple public
safety entities at the scene of an incident or entities that were outside the system, but were requesting help
or information.159
67. Discussion.
After consideration of the comments and the overwhelming support for
codifying the NCC’s recommendation, 160 we reiterate our support for designating two Interoperability
channels as calling channels. We continue to believe that calling channels are integral to a successful
Interoperability system. Accordingly, we will designate two nationwide calling channels in the band
plan.161 In addition, as the NCC recommended, 162 we prohibit encryption on the calling channels; these
channels must be open and readily-accessible, so that public safety entities from neighboring jurisdictions
can communicate easily, and identify on which channel they should meet in the event of an emergency.
68. With regard to licensees operating fixed equipment on the Interoperability channels to
monitor the calling channels, we will allow the states to address this issue. We agree with those parties
commenting on this issue that the details of such monitoring, including the specific monitoring scheme
for the release of channels being used for secondary trunking, should remain at the state level.163
D.
Technical Standards
1.
Narrowband Digital Voice Standards for Interoperability Channels
69. Background. In its report, the NCC indicated that it considered three digital voice standards
before reaching its recommendation of a standard for the Interoperability channels: Project 25 Phase I,
157
Id. at 15 ¶ 47; see also Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915 ¶ 39.
158
See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915 ¶ 40.
159
Id.
160
Illinois State Police Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Comments at 10-11; NPSTC Comments at 6; Orange
County Comments at 4; PSWN Comments at 7; Florida Comments at 5; California Comments at 12; Mesa
Comments at 4.
161
The two nationwide calling channels are 39/999, 40/1000, 681/1641, and 682/1642.
162
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16915 ¶ 39.
163
Florida Comments at 5, “we believe it should be left to the state and RPC planning levels to address the details
of monitoring requirements (e.g., 24 hours, 7 days/week, and equipment configuration . . . . “ California did not
oppose monitoring, but asks “who will fund such coverage?” California Comments at 13.
24
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
Project 25 Phase II, and the European Technical Standards Institute (ETSI) 392 TETRA164 system
(TETRA).165 After considering these different voice standards, the NCC recommended that we adopt
Project 25 Phase I as the digital voice standard for the Interoperability channels.166 While we sought
comment on what digital voice standard we should adopt for use on the Interoperability channels, we
nonetheless tentatively concluded that we should adopt the Project 25 Phase I standard at this time. 167 In
seeking comment on this issue, we urged parties to be cognizant of the dual goals of (1) encouraging the
development and usage of the most spectrum-efficient technology, and (2) providing public safety entity
access to the 700 MHz Interoperability channels on a near-term basis in a cost-effective manner.168
70. Discussion. We, as an initial matter, continue to believe that if interoperability is to be
achieved on the Interoperability channels, a single standard must be selected to ensure equipment
compatibility. 169 Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the Project 25
Phase I standard should be the single narrowband digital voice standard for the Interoperability channels
at this time, as recommended by the NCC. We note that most commenters generally support adoption of
the Project 25 Phase I standard at this time.170 We believe that adopting this standard will further our goal
of providing public safety entities access to the Interoperability channels on a near-term basis in a costeffective manner.171 First, we believe that of the three standards considered by the NCC, adoption of this
standard best promotes our goal of fostering competition in the manufacture and sale of public safety
equipment because it is an ANSI standard and the other two currently are not ANSI standards. Second,
we believe that using the Project 25 Phase I standard172 would most likely result in public safety entities
being able to utilize the Interoperability channels on a near-term basis given that it has been implemented
successfully in other public safety bands, such as the 800 MHz public safety frequencies.173 Further, we
believe that this result is particularly important in those areas of the country where the 700 MHz band is
not encumbered by broadcast television operations and, thus, available now.174
164
TETRA is a four-slot Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) standard in which four voice channels are
realized within a 25 kHz bandwidth.
165
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16917 ¶ 44.
166
NCC Report at 17 ¶ 54.
167
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16917-18 ¶ 46.
168
Id.
169
First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd at 204 ¶ 111.
170
See North America TETRA Forum Comments at 10-11 (supports adoption of standard on a short-term basis);
Nokia Comments at 6; Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 15; Orange County Comments at 4; E.F. Johnson
Comments at 2; Ronald J. Gillory (Gillory) Comments at 1; Buchanan Comments at 5; Mesa Comments at 7;
Kenwood Comments at 11; NCC Comments at 17; Florida Comments at 5; APCO Comments at 4; IACP
Comments at 2; Motorola Comments at 4; FLEWUG Comments at 3; PSWN Comments at 9; Project 25 Steering
Committee Comments at 3.
171
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918 ¶ 46.
172
See Buchanan Comments at 6.
173
See NCC Report at 17 ¶ 54; City of Houston (Houston) Reply Comments at 1; Orange County Comments at 4.
174
See APCO Comments at 4.
25
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
71. Thus, at this juncture, we decline to pursue the other alternatives discussed in the Fourth
Notice or comments thereto. Specifically, we decline to adopt either the Project 25 Phase II or TETRA
standards. We recognize that these standards have certain spectrum efficiency advantages (such as being
consistent with the spirit of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz bandwidth). We nonetheless are concerned
that adopting either of them might have an adverse impact on realization of our goal of facilitating
expeditious access to the Interoperability spectrum and rapid delivery of 700 MHz band public safety
equipment. In this regard, we note that the Project 25 Phase II standard currently is not a common
denominator between several technologies in development. In addition, the TETRA system is not yet an
ANSI standard. Also, we reject the suggestion by the Joint Commenters and Baltimore County that we
immediately permit 12.5 kHz analog operations on an interim basis, subject to a specific phase-out
schedule tied to the development and availability of 6.25 kHz digital equipment.175 In this connection, we
note our earlier decisions on this issue. In the First Report and Order in this proceeding, we determined
that all 700 MHz band public safety equipment, when operating on the General Use and Interoperability
channels, must employ digital modulation as the primary modulation mode. 176 We further determined
that mobile and portable units, when operating on the Interoperability channels, could also utilize analog
modulation as a secondary mode in addition to the primary digital mode.177 In the Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order in this proceeding, we denied petitions for reconsideration on this issue because we
wanted to ensure from the outset the incorporation of spectrally efficient modulation technology in the
700 MHz band public safety equipment.178 Neither the Joint Commenters nor Baltimore County have
presented arguments that persuade us to revisit or change our earlier decisions on this matter. As a result,
we decline to adopt their suggestion.
72. In light of our decision to adopt the Project 25 Phase 1 standard, we, in effect, have addressed
Ericsson’s pending request that we modify the channel efficiency requirement (data throughput) of 4.8
kilobits per second (kbps) per 6.25 kHz for the narrowband Interoperability channels.179 Specifically,
Ericsson requests that we adopt a requirement that transmitters for voice communications in the narrow
bandwidth segment of the 700 MHz band meet a spectrum efficiency requirement of one voice channel
per 6.25 kHz of channel bandwidth, regardless of the data rate supplied.180 As we stated in the Fourth
Notice, Ericsson’s recommendation was at odds with adopting the Project 25 Phase I standard, which
satisfies the current channel efficiency requirement of 4.8 kbps per 6.25 kHz, but not Ericsson’s
recommended modified channel efficiency requirement.181 In addition, we note that a significant number
of the commenters discussing this issue support retaining the current channel efficiency requirement for
the Interoperability channels.182 We further note that in response to the Fourth Notice Ericsson indicated
175
See Joint Commenters Comments at 11-14; Baltimore County Comments at 3.
176
First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 204 ¶ 110.
177
Id, 14 FCC Rcd at 204, 210 ¶¶ 110, 128.
178
Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16851 ¶ 10.
179
See Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918-19 ¶ 50. We note that Ericsson did not limit its request to the
narrowband Interoperability channels, but included the narrowband General Use channels as well. Given our
decision to seek further comment on the issue of a migration path for the General Use channels, we defer action on
this portion of Ericsson’s request so as not to prejudge the decision on that issue.
180
Id.
181
Id. at 16919 ¶ 52.
182
See APCO Comments at 5; College Station Comments at 2; Houston Reply Comment at 1, 2; Mesa Comments
at 2-3; Orange County Comments at 4; E.F. Johnson Comments at 2; FLEWUG Comments at 9; IACP Comments
at 1-5; Kenwood Comments at 13; Motorola Comments at 1-2; NPSTC Comments at 3-5; NYSTEC Comments at
(continued….)
26
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
its support for the adoption of the Project 25 Phase 1 standard on the Interoperability channels,183 thus we
believe that, at this juncture, it too supports retaining the current channel efficiency standard for the
narrowband Interoperability channels. For these reasons, we retain the efficiency requirement of 4.8 kbps
per 6.25 kHz as initially adopted in the First Report and Order.
2.
Migration Path to 6.25 kHz Technology
a.
700 MHz Band Interoperability Channels
73. Background. In connection with our tentative conclusion to adopt the Project 25 Phase I
standard as the digital voice standard for the Interoperability channels, we tentatively concluded in the
Fourth Notice that we should incorporate a “migration path” to 6.25 kHz standards for the Interoperability
channels. 184 We sought comment on specific issues pertaining to migrating from a standard based on 12.5
kHz channels (Project 25 Phase I) to a standard based on one voice channel per 6.25 kHz (6.25 kHz
standard), including, but not limited to, the appropriate length of time for such migration, how the
migration would be effectuated and the costs associated with such migration.185
74. Discussion. We find that the majority of commenters addressing this issue oppose our
adopting a migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard for the Interoperability channels at this time. We note,
however, that the commenters are not in agreement as to whether we should revisit the migration at some
later date. While we continue to believe that there are benefits to adopting a migration path to a 6.25 kHz
standard for the Interoperability channels, we do not believe that we should adopt a specific migration
path at this time based on our review of the record in this proceeding. What follows is our analysis of the
comments we received on this issue and the rationale for our approach regarding this issue. We first
address why we continue to believe that we should not foreclose the adoption of a migration path to a
6.25 kHz standard for the Interoperability channels. Next, we discuss our rationale for not adopting a
migration path for the Interoperability channels at this time. Finally, we address when and in accordance
with what principles we should revisit the issue of adopting such a migration path.
75. As we noted in the Fourth Notice, we are pursuing the dual goals of (1) providing public
safety entities access to the 700 MHz Interoperability channels on a near-term basis in a cost-effective
manner, and (2) encouraging the development and usage of the most spectrum-efficient technology. 186
We continue to believe that incorporation of a migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard for the
Interoperability channels is an effective means by which we can foster use of spectrally efficient
equipment in the 700 MHz band, but we note the substantial obstacles to the implementation of an
interoperability standard incorporating 6.25 kHz technology. In this regard, we disagree with those
commenters who oppose a migration path for the Interoperability channels on the basis that no spectrum
efficiency gains would be realized.187 We believe, as a general matter, that the public safety community
should pursue effective, efficient and maximized use of the 700 MHz band spectrum in its entirety. We
(Continued from previous page)
12, 13; Project 25 Steering Committee Comments at 6-9; Project 25 Technology Interest Group Comments at 3-7;
NCC Comments at 12; PSWN Comments at 10; Buchanan Comments at 6; Gillory Comments at 1; California
Comments at 13-14; Florida Comment at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.
183
Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 13-14.
184
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918 ¶ 47.
185
Id. at 16918 ¶¶ 47-49.
186
Id. at 16917-18 ¶ 46.
187
See Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 14; Buchanan Comments at 5.
27
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
nonetheless acknowledge the technical challenges associated with such migration as described by certain
commenters, these challenges include requiring adjustments to public safety equipment, changing out of
infrastructure and mobile units, and requiring logistical modifications necessitated by a narrower
bandwidth operation.188 While overall spectrum efficiency in the 700 MHz band remains an important
long-term goal of this proceeding, we also have the more immediate goal of achieving interoperability in
an expeditious manner. And, as we have learned during the course of this proceeding, there are obstacles
to achieving both of these goals at this time due to the current lack of an interoperability standard that
incorporates 6.25 kHz technology. The Project 25 Phase 1 12.5 kHz standard offers the means for public
safety users to implement competing and otherwise incompatible 6.25 kHz technologies in the General
Use channels without sacrificing interoperability. We believe, however, that a 6.25 kHz standard may be
established in the future given technological developments currently underway regarding 6.25 kHz
equipment.
76. Based on our review of the comments in this proceeding, however, we believe that it would
be imprudent for us to establish a specific migration plan at this time. In this connection, we note that
several commenters believe that now is an inopportune time to establish a migration plan for the
Interoperability channels.189 These commenters offer various reasons as to why they believe that an
inquiry into a migration path for the Interoperability channels is premature at this time. For example,
some of them believe that we should not address the migration issue until all or a significant portion of
the digital television transition out of the 700 MHz band is completed. 190 Others contend that given that
the standards for 6.25 kHz technology in the 700 MHz band are still under development and not
anticipated to be completed in the near future, we should not establish a migration plan until such
standards are defined. 191 We find these concerns to be sufficient basis for us to conclude not to establish a
migration path to a 6.25 kHz standard for the Interoperability channels at this time. We believe that this
approach would be the more prudent course of action at this juncture because we do not yet have the
benefit of experience in the utilization of the Interoperability channels and an approved 6.25 kHz standard
for the 700 MHz band. We further believe that such information will allow us to make a more informed
decision as to what migration path, if any, should be pursued for the Interoperability channels.
77. As a result, we will adopt the suggestion by several commenters that we revisit this issue at a
later time. We note, however, that the commenters differ as to when we should revisit this matter. For
instance, the City of Mesa, Arizona suggests waiting ten years after completion of the DTV transition and
the issuance of licenses for public safety use before opening an inquiry into migrating to 6.25 kHz
technology.192 APCO and IACP, on the other hand, suggest deferring the issue of migrating to a 6.25 kHz
standard until 2006 or six months following Commission notice that at least fifteen of the top twenty
metropolitan areas have been cleared of all relevant television stations.193 Similarly, the NCC
recommends that we evaluate the status of technological development in the 700 MHz band in
approximately six years (perhaps co-incident with the potential ending of the DTV transition period on
188
See E.F. Johnson Comments at 2; Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 14; Gillory Comments at 1.
189
See Mesa Comments at 6; APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments at 4-5; Motorola Comments at 8;
FLEWUG Comments at 3; PSWN Reply Comments at 5; Project 25 Steering Comments at 3.
190
Mesa Comments at 6; APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments at 4-5; Kenwood Comments at 11,12;
FLEWUG Comments at 7.
191
NCC Comments at 17; Nokia Comments at 2.
192
City of Mesa Comments at 6.
193
APCO Comments at 9-10; IACP Comments at 4-5.
28
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
December 31, 2006).194 It believes that waiting this period would permit evaluation of whether
technological developments have reached a point that selection of an “one-voice-per-6.25 kHz”
technology is achievable as an interoperability standard. 195 After reviewing these suggestions, we believe
that the best course of action would be to revisit this issue no earlier than 2005. We believe that this
timeframe is appropriate for several reasons. First, we believe that this is a sufficient period of time in
which considerable progress on, if not completion of, the development of 6.25 kHz standards for the 700
MHz band can be made. Second, we believe that this time period would allow for the planning and
possibly initial construction of some 700 MHz band public safety systems utilizing the Interoperability
channels. Third, we anticipate that considerable progress will have been made in the transition of
broadcast operations out of the 700 MHz band. With all of these benchmarks being met, we believe that
we will be better able to examine and evaluate the technological and operational implications of a
specified migration path.
78. Against this backdrop, however, we want to take measures to ensure that our decision to
revisit the migration path issue in 2005 does not hinder the development and deployment of 700 MHz
band public safety equipment or the planning and construction of public safety systems in this band.
Thus, we are adopting certain principles underlying our decision to revisit the issue of establishing a
migration path for the Interoperability channels. Given that we envision that some 700 MHz-band public
safety systems will be planned and/or built prior to our final decision on this issue, we conclude that any
migration path must, at a minimum, allow such stations to continue operating for a certain period of time.
We believe that it would be reasonable for that period of time to not be less than ten years from the
commencement of the system’s operations in order to afford the public safety licensees sufficient
planning time to modify their systems as necessary. In addition, we will require that such migration path
include a standard that is backward compatible with the Project Phase I standard so that the achievement
of interoperability will not be compromised while these systems remain in operation. We believe that
these principles will provide a level of certainty to public safety entities so they can use the spectrum in
the near-term as well as a sufficient incentive for equipment manufacturers to develop and deploy 700
MHz band equipment in an expeditious manner.
b.
700 MHz Band General Use Channels
79. We state, as an initial matter, that with respect to a migration path to 6.25 kHz technology,
the Fourth Notice sought comment on this issue only for the 700 MHz band Interoperability channels.196
We note, however, that in responding to the Fourth Notice issue several commenters opined not only on
migration path issues regarding the Interoperability channels, but also the General Use channels.197 Given
that we did not seek specific comment on this issue in the Fourth Notice, we do not believe that this
Fourth Report and Order is the proper vehicle to adopt final rules regarding how 6.25 kHz technology
will be implemented on the General Use channels. Thus, we decline to require, at this time, that
equipment operating on the General Use channels must meet a spectrum efficiency standard of one voice
channel per 6.25 kHz. We nonetheless are committed to ultimately requiring migration to such efficiency
standard. We, however, believe that we need additional information as to the most expeditious and
effective manner to achieve this result. Consequently, we are issuing a Fifth Notice to develop a complete
194
NCC Comments at 17.
195
Id.
196
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16917 ¶ 46.
197
We address the issue of migration to 6.25 kHz technology on the general use channels in the attached Fifth
Notice. See Fifth Notice, infra.
29
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
and comprehensive record as to how we can best effectuate the use of 6.25 kHz technology on the
General Use channels.
80. We nonetheless take this opportunity to reiterate and expound upon the determinations that
we have made regarding operations on the 700 MHz band General Use channels. First, we note that we
established a standard channel bandwidth of 6.25 kHz for all narrowband segments of the 700 MHz band
(which includes both General Use and Interoperability channels). In this connection, consistent with our
approach in the Refarming proceeding, we adopted a data rate efficiency (channel efficiency standard) of
4.8 kbps for narrowband channels. We also indicated that 6.25 kHz channels could be combined to create
12.5 kHz and 25 kHz channels, provided that a spectrum use efficiency of 4.8 kbps is maintained.198
Second, we have not required employment of a single standard for equipment operating on the General
Use channels. We envisioned that this approach would allow use of various technologies in the General
Use portion of the 700 MHz band, thus fostering competition in the public safety equipment marketplace.
We continue to believe that we should pursue policies that promote competition in the development of
public safety equipment for the 700 MHz band.
81. Against this backdrop, we believe that it would be prudent to adopt measures that facilitate
use of the 700 MHz band spectrum during the pendency of the issue raised in the Fifth Notice. This
approach is similar to the actions we are taking in analyzing the migration path issue for Interoperability
channels. Our underlying purpose in adopting the conclusions that follow is to ensure that our actions
with respect to this issue do not hinder the development and deployment of 700 MHz public safety
equipment or the planning and construction of public safety systems in this band. We recognize that
raising the issue of a standard for the General Use channels now could inadvertently create uncertainty
with manufacturers and users that could result in a delay in equipment availability in this band.
Uncertainty could result if equipment manufacturers were hesitant to produce, and public safety entities
were wary of purchasing, 12.5 kHz-capable equipment because they were concerned that operation of that
equipment could become illegal on short notice. In order to allay such concerns, we adopt the following
framework to accommodate the expeditious development and deployment of 700 MHz band equipment
on the General Use channels, where possible. We conclude that any 12.5 kHz-based systems constructed
and placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005, will be able to continue to purchase and deploy 12.5
kHz equipment for system expansion or maintenance, and that such 12.5 kHz systems will not be required
to cease operations and convert to 6.25kHz technology prior to December 31, 2015, at the earliest. In
addition, we conclude that in any specific migration plan for the General Use channels, the earliest date
we would require new systems to have 6.25 kHz technology would be December 31, 2005. In the context
of the Fifth Notice, we will determine the specific requirements by which this conclusion will be
implemented. 199
82. We believe that this approach will have several public interest benefits. First, it will promote
both development of equipment and utilization of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum in the near-term
where available. Second, our approach affords public safety entities at least a 10-year period over which
they could operate a 12.5 kHz based system without having to cease operations, provided that such
systems are placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005. Third, public safety entities that implement
700 MHz band systems prior to December 31, 2005 will be able to obtain 12.5 kHz equipment to meet
additional equipment requirements due to increases in personnel, replacement of inoperable equipment, or
geographic expansion of their systems over at least a ten-year period. We note that our approach here is
intended to set forth the framework upon which we can establish a migration path to 6.25 kHz technology
in response to the Fifth Notice. We further note that our approach is not intended to preclude or hinder
the development and deployment of 6.25 kHz-based systems prior to December 31, 2005.
198
First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 172-173 ¶¶ 37-38.
199
See Fifth Notice, infra, paras. 95-99.
30
Federal Communications Commission
3.
FCC 01-10
Narrowband Low Speed Data Transmission Standard and Channel
Reservation
83. Background. In the Fourth Notice, and pursuant to the NCC’s recommendation, we proposed
to reserve two Interoperability channels for data transmission. The NCC specifically requested that we
reserve Interoperability channels 21 and 51 with their designation changed to DTAC 21 and DTAC 51.200
The data standard for these two channels must be able to support three specific transmission modes.201
We asked for comment on this proposal.
84. Additionally, we sought comment on the proposal that subscriber units designed for data-only
applications not be required to have voice capability, and that subscriber units designed for voice-only
applications not be required to have data transmission capability. Finally, we noted the NCC’s
recommendation that we adopt the data interoperability standard that is incorporated in the Project 25
suite of standards and is defined by one ANSI standard and four TIA/EIA standards.202 This data
interoperability standard requires use of a 12.5 kHz channel - the same channel size recommended by the
NCC for voice transmission. The NCC asserts that using the same size for voice transmission will reduce
the complexity and cost of equipment. It notes that the gross data rate meets our spectrum efficiency
requirement of 9600 bps for a 12.5 kHz channel.203 We solicited comments on the appropriate technical
standard for narrowband data transmissions on Interoperability channels. We urged parties to consider
the matter of spectrum efficiency and any changes necessary in our rules.
85. Discussion. We agree with the NCC that we should reserve two Interoperability channels for
data only communications.204 Generally, the commenters support reservation of two Interoperability
channels for data transmission. 205 Given the high demand for voice communications in the 700 MHz
band, we agree with FLEWUG that reservation of more than two channels is not prudent at this time.206
However, Com-Net Ericsson believes it is impossible to render an opinion on the adequacy of reserving
two Interoperability channels for data without knowing the type(s) and volume of data to be
transmitted. 207 We do not believe it is necessary to specify the type(s) of data to be used on the
narrowband channels, as we already require 9600 bps for a 12.5 kHz channel. Consequently, any data
applications that satisfy this requirement may be transmitted on these channels. We do not wish to
inadvertently prohibit the use of data types that through future technological improvements will satisfy
our requirements for these channels. Moreover, we agree with APCO that, in the instant case, the narrow
bandwidth data will be required to support only those applications having a low data throughput
200
NCC Report, Appendix H at 2.
201
The transmission modes are direct unit-to-unit without infrastructure; Unit-to-unit using one or more
standalone intermediate stations in either an RF-repeat or a store-and-forward repeat mode; and unit-to-unit
through a linked infrastructure. In this context unit is defined as either a fixed or mobile subscriber station. Id.
202
NCC Report at 21 ¶ 64.
203
Id., ¶ 62.
204
The two interoperability channels reserved for data-only transmission are 279/1239, 280/1240, 921/1881, and
922/1882.
205
APCO Comments at 10; California Comments at 15; Dataradio Comments at 1; FLEWUG Comments at 8;
Joint Commenters Comments at 14; NPSTC Comments at 7; Florida Comment at 6; Ohio Comments at 3.
206
FLEWUG Comments at 8.
207
Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 21.
31
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
requirement. 208 Additionally, other applications requiring higher data throughputs will be implemented
on channels having wider bandwidth.209 By establishing a standard for the transport on the narrow
bandwidth channels, it then becomes possible to allocate specific data applications to either the narrow
bandwidth channels or the wide bandwidth channels. Therefore, we adopt and identify two
Interoperability channels for data transmission and will amend the band plan to identify these two
channels for nationwide Interoperability.
86. In addition to reserving two Interoperability channels for data transmission, we adopt the data
interoperability standard that is incorporated in the Project 25 suite of standards, as it is defined by one
ANSI standard and four TIA/EIA standards. Most parties believe that adoption of the Project 25 suite for
data interoperability is appropriate.210 Com-Net Ericsson, however, does not believe there is any basis for
supporting the Project 25 data standard as the narrowband data interoperability standard.211 Further,
Com-Net Ericsson strongly recommends that we reject the NCC recommendation. 212 Com-Net Ericsson
argues that selection of the Project 25 standard is premature because the NCC has left too many variables
unanswered.213
87. Dataradio also opposes the recommendation, asserting that the Project 25 standard does not
address issues involved in achieving data interoperability, nor does it meet the forward-looking needs of
data users, or standardize the application layer to properly communicate with data. We note that Project
25 Phase I is both for voice and low speed data applications. In other words, it supports both voice and
data on the Interoperability channels. Dataradio believes that the standard does not meet the
Commission’s mandate of developing data standards that will facilitate spectrum efficient technological
advancement and promote competition among manufacturers, and has not been thoroughly discussed and
considered by the NCC participants.214 APCO maintains that the NCC conducted open proceedings and
provided ample opportunity for the presentation and discussion of alternative standards.
88. In its response, APCO notes that the NCC had indeed examined the type of data transmission
that would be necessary for interoperability purposes.215 It notes the “user needs statement of
Requirements for low speed data standards on interoperability channels” is contained in Appendix H of
the NCC Recommendations submitted on February 25, 2000.216 Further, APCO notes while it is
appropriate for the Commission to adopt an interoperability standard applicable to the “transport layer” of
a data communications system, the establishment of standards application to the “application layer” are
not a necessary prerequisite for interoperability standards.217 APCO also notes that the transport layer
208
APCO Comments at 10.
209
Id.
210
Orange County Comments at 4; FLEWUG Comments at 9; PSWN Comments 10; Ohio Comments at 3;
Florida Comments at 6; Buchanan Comments at 6-7.
211
Ericsson Comments at 21.
212
Id.
213
Id. at 20 – 21.
214
Dataradio Comments at 6-7.
215
APCO Reply Comments at 11.
216
Id. at 10.
217
Id at 11.
32
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
certainly needs to support the requirements imposed upon it by the various applications; however, it also
by necessity places limits on the types of applications that may be implemented.218
89. In its February Recommendation submitted to the Commission, the NCC had examined the
type of data transmission that would be necessary for interoperability purposes. This issue is summarized
in Appendix H of the Recommendations. Defining the type of data applications to be supported by the
application layer as Dataradio and Ericsson suggest is not necessary at this point because doing so before
field experience on mobile data in interoperability operations environment would limit the type of
applications that may be implemented. The recommendations, which are met by the Project 25 Phase I
Standard, will support any type of application intended for low speed data channels.219 These include
short status messages; fill in blank forms, and short emails. Although the Project 25 Phase I may not
meet the speed desired by Dataradio, it meets our spectrum efficiency requirement of 9.6 kbps for a 12.5
kHz wide channel.
90. Finally, we adopt our proposal that end user equipment designed for data is not required to be
voice-capable. Further, end user equipment designed for voice is not required to be data capable. The
commenters also concur, by and large, with this view.220 If an end user unit designed for data is also
voice capable, it must meet the Project 25 Phase I standard.
4.
Encryption
91. Background. In the Fourth Notice, we noted that the NCC recommends we require a
standard encryption algorithm if we decide to permit licensees to use encryption on the 700 MHz public
safety Interoperability channels.221 We agreed with the NCC that the use of encryption by public safety
entities was increasing.222 We supported encryption on the band except on calling channels.223 We
requested comments on the NCC’s recommendations that if encryption is permitted on the
Interoperability channels, a single standard should be adopted.224
92. Discussion. We continue to believe that there is an increasing use of encryption by the public
safety entities and therefore it should not be prohibited on Interoperability spectrum. However, we are
concerned that the use of encryption could be detrimental to interoperability communications. Therefore,
we will permit the use of encryption on interoperability spectrum, except for the two calling channels,
only if the encryption function may be disabled by the radio user using a readily accessible switch or
other readily accessible control.225 We agree with the commenters that if we allow encryption on
218
Id.
219
NCC Report, Appendix H.
220
College Station Comments at 2; Mesa Comments at 1-7; Orange County Comments at 4-5; E.F. Johnson
Comments at 2; FLEWUG Comments at 9; IACP Comments at 1-5; Project 25 Technology Interest Group
Comments at 1; NCC Comments at 12; Gillory Comments at 1; California Comments at 15-16; Florida Comments
at 6.
221
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16920 ¶ 56.
222
Id.
223
Id.
224
Id.
225
See Permissive Trunking section, ¶¶ 42-45.
33
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
Interoperability channels then we should have an encryption standard. We adopt TIA/EIA IS 102
AAAAA Project 25 DES encryption protocol as recommended by the Project 25 Steering Committee and
the NCC as the encryption standard.226 In this regard, we note that no party suggested a different
standard.
5.
Receiver Standards and Interference
93. Background. In the First Report and Order, we observed that we traditionally have adopted
rules only as necessary to limit interference between communication systems and have not specified
performance or quality standards for receivers. In the Fourth Notice, we sought comment on whether we
should require equipment manufacturers to label equipment to indicate the interference level that a
customer might expect with a given receiver.227 For interoperability, we charged the NCC with
recommending the parameters (e.g., sensitivity, selectivity, dynamic range, and durability characteristics)
to include the receiver standards. The NCC has included this matter in its second year work plan.228 We
also sought comment on whether the interests of public safety radio and commercial licensees in the 700
MHz would be served by establishing interference standards for receivers operating on public safety
frequencies. 229 We requested comments on the impact of CMRS on the 700 MHz public safety band. 230
We also sought comment on whether public safety operations in the 700 MHz band might be less
susceptible to interference than public safety operations in the 800 MHz band due to the various
differences in channelization plans and the use of guard channels in the 700 MHz band. 231
94. Discussion. As noted above, we have charged the NCC with recommending the parameters
(e.g., sensitivity, selectivity, dynamic range, and durability characteristics) to include possible receiver
standards for Interoperability channels. The NCC has included this matter in its second year work plan.
In fact, in its comments, the NCC states that it is working with TIA TR-8 committee to develop
appropriate receiver performance standards.232 Accordingly, we will not consider adoption of specific
receiver standards at this time, pending receipt of NCC’s report on this issue. Upon receiving the NCC
report, we shall consider the issue of adopting receiver performance standards, including the issue of our
statutory authority to adopt such standards.
IV.
FIFTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
95. Background. As noted in the Fourth Report and Order, while we received comments
regarding migration to a 6.25 kHz standard on the 700 MHz band General Use channels, we declined to
adopt final rules on this issue until after we sought specific comment thereon. In this Fifth Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the proposals presented by certain commenters regarding
implementing a 6.25 kHz standard for the General Use channels. By way of background, the
commenters, who raised this issue in the Fourth Notice, are generally divided into two groups. The first
group, which includes Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and NATF, is against any migration on the General Use
226
Project 25 Steering Committee at 6; NCC Comments at 18.
227
Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16921-22 ¶ 59.
228
Id.
229
Id.
230
Id.
231
Id.
232
NCC Comments at 18.
34
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
channels at all. They urge adoption of the concept of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz. The second group,
which includes APCO, IACP, Motorola, FLEWUG, PSWN, and the Project 25 Steering Committee, set
forth a migration path consisting of five stages and spanning a total of twenty-one years. What follows is
a summary of the major contentions of each group’s position.
96. Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and NATF recommend adoption of a 6.25 kHz efficiency
standard, i.e., one voice path per 6.25 kHz of occupied bandwidth, for voice operations on the General
Use channels. 233 Com-Net Ericsson, for example, asserts that compliant technologies are available today,
and further technological advances are anticipated between now and when 700 MHz-band public safety
equipment becomes available.234 Nokia and NATF recommend that in 2005, we evaluate equipment
deployed in the 700 MHz band and the progress of the technical development and, based on this
information, consider a formal migration path to 6.25 kHz interoperability. 235 Nokia contends that
equipment utilizing 6.25 kHz efficiency is already fully developed and available for general use from a
wide array of manufacturers, including leading U.S manufacturers.236 Nokia also believes that adopting
this efficiency standard will encourage equipment manufacturers to devote their research and
development resources to 6.25 kHz conventional technology, thus, accelerating realization of a 6.25 kHz
standard for the Interoperability channels.237 It further believes that adopting a 6.25 kHz efficiency
standard for General Use now will encourage needed competition in the supply of equipment for this
band. 238
97. Under the five-step, twenty-one year plan put forth by APCO and IACP,239 Step one is
immediate adoption of Project 25 Phase I as the Interoperability standard. Step two requires that as of
December 31, 2006, or within six months following Commission notice that at least fifteen of the Top
twenty metropolitan areas have been cleared of relevant television stations, whichever is later, all newly
type-accepted radios for use in the band must have the capability to provide one voice channel per 6.25
kHz and must still meet the Project 25 Phase I standard for the Interoperability channels. Within ten
years after the date established in Step two, all General Use operations must be at 6.25 kHz in the Top
fifty metropolitan areas for Step three. Step four requires that all General Use operations must be at 6.25
kHz by fifteen years after the date established in Step two. Finally, as of the date established in Step two,
the Commission must re-examine technological and marketplace developments and determine whether it
is possible to develop a migration path for the subsequent transition.
98. Discussion. We seek comment on the proper approach for achieving a 6.25 kHz standard for
the General Use channels. As noted above, however, 240 we have concluded that, in order to facilitate the
prompt use of the 700 MHz Band spectrum, we will not require new systems to use 6.25 kHz technology
before December 31, 2005. We have also concluded that any 12.5 kHz-based systems constructed and
233
Ericsson Comments at 17-18, Nokia Comments at 4-5, NATF Comments at 5.
234
Ericsson Comments at 17-18.
235
Nokia Comments at 14; NATF Comments at 7.
236
Nokia Comments at 12. See Letter, dated December 7, 2000, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, FCC from Leo R.
Fitzsimon, Director of Regulatory and Industry Affairs, Nokia.
237
Nokia Comments at 12.
238
Id.
239
See APCO Comments at 7-10; IACP Comments at 3-5.
240
See Fourth Report and Order, supra, para. 81.
35
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 01-10
placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005, will be able to continue to purchase and deploy 12.5 kHz
equipment for system expansion or maintenance, and that such 12.5 kHz systems will not be required to
cease operations and convert to 6.25kHz technology prior to December 31, 2015, at the earliest.241 While
nothing in the Commission’s Rules would prohibit the use of 6.25 kHz technology now, we are concerned
that mandating the use of 6.25 kHz technology would only serve to delay the use of the 700 MHz Band
spectrum. Commenters should address the advantages and disadvantages associated with various
approaches that are consistent with the “safe harbor” we have adopted today. We note our concern that
the five-step, twenty-one year plan is too long of a migration path considering the demand for public
safety spectrum. We nonetheless note that there are several factors that could impact the length of the
migration, for example, the duration of broadcaster’s transition from analog to digital television. Thus,
we ask commenters to identify such factors and the potential impact that they would have on the duration
of a migration period and to discuss what would be an appropriate length for migration and the reasoning
therefor.
99. In this vein, we seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt different migration
paths for rural and urban markets, given their different needs. In establishing a migration path for the
broadcast auxiliary service (BAS) band, we adopted a two-phase plan based on the special needs of
various localities, from large cities to rural areas.242 Given the differing needs of public safety entities in
rural and urban areas, as well as possible differences in timing when the 700 MHz public safety spectrum
may be available to those entities, it may be appropriate to establish multiple migration paths for different
types of entities. We encourage commenters that would urge the Commission to adopt multiple migration
paths to offer specific proposals.
V.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
100. Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) with respect to the
Fourth Report and Order and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the Fifth
Notice. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,243 the Commission has prepared the analysis of the
possible impact on small entities of the rules and proposed rules set forth in this document. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
deadlines as comments on the rest of the Fifth Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of this Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice, including the
FRFA and IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
241
Id.
242
Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the
Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12315, 12323-28 ¶¶ 22-37
(2000).
243
See 5 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.
36
Federal Communications Commission
B.
FCC 01-10
Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
101. The Fifth Notice is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex
parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed
as provided in the Commission's rules.244
C.
Paperwork Reduction Act
102. This Report and Order contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections
contained in this Report and Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Report and
Order; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this Report and Order in the Federal
Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due within 60 days. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after
date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
D.
Comments
103. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,245 interested parties may
file comments on or before 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register and reply comments
on or before 45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by
filing paper copies.246
104. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
If multiple docket or rule making numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters
must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rule making number referenced in
the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rule making number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters
should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should including the following words in the body of the
message, "get form | File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - 6090.doc |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |