$//NPRM,Public Safety requirements,WT Dck No. 96-86,FCC 96-155//$ FCC 96-155 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) ) The Development of Operational, ) WT Docket No. 96-86 Technical, and Spectrum ) Requirements for Meeting ) Federal, State and Local Public ) Safety Agency Communication ) Requirements Through the ) Year 2010 ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: April 5, 1996 Released: April 10, 1996 Comments Due: September 20, 1996 Reply Comments Due: October 18, 1996 By the Commission: Commissioner Chong issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 III. BACKGROUND 5 A. Overview and History of Public Safety Communications 5 B. Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments 17 IV. DISCUSSION 20 A. Interoperability Issues 21 1. "Public Safety" Definition 23 2. "Interoperability" Definition 26 3. Interoperability Needs 28 4. Interoperability Options 32 Paragraph B. Operational Issues 43 1. Service Features 47 2. System Requirements 51 C. Technology Issues 56 D. Spectrum Allocation 69 1. Overview of Spectrum Issues 69 2. Spectrum Allocation Options 72 E. Transition 87 1. Increased Use of Commercial Services 89 2. Funding for Spectrum Migration 91 3. Improving Public Safety Spectrum Administration 93 F. Competition in the Supply of Goods and Services 95 V. CONCLUSION 102 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 103 APPENDIX A - INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to address the present deficiencies in public safety wireless communications as well as its expanding spectrum needs. These deficiencies include lack of interoperability, minimal access to emerging technologies, limited service feature options, less than optimal transmission and reception quality, and scarce available spectrum. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) proposes measures designed not only to address these deficiencies but also to accommodate the future communications needs of public safety agencies. We believe that the critical responsibilities of the nation's public safety agencies require modern and innovative communications at high levels of efficiency and effectiveness. This Notice describes the history of public safety communications and provides an overview of specific wireless communications deficiencies identified by the Commission in consultation with public safety agencies. 2. The Notice also furthers the Commission's efforts to implement Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which requires the Commission to study public safety spectrum needs and to develop a plan that ensures that adequate frequencies are available for public safety uses through the year 2010. In early 1995, the Commission adopted a Report and Plan concerning the current and future spectrum needs of state and local government public safety agencies through the year 2010 and how to ensure that adequate frequencies are made available to public safety licensees. In the 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, we concluded that more information from public safety agencies and other interested parties was necessary to define, with any precision, the scope of the public safety community's spectrum needs. In this connection, the Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to provide advice and recommendations on the various requirements of public safety agencies through the year 2010. PSWAC has five subcommittees -- Operational Requirements, Technology, Interoperability, Spectrum, and Transition. This Notice tracks PSWAC's organizational structure. In addition, we are initiating this proceeding to develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum needs of public safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet these needs, and to propose measures aimed at facilitating the transition to an environment where public safety agencies have communications services of higher quality, access to emerging technologies, and availability of broader service offerings. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. By this action, the Commission initiates an overall evaluation and assessment of public safety wireless communications, which builds upon our findings and conclusions presented in the 1995 FCC Public Safety Report. We believe that the critical responsibilities of public safety agencies, such as protection of life and property, can be performed more effectively by increasing the flexibility and opportunities that wireless communications can offer. The goal of this proceeding is to develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum needs of public safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet these needs, and to facilitate a transition to a communications environment in which public safety agencies have access to higher quality transmission, emerging technologies, and broader services, including the ability to communicate readily with one another (interoperability). We recognize that such an environment can be achieved through a variety of regulatory approaches, such as requiring more efficient use of current public safety spectrum, reallocating additional spectrum for public safety uses, and facilitating the use of commercial service providers for increased communications capacity. We believe, however, that no one approach will satisfy all public safety communications spectrum needs. We further believe that the optimal approach should allow each of these individual approaches to be strategically combined in a way that meets the specific needs of individual public safety entities. 4. As part of the Commission's evaluation of the current and future spectrum needs of public safety agencies, this Notice seeks comment on: (1) regulatory approaches that will facilitate the development of interoperable equipment and technologies; (2) the service features and system requirements essential to the effective performance of public safety functions; (3) technological issues regarding the enhancement and improvement of public safety wireless communications; (4) means of allocating spectrum for public safety agencies to ensure that they have adequate spectrum to perform their duties; (5) the measures that need to be implemented in order to foster an environment which promotes public safety wireless communications which are spectrally-efficient, of high quality, and effective; and (6) the means to promote competition in the supply of goods and services used by public safety agencies. III. BACKGROUND A. Overview and History of Public Safety Communications 5. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission has authority to allocate and assign frequencies for use by entities other than the Federal Government. In 1937, with the creation of the Police Radio Service, the Commission began allocating spectrum to agencies charged with protecting the public welfare. As the communications needs of other public safety agencies surfaced, the Commission allocated additional spectrum to them. As a result of this approach to public safety spectrum allocation and administration, the Public Safety Radio Services (PSRS) developed into a collection of services used by various public safety agencies which have placed a priority on the use of radio communications in the fulfillment of their respective missions. Specifically, the PSRS consists of the Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation, Local Government, and Emergency Medical Radio Services. The Special Emergency Radio Service (SERS) also is utilized by public safety agencies. Each of these services is discussed separately below. 6. Police Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications associated with police operations (e.g., dispatching vehicular units and coordinating tactical operations) and administrative matters (e.g., deployment of patrols and status of units). Eligibility in this service is limited to any non-Federal governmental entity or institution authorized by law to provide its own police protection, including state police, county sheriffs, and local police departments. 7. Fire Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications associated with fire protection activities and related administrative functions. In addition, where a fire department has responsibility for providing rescue and ambulatory functions, the frequencies allocated to this service can be used for dispatching ambulances, communicating medical information to personnel at the site of an emergency, and transmitting biomedical telemetry from the emergency site or the ambulance to hospital emergency room personnel. Any non-Federal governmental entity (typically a firefighting organization) is eligible for this service with the permission of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to be served. 8. Highway Maintenance Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications related to the highway activities of any non-Federal government entity requiring communications essential to its official highway activities. Licensees of this service use mobile communications in performing a wide range of functions, including road maintenance and paving operations, ice and snow removal, removal of disabled vehicles, patrol of tunnels, bridges, and turnpikes, and recall or reroute of highway crews and vehicles to meet changing priorities due to highway and weather emergencies. Any non-Federal governmental entity with official highway activities is eligible in this service. 9. Forestry-Conservation Service. This service governs radio communications for law enforcement (e.g., park police and rangers who enforce fish, game, and environmental statutes), fire prevention control, and emergency medical service in connection with forestry-conservation activities. Licensees in this service provide fire detection and control for one-half billion acres of non-Federal forest lands. Any non-Federal governmental entity is eligible in this service, including persons or organizations charged with specific forestry-conservation activities with the support of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to be served. 10. Local Government Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications involving the day-to-day operations of governmental entities other than the Federal Government. Entities eligible to operate in this service include states, U.S. territories and possessions, counties, cities, towns, and many other types of specialized governmental districts and authorities (e.g., flood control, water, sanitation) for a variety of public safety and welfare uses. In addition, all public safety entities are permitted to use frequencies allocated to this service and often include law enforcement, fire protection, highway maintenance, lifeguard and rescue service users. 11. Emergency Medical Radio Service. This service governs the radio communications for the actual emergency treatment including (1) transmission between rescuers at the scene of an accident or disaster and physicians at a hospital; and (2) the dispatch of emergency medical providers transporting injured persons to hospitals and trauma centers. Eligibility for this service is limited to persons or entities engaged in the provision of basic or advanced life-support services on an ongoing basis. 12. Special Emergency Radio Service. This service governs radio communications related to medical services, rescue organizations, disabled persons, veterinarians, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications facilities. Entities not meeting these eligibility criteria may be licensed in this service solely to provide service to SERS eligibles on one-way paging-only frequencies below 800 MHz. 13. The Commission has allocated spectrum for use by entities licensed in these services in five different frequency bands. Public safety mobile service operations traditionally have consisted of two-way communications between a base and mobile station or between two mobile stations. The Commission's early public safety spectrum allocation was primarily confined to the 30-50 MHz bands in an effort to accommodate two-way communications. 14. As public safety agencies' communications needs increased, these frequencies became increasingly congested. As a result of technological advances such as the continuing advance of solid state electronics with its attendant increasing miniaturization and precision, public safety equipment became capable of transmitting at higher frequencies and, thus, other spectrum could be used for two-way communications. This opportunity for public safety agencies to migrate to higher frequencies provided temporary and limited relief for public safety licensees needing additional spectrum. These higher frequencies, however, generally do not possess the long distance capability of lower frequencies. Thus, migration has not been a viable option for those public safety agencies operating in rural areas. Migration also has been problematic for public safety licensees in urban and suburban areas because the additional frequencies often are simply added to the licensees' existing systems. As a result, a public safety licensee's system may need to be fragmented after migration because it utilizes both high and low band frequencies and communications between frequencies are, as a practical matter, precluded. For example, several public safety agencies must use two or more frequency bands for their systems, which requires individual users to carry multiple transceivers in order to communicate on and interact with the systems. In addition, the varying development rates of transmission technology for different frequency bands have contributed to the fragmented allocation of public safety spectrum. The result is a series of allocations that make it difficult for different agencies to communicate across jurisdiction or for different agencies in the same jurisdiction to communicate. 15. The current spectrum allocated to public safety services consists of 941 channels as indicated in the following chart: CURRENTLY ALLOCATED PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SPECTRUM Frequency Band (MHz) Number of Channels MHz (Approximate) 25-50 (VHF high band) 315 6.3 150-174 (VHF high band) 242 3.6 220-222 (220 band) 10 0.1 450-470 (UHF band) 74 3.7 806-821/851-866 (800 bands) 70 3.5 821-824/866-869 (800 public safety bands) 230 6 TOTAL 941 23.2 Public safety agencies also are eligible to operate on other shared frequencies. For example, various frequencies from 2 to 25 MHz are available for disaster communications. Public safety agencies are eligible for licensing in the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service. 16. In an era characterized by progress, innovation and choice in the telecommunications industry, the communications capability of the nation's public safety agencies remains severely challenged. Moreover, there is limited competition among equipment and service providers of public safety communications. These challenges cause public safety communications to be far more cumbersome than necessary, which ultimately results in potential compromise to the critical operations performed by public safety agencies. B. Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments 17. Since 1980, the Commission has initiated over 40 general and service-specific proceedings seeking to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and enhancement of public safety communications. Moreover, in 1987, the Commission chartered the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee. Subsequently, the Commission took additional action to develop a National Plan, pursuant to the recommendations of the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee, to govern the use of six megahertz allocated to the PSRS in the 800 MHz band (821-824/866-869 MHz) on a regional basis throughout the United States. Recently, Senator Larry Pressler proposed a plan of allocating a large block of spectrum to the states for public safety purposes. Although we realize that most regions are still implementing their plans, we seek comment on the extent to which these types of plans will satisfy the spectrum needs of the public safety community. 18. In the 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, we concluded that more information from public safety agencies and other interested parties was necessary. We believe that our assessment of the current and future needs of public safety agencies, followed by our identification and implementation of the best means of meeting these needs, will ensure that the critical responsibilities of public safety agencies can be carried out more effectively and efficiently. Our goal in this proceeding is to foster a regulatory environment where agencies involved in the protection of life and property have the communications resources they need to carry out their mission and an opportunity to select from a wide range of advanced wireless communications services. 19. PSWAC, throughout its five subcommittees, is analyzing the communications needs of public safety entities, the ability of emerging technologies to meet these needs, and ways to enhance the competitive opportunities in public safety agencies' procurement of equipment and services. PSWAC will develop specific recommendations for the Commission and NTIA and submit a report later this year. This Notice is a formal vehicle by which the Commission can receive PSWAC's report and general public comment on public safety wireless communications, and act upon PSWAC's recommendations. We believe that PSWAC's efforts play a crucial role in our efforts to accommodate the needs of public safety licensees in their implementation of state-of-the-art communications in furtherance of their mission of protecting life and property. In this connection, we anticipate that PSWAC's findings and conclusions will comprise a significant part of the record in this proceeding. We further expect that PSWAC's report, as well as all comments we receive, will establish a sufficient record for developing rules to facilitate a transition from the current state of public safety communications to an environment in which public safety agencies' communications are conducted in an effective and efficient manner, particularly through greater interoperability, access to emerging technologies, and greater use of commercial services where appropriate. IV. DISCUSSION 20. As mentioned supra, this Notice tracks the organizational structure of PSWAC. First, we address issues concerning interoperability, including proposed definitions for "public safety" and "interoperability" and how to facilitate the emergence of interoperability on a large scale within the public safety community. Second, we discuss the operational challenges associated with public safety wireless communications, including essential service features and system requirements. Third, we address how technology affects the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of public safety wireless communications. Fourth, we discuss the options of allocating additional spectrum or reallocating spectrum in an effort to meet the current and future spectrum needs of the public safety community. Fifth, we discuss the transition to an environment in which the present deficiencies in public safety wireless communications (e.g. lack of interoperability, minimal access to emerging technologies, limited service feature options, less than optimal transmission and reception quality, and scarce available spectrum) are eliminated. Finally, we address the level of competition in the supply of goods and services in the public safety context and how to promote further competition. A. Interoperability Issues 21. Given the current state of public safety communications, each agency most likely operates its own communications system on its own channels, using technologies that are incompatible with the equipment used by the other agencies. As an initial matter, we believe that an essential component of our efforts to improve public safety communications is to facilitate the development of communications links within public safety and public service wireless communications systems that permit units from two or more different agencies to exchange information with one another, which we generally refer to as "interoperability." We also believe that it is crucial for these agencies to be able to exchange all types of information pertaining to their daily operations, in addition to information necessary for on-scene mutual aid operations and joint operations (such as basic voice, data, E911, images (including mugshots), fingerprints, video and other high speed data). We tentatively conclude that to the degree that public safety agencies operate on contiguous frequencies and use similar, or at least compatible, technologies, this ability to communicate is enhanced. 22. As discussed supra, state and local agencies operate systems in six different radio services on frequencies scattered throughout the VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz bands using various technologies which often are incompatible. Similarly, Federal agencies, licensed by NTIA, operate on non-contiguous frequencies scattered throughout the VHF and UHF bands. Consequently, local, regional, and national public safety agencies have little or not ability to communicate with each other. This inability to communicate hinders cooperation and coordination between public safety agencies on a day-to-day basis as well as during emergencies. We believe that the present inability of public safety agencies to communicate with each other is one of the most critical deficiencies in today's public safety communications. 1. "Public Safety" Definition 23. We believe that our assessment of the current and future needs for public safety communications must begin with an evaluation of what services and agencies should be classified as "public safety." Under the Commission's current rules, the scope of PSRS is defined as a listing of services included within that classification. Although the services included within the PSRS have eligibility requirements specific to these particular services, we recognize that our classification of certain types of service as PSRS and our decision not to include other services may indirectly affect the ability of public safety agencies to fulfill their missions. For example, numerous state and local governments have responsibilities, many of which depend on wireless communications, that do not involve the protection of life and property on a daily basis but nonetheless are vital functions on which the public depends. 24. In this connection, PSWAC is considering several proposals concerning whether "public safety" should be more strictly defined under the Commission's rules. The following definitions are being considered by PSWAC: Public Safety: The public's right, exercised through Federal, State, or local government as prescribed by law, to protect and preserve life, property, and natural resources and to serve the public welfare. Public Safety Services: Those services rendered by or through Federal, State, or local government entities in support of public safety duties. Public Safety Services Provider: Governmental and public entities or those non-governmental, private organizations which are properly authorized by the appropriate governmental authority whose primary mission is providing public safety services. Public Safety Support Provider: Governmental and public entities or those non-governmental, private organizations which provide essential public services that are properly authorized by the appropriate governmental authority whose mission is to support public safety services. This support may be provided either directly to the public or in support of public safety service providers. Public Services: Those services provided by non-public safety entities that furnish, maintain, and protect the nation's basic infrastructures which are required to promote the public's safety and welfare. 25. We tentatively conclude that we should modify our approach of defining "public safety services" by a listing a services falling within that classification to a more precise definition of "public safety." Specifically, we propose to adopt PSWAC's definitions presented supra, in an effort to encompass the broadest array of the responsibilities and functions performed by public safety agencies. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and proposal. We ask commenters to discuss whether these definitions are sufficiently broad to encompass all the functions and responsibilities of various public safety agencies. For instance, we note that the very nature of services such as utility, pipeline, petroleum and railroad often involve potential hazards where reliable radio communications is an essential tool in either avoiding the occurrence of such hazards or responding to emergency circumstances. Entities providing these services utilize radio communications not only in performing their routine functions but also in coordinating with local officials and other entities in maintaining or restoring these critical services. In addition, we seek comment on how the adoption of these definitions will impact both the provision of public safety communications and the development of new technologies for use by public safety licensees, including the provision of public safety communications services by commercial entities. 2. "Interoperability" Definition 26. In order to promote the development of this communication capability, we must first define what is meant by interoperability. In this connection, the Interoperability Subcommittee of PSWAC is considering the following definition of interoperability and related definitions: Interoperability: An essential communications link within public safety and public service wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more different agencies to interact with one another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable results. The communications link may be classified as either of the following two types: - - Infrastructure-independent: The communications link occurs between subscriber units over a direct RF path. An example is portable-to-portable tactical communications at the scene of an incident. - - Infrastructure-dependent: The communications link requires use of some item(s) of equipment, other than a subscriber unit, for the establishment of the link and for complete subscriber operation. Some examples include a communications link for which a repeater station is required; a communications link which provides full system coverage for a visiting subscriber unit within a host trunked radio system; and a communications link which provides interconnectivity between two or more otherwise incompatible radio systems by cross-connecting the audio signals and/or appropriate signaling functions at some central point. The communications link, whether infrastructure dependent or independent, must satisfy one or both of the following requirements: - - Multi-jurisdictional: Wireless communications involving two or more similar agencies having different areas of responsibility. Some examples include a fire agency from one city communicating with a fire agency from another city and the Federal Bureau of Investigation communicating with a County Sheriff. - - Multi-disciplinary: Wireless communications involving two or more different agencies. One example is a police agency communicating with an emergency medical services agency. The communications link may involve any combination of subscriber units and fixed equipment (e.g., repeaters, dispatch positions, data resources). The points of communication are dependent upon the specific needs of the situation and any operational procedures and policies which might exist between the involved agencies. 27. We seek comment on the above definitions being considered by PSWAC and any proposals for different definitions. Specifically, we ask commenters to discuss whether these definitions will facilitate the expeditious development of interoperability for public safety agencies. 2. Interoperability Needs . 28. We believe that the need for interoperability in public safety communications arises in three general contexts. One context is day-to-day operations. The day-to-day operations of public safety organizations require routine intercommunications capabilities. Police officers in adjoining jurisdictions as well as firefighters and emergency medical personnel in the same jurisdiction, for example, routinely need to exchange information. Typically, day-to-day interoperability requirements are local or regional in nature. 29. A second context is mutual aid incidents. We believe that on-scene mutual aid communications at the site of major fires, plane crashes, chemical spills, and other disasters represent one of the more challenging and critical needs for interoperability. In these situations, coordination among numerous public safety agencies from different jurisdictions, and sometimes even from different disciplines, is imperative. For example, on the site of a major plane crash, there could be representatives from law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel from Federal, state and local jurisdictions. These various entities must communicate not only with each other but also with other agencies, such as highway maintenance, public works, public utilities and transportation authorities. 30. The third category is emergency preparedness events or task force operations. Emergency preparedness and task force operations involve joint operations of local, regional, state and Federal agencies. The number of public safety agencies involved in emergency preparedness is usually substantial because the agencies' responsibilities range from planning for disaster relief to coordinating tactical operations responding to threats to life or property. Task forces typically involve deployment of emergency operations centers, establishment of on-scene command posts, and dispatch of tactical units throughout a wide area. We believe that interoperable communications systems greatly enhance tactical operations among multi-jurisdictional and multi-discipline agencies participating on the task force. 31. We seek comment on these conclusions and on whether there are other contexts in public safety communications in which interoperability is needed. If so, we ask commenters to address the specific need for interoperability and the benefits received from development of interoperability in these other contexts. 3. Interoperability Options 32. We recognize that some public safety agencies already have made efforts to address the problems associated with multi-jurisdictional and multi-discipline interoperability. These initial efforts include provision of compatible radio equipment to units on-the-scene at an incident, use of dispatch centers through which messages are passed, and use of cellular telephones. In fact, several state and regional authorities have begun developing and deploying common user systems for public safety and public service agencies. These systems meet a range of operational requirements for a myriad of agencies and are premised on compatible equipment operating in 800 MHz and are essentially shared multi-site trunked systems. Some examples of these interoperability efforts are described below. o The California counties of San Diego and Imperial have commenced a Regional Communications System (RCS) to replace the participating public safety and public service agencies' existing communications systems with a modern trunked system. When completed, the RCS, a trunked, simulcast, analog/digital 800 MHz radio system utilizing digital encryption for authorized users, will have more than 60 frequencies in use on separate voice and data radio infrastructures at more than 50 microwave repeater sites. Local agencies participating in the RCS development have pooled their radio frequencies. The RCS will include a separate voice backbone populated with a mixture of 25 kHz-spaced 806 MHz and 12.5 kHz frequencies, and a data backbone utilizing 25 kHz bandwidth, 19.2 bits per second, 9.6 baud capable 806 MHz channels. It is anticipated that the RCS will provide effective and reliable communications for routine intra-agency operations as well as interagency communications throughout the region during emergency and mutual aid operations. Public safety agencies (defined as law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical service, and disaster preparedness agencies) and public service agencies (defined as the California Department of Transportation, and those county agencies responsible for providing citizens with services other than law enforcement, fire and disaster preparedness) may join the RCS. o The State of Colorado has commenced a six-phase schedule for implementing a state-wide digital trunked radio system using the 800 MHz public safety bands. The implementation model assumes several types of users will seek to associate themselves with the State network, while the State Patrol, Highway Maintenance, Natural Resources, and Corrections agencies will be full members. Rather than building their own radio systems, system members will contract with the state office responsible for the project and will likely pay a monthly service fee. o Other states, such as Nevada and South Carolina, are implementing state-wide systems in conjunction with power utility companies. These systems are designed to include interoperability capabilities with power utility companies in an effort to address a critical need currently unmet in disaster relief efforts. We ask commenters to discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of these initial interoperability efforts. 33. We believe that there are additional means by which to satisfy the interoperability requirements of public safety agencies. We recognize that there are different advantages and challenges associated with each of these options. The following is a brief overview of the various options that we have identified to address interoperability concerns. 34. Relocate all public safety communications to a new band. A significant advantage associated with this option is that interoperability could be accomplished directly because all public safety radio equipment would operate in the same band. In fact, new common radios could be programmed to scan and operate on any channel in the band. We believe that this approach would necessitate a system of prioritizing access to the channels. In addition, certain channels could be designated exclusively for nationwide mutual aid use. 35. We note, however, that migration to a new public safety band would present several challenges. First, this approach would require a common interoperability standard for all public safety radio equipment. It is our understanding that the average life of existing public safety systems is approximately 15 years, with many agencies using their systems twice that long. If the purchase of new equipment compatible with the new band is tied to this cycle, interoperability would not be realized until the distant future. Second, additional public safety spectrum would be needed. We believe that identifying contiguous spectrum that is of the size and quality necessary and where incumbents can be relocated would be problematic. Despite these challenges, we nonetheless recognize that migration to a new band may present opportunities for commercial systems to offer solutions to the interoperability and capacity problems experienced by public safety licensees. 36. Designate Universal Mutual Aid Channels. We believe that access to designated universal mutual aid channels could be accomplished by using new multi-band radios or additional radio units. For example, a number of frequencies could be selected in one of the band segments between 30 and 800 MHz and designated for public safety communications. In addition, new public safety radio equipment could be required, through our type acceptance process, to operate on these designated frequencies. An advantage of this approach is that transition to universal mutual aid channels through employment of multi-band or separate dedicated radios would allow public safety agencies to continue operating existing systems while implementing interoperable equipment as older equipment is replaced. Moreover, inexpensive software programming could be used to modify much of the mobile and portable equipment currently employed by public safety agencies so that they could operate on the mutual aid channels. We believe that this approach also would require a common interoperability standard for all equipment operating on the mutual aid channels. 37. Install Cross-Band Repeaters. We recognize that installing fixed-base or mobile, multi-channel, cross-band repeaters is an approach which could address the interoperability needs of public safety agencies expeditiously. Traditional repeaters receive on one channel and retransmit voice or data on another channel. Under this approach, repeaters would be used to allow simultaneous communications on universally designated channels in each of the public safety bands. Moreover, gateways could be used as an alternative to cross-band repeaters. Providing interoperability by this approach would require modification of existing dispatch facilities to interconnect the existing bands with universal mutual aid channels and, thus, investment in existing equipment. A disadvantage of this approach is that interoperability would occur only where the required fixed-base or mobile infrastructure is in place, thereby requiring jurisdictions to acquire such repeaters. 38. We seek comment on the various means of achieving interoperability in public safety communications. Specifically, we ask commenters to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches described above as well as any alternative means which we have not identified and provide any supporting data and information. We also ask commenters to address the amount of time required for implementation, what would be required for such implementation, and the effectiveness of each approach in solving the communications difficulties experienced by public safety agencies in day-to-day operations, mutual aid incidents, and emergency preparedness and task force operations. Commenters should include estimates of the costs associated with implementation as well as what entities should bear these costs and discussion of any regulatory and statutory requirements which operate to limit the flexibility or efficiency of public safety communications. Commenters also should discuss what solutions to public safety agencies' interoperability requirements can be provided by existing or planned commercial systems. 39. We tentatively conclude that establishing new universal mutual aid channels is an effective first step in providing for interoperability among Federal, state and local public safety agencies. We consider the ability of public safety agencies to continue operating their existing communications equipment while achieving interoperability to be a significant advantage as compared to the other approaches described supra. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 40. Assuming the designation of universal mutual aid channels, we tentatively conclude that 10 simplex and 10 repeater pair channels in a single band between 30 and 800 MHz should be designated for public safety agencies mutual aid communications nationwide. In this connection, we believe that channels selected from the existing public safety bands could employ the simplest, least costly, and easiest to implement technology. We request comments on our tentative conclusion and any alternatives. Are ten simplex and ten repeater channel pairs sufficient to meet the needs of Federal, state, and local public safety agencies? What specific channels are optimum candidates for designation as universal mutual aid channels? Should nationwide mutual aid channels be subject to a system of priorities? If so, what should the priorities be and how should the system be implemented? One system of priorities would be to designate Priority 1 for disaster mutual aid operations, Priority 2 for mutual aid operations involving imminent danger to the safety of life or property, Priority 3 for day-to-day mutual aid activities, and Priority 4 for single agency secondary communications. 41. To provide for interoperability between public safety agencies, we propose to adopt rules that require equipment for public safety use to have a common communications mode and frequency band. We seek comment on whether this approach has merit. If it does, should our rules specify the type of emission (e.g., analog FM) that can be used in a specific circumstance or location, or should this decision be left up to the agencies responding to a particular incident? To meet the interoperable needs of public safety agencies, are there any specific emissions we should require to be included in public safety equipment? Should the type acceptance rules be amended to require equipment to cover more than one public safety frequency segment? 42. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should require all radios which are type accepted or sold for use on public safety frequencies to be capable of operating on the designated mutual aid channels. If so, what should be the effective date? We believe that multi-band radios or special dedicated mutual aid radios could satisfy this requirement. The amateur radio service community currently uses inexpensive multi-band radios to provide communications over two or more of the widely segmented amateur service bands. These radios generally are very feature rich. We ask commenters to discuss whether use of multi-band radios provides an expedient solution for addressing public safety interoperability requirements. B. Operational Issues 43. Traditionally, public safety licensees have used a base station, repeater, and vehicular and handheld portable stations in conducting their two-way communications. Such communications have been conducted using both conventional and trunked operations. With conventional voice and data systems, a single channel or a pair of channels is used to communicate in a dispatch/supervisory mode or in a one-to-one mode with other users sometimes monitoring communications to determine whether additional action is needed. Since communications typically are of relatively short duration -- usually less than a minute -- channels often are shared by several independent users. Specific audio sub-audible tones may be used to permit any combination of mobile radios to receive the radio transmission. With trunked systems, several channel pairs are integrated into a single system which automatically selects a currently unused channel pair and assigns it to the user desiring to transmit a message. 44. The VHF and UHF bands are used primarily for conventional, dispatch voice communications. The VHF high band frequencies and the UHF band have better noise and propagation properties than the VHF low band frequencies. Also, most public safety users prefer VHF high band and UHF band frequencies for their operations. The VHF-low band frequencies, which offer wide-area coverage, continues to be used extensively by certain public safety agencies, for example, state highway patrols. The 800 MHz band is used for both conventional and trunked systems. In the UHF and 800 MHz bands, channels are paired to permit use of repeater stations. 45. Public safety agencies also use fixed services to provide radio communications between specified fixed points. These radio communications usually involve point-to-point systems operating in the microwave bands consisting of transmissions from a single fixed transmitting location to a single fixed receiving location. Some agencies also utilize a point-to-multipoint service in which multiple transmitting or receiving fixed stations are involved. 46. Against this backdrop, we seek comment on the types of services that public safety agencies will need to accomplish their missions and the technical specifications required for implementation of such services. We believe that this information will allow us to gauge the needs of the public safety community and how these needs may change over the next 15 years. We further believe that such an understanding will improve planning for advanced requirements and new functional needs and allow needs to be prioritized more effectively, leading to a more efficient delivery of services to the public. 1. Service Features 47. Public safety spectrum is currently congested. There is no spectrum controlled by the Commission that is both available for allocation and adjacent to or quite close to existing PSRS frequency bands. Given this difficulty in allocating new spectrum for public safety services, we believe that it is crucial to consider what applications will be needed to carry out important public safety functions over the next 15 years. We are not persuaded that all of the communications needs identified by the public safety community can be met solely through the spectrum allocation process. Consequently, we believe that prioritizing needs is an essential step to ensuring that spectrum is allocated and services delivered in the most efficient and effective way possible. 48. Today, most radio communications by public safety agencies are conventional operations involving the transmission of voice and data. The demands on public safety communication systems, however, are expanding to include a host of high speed data applications such as fingerprints, photographs, building diagrams, slow and full motion video, and decisional data. We believe that public safety agencies should have access to the full range of available information services. We further believe that the following service features will be needed by various public safety agencies in the future in order for them to fulfill their missions: Enhanced Dispatch: Basic one-to-many select group communications and one-to-one communications with enhanced features (e.g., call set-up, priority interrupt, and interconnection with the Public Switched Network) Transaction Processing: Provision of short-duration, packetized alphanumeric data responses typical of current status-message systems (e.g., pre-set encoded status entries indicating start/end route or minimal data entries) Facsimile: Wireless version of land-line service that provides text and black and white imagery Snapshot: Service with a higher resolution than facsimile that is capable of gray-scale or color imaging non-alphanumeric text and used primarily for the transmission of photographs (e.g., mug shots and pictures of crime scenes or accidents) Decision Support: A high-speed data service that provides for interaction between mobile terminals and central data files enabling on-line decision-making by field personnel (e.g., firefighting decisions where volatile chemicals are involved) Full Motion Video: Movie-type imaging (e.g., full motion frame rates of at least 30 frames per second) that enables picture phone and color video of individuals or locations as communicated over the wireline system. Slow video provides high-resolution color images at modest frame rates (e.g, one frame per second) and could be provided real-time or on a store and forward basis (e.g., visual information of patient injuries sent directly to trauma specialists). Linking/Roaming: Similar to cellular offerings, services should be transparent to the user across a variety of wireless networks including PSTN, ISDN, and packet networks. 49. We seek comment on which, if any, of the public safety agencies will be interested in implementing the listed service features, and on what other service features are likely to be needed by public safety agencies. We ask commenters to discuss whether these features are widely used now. We also request comment on what demands the introduction of new service features will put on existing systems and infrastructures. How will these services be integrated into existing systems? Are additional allocations needed or can spectrum efficiency and sharing provide the needed capacity? Will new systems have to be built to accommodate them? To what extent can commercial providers meet demand? 50. In addition, we seek general comment on the specific service requirements, degree of use, and priority of the various classes of public safety services. Do these needs vary based on the type of geographic area (urban, suburban, or rural) served by the public safety licensees, and if so, how? How do the communications needs incident to the day-to-day operations of public safety licensees differ from those associated with unforeseen occurrences? What factors affect the level of differences? 2. System Requirements 51. We also seek comment on the performance requirements for the systems and equipment (including infrastructure hardware and software and mobile/portable terminals) used by public safety agencies for their radio communications. For example, for many public safety agencies, a critical element in their communications system designs is accommodation of the peak demand that occurs during multiple emergencies. Thus, these systems must have the capacity to handle not only routine traffic but also the increased level of traffic associated with large-scale emergencies. We believe that speed, reliability, capacity, coverage, and range are key factors which contribute to the overall effectiveness of public safety communications. We ask commenters to discuss these system requirements as well as any other requirements necessary for effective and efficient operations by public safety agencies. We also ask commenters to discuss whether there are particular system requirements so critical that the Commission should require them for all public safety equipment. If so, what specifications, if any, for such equipment should be included in our rules? 52. We also note that for public safety agencies providing state and local government services, the continued expansion of traditional radio systems has resulted in spectrum crowding and hindered the deployment of many advanced service features. The design of systems with service features beyond voice will require network integration. By contrast, in many instances, public safety communications continue to be independently operated and based on analog FM radios. A major shortcoming of public safety radio systems that are independently operated is their inability to communicate with multiple entities; as a result, such systems are not capable of network integration. We recognize that there may be instances where single channel systems continue to be desirable because of equipment costs, abundance of channel availability, or low probability for multi-jurisdictional communications. In those instances, we believe that a group of channels may be designated for single-channel operations provided these channels are shared and licensees tolerate some level of interference. 53. We believe that economies of scale and improvement of effectiveness of public safety communications are two of the advantages associated with transitioning from independently operated single channel systems to joint networks. Another advantage of the use of networks, whether they are simple trunked systems or sophisticated satellites, is that they can establish "talk groups," which permit communication among a specific group of radios. The talk group process limits user interaction only to those set up by the network administrator. However, there are a number of options for rapid modification of talk groups. For example, some systems that allow over-the-air re-keying of radios could be linked together in a single new talk group during an emergency. Where multiple entities share the same system or network, communications during an emergency is routine. 54. In addition to talk groups, multiple site systems shared by several agencies could be a means of significantly increasing the amount of service available from a given number of channels. Increased construction and operational costs may be disadvantages associated with the implementation of multiple site systems because most public safety agencies have certain geographical areas where coverage is required and budget constraints limit implementation to only necessary services and provide for gradual upgrade of existing systems. On the other hand, a multi-site system with advanced service features could provide several agencies with additional services and user conveniences. Furthermore, cell-type architectures allow great flexibility in tailoring a system to meet traffic requirements of varying conditions ranging from urban, suburban, to rural. We note, however, that the greatest challenge with the use of multi-site systems shared by various agencies may be system administration. Various administrative arrangements may be applied to mitigate the differing requirements among users. The benefits of enhanced communications services at reasonable costs makes multi-agency shared systems an important consideration in considering future system requirements. 55. We recognize, however, that no one communications package will meet all the needs of each public safety agency. In an effort to mitigate this problem, system gateways have been devised with limited success. We request comment on whether public safety licensees, as a general matter, should be required to utilize joint networks for their public safety communications. We ask commenters to address the advantages and disadvantages of independently operated systems and joint networks, both commercial and non-commercial, including how their use affects the delivery of services. We also ask commenters to discuss whether it is essential for public safety agencies to operate in the context of a larger system in order to increase feature availability, enhance interoperability, reduce initial capital costs, and maintain independent capability of public safety communications. We also ask commenters to identify those circumstances under which operation of individual systems would be more appropriate, and the role that system gateways could play in enhancing interoperability. C. Technology Issues 56. We believe that a review of the technologies available to public safety licensees (both currently and prospectively) is imperative to accurately assess public safety communications needs and spectrum requirements. In this connection, we further believe that only through an understanding of available and emerging technologies and their impact on operational and spectrum requirements of public safety licensees can we move towards a regulatory environment which fosters effective and efficient public safety communications. Given atmosphere of the scarcity of spectrum, technologies must be analyzed to determine how public safety agencies' operational needs can be met in the most spectrally efficient manner. Moreover, these operational and technical requirements then determine the amount of spectrum needed as well as which frequency bands would best accommodate these requirements. Our goal in this proceeding, however, is not to dictate the technologies to be used by public safety licensees, but, consistent with our actions in the other Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services, to provide an environment in which licensees have flexibility to choose from a range of technologies to support their respective operational requirements. 57. Over-the-air technologies have advanced rapidly over the past few years. As recently as ten years ago, mobile two-way equipment using analog Frequency Modulation (FM) in 25 kHz channels was considered state-of-the-art. Today, manufacturers are producing equipment to transmit at similar capacity levels but using only 5 kHz of bandwidth. Moreover, digital techniques allow four or more channels in a 25 kHz segment. Trunking technology permits hundreds of users to share a limited number of channels without interference. We envision that satellites may provide direct-to-mobile service in the not too distant future. We request comment, in general, on the impact of new technologies on the provision of new communications services and the demand for spectrum. 58. We note that there are at least four spectrally-efficient technologies currently available for voice and data transmission -- namely, Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA), and an assortment of narrowband technologies, including Amplitude Compandored Single Sideband (ACSSB). The Commission has neither endorsed nor selected any single standard based upon any one of these technologies. They, and many other technologies, are all currently available for use in the Public Safety Radio Services. 59. TDMA is a technology that increases the number of communications channels in a given spectrum segment by dividing each available channel into multiple time slots. The TDMA system being used by cellular licensees, for example, splits a 30 kilohertz 800 MHz channel into three time slots or channels while the TDMA system being implemented by wide-area Specialized Mobile Radio licensees splits a 25 kilohertz 800 MHz channel into six time slots. Furthermore, its digital nature offers a higher level of security than conventional analog radios. 60. CDMA employs spread spectrum modulation techniques and coding schemes to permit many separate communications to share a single wide-band communications channel. With CDMA each radio transmission is uniquely coded and spread over a bandwidth much wider than the minimum bandwidth necessary to transmit the traffic. The wider the bandwidth, the greater the advantages of CDMA in terms of increasing capacity and security and providing greater immunity to interference. This technology also offers the advantage of transmissions being difficult to intercept given its randomness and complexity. The CDMA system presently used by cellular licensees has the potential to provide an average of seven to ten times the capacity of existing analog systems. 61. FDMA assigns frequencies from a specific pool of frequencies to users either on a preassigned or an assigned demand basis. Current FDMA equipment offers a 2-to-1 efficiency gain over today’s analog technology. Manufacturers, however, are hopeful that this efficiency can be increased to at least 4-to-1. 62. Narrowband equipment is currently being operated in the 150 and 220 MHz bands using ACSSB technology. Other narrowband technologies include Real Zero Single Sideband and Linear Modulation. It is anticipated that efficiency gains of up to five times more than that associated with 25 kHz analog FM can be realized using these technologies. 63. We seek comment on how use of the four technologies described supra would address the future spectrum and capacity needs of public safety agencies. We also ask commenters to address additional technologies that would improve the current state of public safety communications. We note that the Technology Subcommittee of the PSWAC is charged with responsibility for investigation of various technologies for public safety communications. We ask commenters to discuss the most efficient technologies available to meet the operational needs of public safety licensees, including specific determinations of how much efficiency can be gained through use of such technologies. 64. In addition to the specific technologies discussed supra, we believe that spectrum efficiency can be increased through greater sharing among users combined (including but not limited to sharing protocols) with strategic selection of antenna designs. For example, use of a 120-degree sectored antenna system, where phased antenna arrays are utilized for purposes of dividing the coverage area, would increase the system capacity of an individual system by a factor of three. In addition, such an approach would require construction of fewer towers. 65. Another alternative for sharing spectrum more efficiently is the effective use of trunking. We recognize that for many years certain private land mobile and cellular systems have used trunking to increase system capacity. We note, however, that the increase in spectrum efficiency depends upon the number of channels trunked and the blocking rate. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume that trunked systems have a 2.7 efficiency advantage over non-trunked analog channels. In addition, the trunking equipment available today permits users to prioritize calls, a feature which would further increase spectrum efficiency. We seek comment on whether strategic use of antenna designs and trunking as a means of increasing spectrum capacity is feasible for public safety operations. We ask commenters to discuss the extent to which these and other similar technologies currently are being used by public safety licensees. We also seek comment on the advantages and disadvantages associated with these uses. 66. The regulatory framework in which new technologies would be implemented also must be considered. One regulatory approach would be to require use of particular technologies by certain time periods. Another approach would be to codify no specific technologies; and, thus, leave the technology selection entirely to the users. We believe, as a general matter, that allowing maximum flexibility in licensee selection of equipment would be the best regulatory approach. We nonetheless recognize that mandating a specific technology may be necessary in order to promote an important regulatory goal, such as interoperability between public safety agencies. We seek comment on the degree to which our rules should specify particular technologies or capabilities. We also ask commenters to discuss what regulatory goal, if any, would warrant requiring use of particular technologies. 67. Assuming that use of particular technologies is not mandated, we seek comment on how our rules should be crafted to permit operational flexibility while ensuring that particular elements, such as interoperability, are present. We ask commenters to discuss alternative regulatory approaches, including the operational factors (such as locality, population or unique geographic features) which should be considered in the regulatory approach we adopt. One alternative would be to specify technologies for each authorized channel or bandwidth. Another alternative would be to specify channel bandwidth and efficiency standards and permit use of any technology satisfying such standards. An advantage of this approach is that it allows a significant amount of flexibility in the selection of technologies and spectrum used to fulfill specific operational needs. In this connection, should we rely on the expertise of certified frequency coordinators for tailoring specific technologies to the needs of public safety agencies and the communities which they serve? We ask commenters to discuss the amount of discretion and responsibility afforded to frequency coordinators in this context. We also seek comment on other means of providing public safety agencies with the optimal amount of operational flexibility. 68. In addition, we ask commenters to discuss whether the Commission should specify technical standards for both receivers and transmitters. Traditionally, the Commission has chosen only to specify emission standards for transmitters on the premise that transmitters with excessive emissions could interfere with other users of the spectrum. As a result, licensees have had total discretion regarding the quality of the receivers they use. NTIA notes that interference is actually a function of transmitter and receiver performance and that spectrum efficiency is enhanced whenever both are optimized. NTIA suggests that adoption of receiver standards would facilitate sharing between users and enhance performance. NTIA also states that the homogeneity of systems practices within frequency bands not only would be desirable but also would enhance the sharing potential. We seek comment on whether receiver standards or overall system performance standards should be adopted. Specifically, we ask commenters to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of adopting such standards. In addition, assuming these standards are adopted, we ask commenters to address what specific standards would be appropriate and why. D. Spectrum Allocation 1. Overview of Spectrum Issues 69. Due to historical, regulatory, and technological forces, the spectrum now allocated to PSRS is highly fragmented. Consequently, public safety licensees have experienced severe interoperability problems, especially in connection with their operations during emergencies and disasters. This fragmentation of spectrum also has resulted in inefficient use of public safety spectrum and public safety communications systems that are costly and cumbersome. Against this backdrop, we request comment on ways to make more effective use of the spectrum allocated to public safety services, as well as the spectrum necessary to ensure that the current and future needs of the community are met in a timely and cost-efficient manner. 70. In determining spectrum requirements, several factors must be considered. The service needs and technological developments are discussed supra. We also have noted that the amount and location of the required spectrum is directly related to the information transmitted, the rate of transmission, the equipment utilized, the distances involved, and the quality and dependability needed. Additional information imposed on a radio signal increases the bandwidth of the channel occupied by the transmitted signal. For example, one video channel utilizing today's broadcast television transmission standards occupies 6 MHz of spectrum. This same amount of spectrum could provide 480 channels (12.5 kHz each) for voice or data communications. The location of the band within the radio spectrum is another important factor. Mobile operations generally are feasible only on spectrum below 2.5 GHz, whereas fixed microwave operations are feasible at much higher frequencies. 71. Our goal in this proceeding is that public safety agencies have adequate spectrum resources to ensure effective and reliable communications. As NTIA has previously noted, however, the demand for spectrum is usually not for spectrum per se but for increased capacity, which ultimately translates into more spectrum if the same technology is used. We note, however, that this may not be the result if users employ different technologies. NTIA also has predicted that 50 MHz will be required for new advanced private land mobile services -- including public safety uses -- over the next ten years. We are aware that public safety agencies have a wide range of existing and future needs. We seek comment on the amount and type (e.g., VHF, UHF, or SHF bands) of spectrum necessary to satisfy public safety spectrum needs for the next fifteen years. Specifically, we ask commenters to identify the existing and future spectrum needs of public safety agencies, including bandwidth projections, spectrum placement recommendations, and any recommendations for spectrum allocation plans (which identify current spectrum assignments as well as recommendations for future allocations and a timetable for implementation of new allocations). Commenters also should specify amounts of spectrum necessary, the intended use of such spectrum, why existing allocations cannot accommodate the intended use, and any likely effects on other operations or entities of any particular allocations proposed. 2. Spectrum Allocation Options 72. We recognize that there are a variety of regulatory approaches we could use to address the problems of congested spectrum and fragmented bands facing public safety agencies. These approaches include, but are not limited to: (a) allocation of additional public safety spectrum; (b) reallocation of spectrum currently assigned to Federal Government; (c) requirement of system sharing; (d) use of spectrum-efficient systems; (e) use of commercial wireless services; and (f) promotion of more efficient use of the spectrum allocated for public safety use. We request comment on the advantages and disadvantages associated with these approaches, including the technical feasibility, economic considerations, and impact on existing services. In addition, we ask commenters to discuss any other means that could be used to increase the capacity and capability of public safety communication systems. While we recognize that the emergence of new technologies will create new applications that could require additional spectrum, we also believe that advanced technologies may help to alleviate some spectrum congestion problems as well as increase capacity. We request commenters to discuss the potential impact of new technologies on the spectrum congestion and capacity problems now present in public safety communications. 73. Allocation of additional spectrum. Traditionally, the Commission has addressed public safety agencies' need for additional capacity by allocating additional spectrum. One drawback of this approach is that public safety spectrum is in different bands and, as a result, interoperability can not be readily obtained. In addition, the increasingly congested nature of spectrum below 1 GHz makes immediate additional allocations very difficult. Thus, we tentatively conclude that allocating additional public safety spectrum is not likely to satisfy the current and emerging needs of public safety communications systems. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We ask commenters to discuss both the technical and administrative advantages and disadvantages associated with adding to existing allocations, particularly if these newly allocated frequencies are not contiguous to existing public safety frequencies. 74. Reallocation. In the spectrum designated for transfer to the Commission, NTIA has identified nine frequency bands below 3 GHz having the potential for new non-Federal mobile communications and technologies, as well as other uses. We believe that some of these bands may be suitable for public safety uses. The following chart describes the current and future uses and scheduled availability of these frequency bands. FREQUENCY BAND SCHEDULED AVAILABILITY CURRENT AND FUTURE USES 1390-1400 MHz 1999 Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years. 1427-1432 MHz 1999 Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years. 1670-1675 MHz 1999 Non-Federal use of a limited number of sites could receive consideration earlier. 1710-1755 MHz 2004 Under certain conditions, reallocation of the band in 1995 may be possible for the 25 largest U.S. cities. 2300-2310 MHz Prior to the transfer, the amateur service held secondary status to government operations in this band. Although the Commission has not made a primary allocation in this band, the amateur service continues to hold secondary status. 2390-2400 MHz Commission has allocated this band on a secondary basis for use by unlicensed synchronous Data Personal Communications Services devices. 2400-2402 MHz Principal users are industrial, scientific, and medical devices, the amateur services, and unlicensed devices. 2402-2417 MHz Commission has allocated this band on a primary basis to the amateur services and to unlicensed devices and services 2417-2450 MHz Principal users of this band are industrial, scientific, and medical devices, the amateur services, and unlicensed devices. 75. We also note that there are other bands which may be suitable for public safety communications. For example, NTIA has proposed that public safety spectrum needs for full motion video be satisfied by using portions of the 4635-4685 MHz band. NTIA also has suggested that portions of the VHF television band (174-216 MHz) that will possibly be used for advanced television services be considered as potential spectrum for land mobile uses. In addition, VHF channels presently allocated for the Public Mobile Service may be lightly used or even unused in some regions. We believe that this light use of frequencies may result from the discontinuation of service by commercial providers who are intended users of that spectrum. Also, there are other VHF segments allocated for use by the Domestic Public Land Mobile Services, including the 152.000-152.255 MHz, 152.495-152.855 MHz, and 157.755-158.155 MHz bands. 76. Additionally, the 2110-2120 MHz band is presently allocated for fixed and mobile use. We note that there are few incumbent users on these frequencies. Thus, we believe that these incumbents could either share spectrum with public safety agencies or be cleared at a relatively low cost (e.g., $25,000 per link or less). This band could support 800 simplex voice channels, or 400 repeater channels, or one television channel and 160 simplex voice channels, or other combinations. 77. Finally, in the International Telecommunication Union Region 2, the 335.4-399.9 MHz band is allocated for fixed and mobile stations. In the United States, this band is currently limited to the military services. It also is allocated on a primary basis to the mobile-satellite service, limited to military operations. We understand that the 380-399.9 MHz segment has been used by the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) and that agreement between NATO/ARFA and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations exists to allow certain European countries to have access to the band for public safety services. This low UHF segment, therefore, appears to be a good candidate for reallocation for public safety uses. Its proximity to the 74 channels in the 450-470 MHz band that are currently available for public safety communications may make this segment ideal for public safety voice, data, and facsimile channels. We note, however, that these frequencies are regulated by NTIA. 78. We seek comment on the feasibility of using the spectrum identified above either as additional spectrum or for reallocation of public safety spectrum. Specifically, commenters should discuss: (a) how much spectrum will be required for the various types of public safety agencies through the year 2005, 2010, and 2015; (b) what are the highest, lowest, and ideal frequency bands practicable for each type of public safety operation; and (c) which of the frequencies currently allocated for public safety communications are inappropriate for particular public safety uses and why. We also ask commenters to discuss whether there are other Federal bands that could or should be reallocated for public safety communications. 79. System sharing. Beyond implementation of advanced technologies, there are sharing mechanisms whereby a particular frequency block can be used by entities providing compatible services. Sharing may be accomplished by geographic means, time of day, further band segmentation, or other technical means. We request comment on the issues involved in promoting greater sharing of public safety bands -- for both public safety agencies sharing with other public safety agencies and public safety agencies sharing with other users. The latter will be especially important if additional spectrum is eventually allocated to public safety uses because incumbents will either have to share or move to other frequency bands. We specifically request comment on technical advances that may enhance sharing prospects. 80. Spectrum-efficient systems. We also believe that spectrum-efficient technologies and system designs will provide more users with access to the public safety spectrum and encourage advanced applications to be developed using existing spectrum resources. Congress' embrace of this premise is reflected in Section 104(d)(3)-(4) of the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, which requires the Secretary of Commerce, through NTIA, to establish and implement a plan whereby Federal Government mobile radio systems become more spectrum-efficient and cost-effective. NTIA's and the Commission's "refarming" proceedings promote more efficient use of existing private land mobile radio (PLMR) spectrum allocations below 800 MHz. We request comment on additional methods and technologies that could increase spectrum efficiency in public safety communications. Specifically, what new technologies (e.g., CDMA,TDMA, FDMA, and ACSSB) could enhance efficiency, when will they be available, and how significant would be the gains in efficiency? 81. Options for efficient spectrum use. Notwithstanding the various options described, supra, we believe that our promotion of more efficient spectrum relief will provide an expeditious, but perhaps limited, solution to the spectrum needs of public safety agencies. In this connection, we seek comment on whether exclusivity or leasing of excess public safety spectrum capacity would be a feasible means of increasing efficiency in spectrum use. We also ask commenters to discuss other ways in which the Commission can promote more efficient use of the spectrum currently allocated for public safety wireless communications. 82. Additionally, we direct specific comment to NTIA's proposal of a unique regulatory option of Federal/non-Federal sharing designed to enhance efficient spectrum use. NTIA relates that Federal, State, and local land mobile radio systems are generally single channel analog FM voice systems, owned and operated by single agencies to perform a single well-defined mission. NTIA states that technology and the agency have become entwined as part of a vertically-integrated radio communications organization with little incentive to move to more efficient systems. NTIA believes that this situation could be changed to provide public safety entities with a set of incentives more likely to ensure that public resources, both of public funds and spectrum itself, are directed in more optimal manners. 83. In this connection, NTIA previously has concluded that public safety users should consider implementing shared Federal/non-Federal multi-site trunked communications systems or wide-area systems using cellular or personal communications services (PCS) technology for future narrowband operations. NTIA suggests that such systems be viewed as an alternative to allocating massive amounts of new spectrum. We note that the implementation of multi-site trunked communications capability would respond directly to the pressing demands for interoperability in public safety communications. In a broader context, pursuit of NTIA's suggestion, while potentially enhancing interoperability, would generate a far-reaching change for Federal, State, and local public safety agencies. In its March 1995 Report, NTIA notes the lack of an integrated program for future spectrum sharing and argues that significant barriers exist that impede frequency band sharing between Federal and non-Federal users. In this connection, NTIA envisions that multi-site radio systems shared among many different agencies, would replace the large number of independent government radio systems that currently service Federal, state, and local agencies. This recommendation is consistent with a parallel proposal to modify the block allocation system to permit additional flexibility and harness unused spectrum. According to NTIA, the resulting greater technical flexibility would improve manufacturers' ability to develop the best standards for their products to meet users needs. 84. We believe that NTIA's proposal seeks to maintain independent communications capability on the part of the user agencies, yet end the fragmentation that has contributed to virtual non-existent interoperability, stifled innovation, and confined competition. As a result, we believe that, in theory, it would provide higher levels of service and result in more efficient spectrum use. With the extreme difficulties of obtaining public revenues for infrastructure costs, it offers an opportunity for private participation in providing a wide breadth of services. Moreover, it seeks to accommodate those agencies with extensive requirements and expanding demands, as well as those not located in highly congested areas and who do not seek the wide range of services available. 85. We seek comment on NTIA's recommendation, including how NTIA and the Commission would administer this structure and what legislative action would be necessary to bring about the creation of such systems. Specifically, we seek comment on the range of elements, such as equipment life cycles and financial incentives, that would create sufficiently strong incentives for public safety agencies to aggressively embrace such an initiative. 86. Use of commercial wireless services. We believe that use of commercial wireless services offers great promise in relief of spectrum congestion and emergence of advanced services for public safety agencies in a timely and cost-effective manner. We request comment on how the use of commercial providers might affect the demand for exclusive or shared public safety spectrum, including whether the effect will be uniform for all public safety agencies and the impact on the amount of spectrum necessary for specific public safety applications. In addition, we ask commenters to discuss whether there are other tools which will increase capacity while promoting interoperability. E. Transition 87. We believe that in order to address the deficiencies of public safety communications, we must not only facilitate the development of feature-rich, spectrally efficient communications systems but also provide for a smooth transition from today's environment to public safety communications employing advanced technologies. We further believe that such a process will entail (1) greater use of commercial services by public safety entities; (2) more efficient use of existing spectrum; and (3) provision of additional spectrum for public safety uses. We are mindful, however, that the process must provide sufficient incentives and inducements for affected parties to be active participants while not being overly ambitious and unrealistic. In this connection, we believe that pursuit of any plan which focuses entirely on substantial, new spectrum allocations for public safety uses would be ill-advised given the current state of public safety communications. For example, even if unlimited, clear spectrum were available for such an allocation -- and it is not -- there is no evidence that the funding necessary to support a migration of all existing public safety entities to new frequencies is or will be readily available to public safety agencies. Moreover, the regulatory proceedings necessary to accomplish such spectrum allocations would take time, as well as the migration of public safety and other users to new spectrum. Given these factors, we tentatively conclude that a transition strategy that rests principally on obtaining additional spectrum for public safety is unacceptable because it effectively would ignore public safety agencies' more immediate spectrum needs. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and ask commenters to discuss the most reasonable plan for transition to new technologies and services, including a transition timetable through the year 2010, whether the transition would be different in urban and rural areas, and whether there should be a date certain for the full transition in the top markets. 88. We believe that the underpinnings of an effective and reasonable transition plan must recognize and account for the traditional characteristics of the public safety community. First, public safety activities are geared either solely or principally towards the protection of life and property rather than commercial motives, such as maximization of profits. Second, communications associated with the performance of such activities often require service capabilities that differ from those typically marketed to the general public (e.g., priority access, coverage, security). In fact, until relatively recently, the number of commercial carriers capable of meeting public safety entities' specialized needs was arguably limited. Third, public safety entities typically are publicly-funded, and thus face longer planning and new system acquisition cycles than most large commercial users. Public safety entities also must compete for operating and capital funding with other entities responsible for other important state and local government functions. We seek comment on whether and to what extent these attributes continue to accurately characterize public safety agencies. We also seek comment on other characteristics that are relevant to our analysis, and how all such factors should affect our strategic planning. 1. Increased Use Of Commercial Services 89. We believe that exploding public demand for spectrum for new commercial uses makes it increasingly difficult to address public safety communications needs as we have done in the past because the amount of available additional spectrum will be limited. As a result, we tentatively conclude that facilitating public safety agencies' use of commercial services, wherever feasible and possible, will necessarily be a key component of our efforts to ensure that public safety agencies' spectrum needs are met. 90. We also recognize, however, that public safety agencies have constructed and operated stand-alone private wireless systems in the past due, in part, to the lack of adequate commercial alternatives. As mentioned supra, the number of commercial alternatives are increasing rapidly. Moreover, the substantial spectrum allocations made by Congress and this Commission during the 1990s for a variety of commercial uses indicates the impending end of the era in which communications users, including public safety agencies, could turn to only a handful of service providers to meet their particular needs. Private companies are investing in wide-area, highly sophisticated wireless communications systems throughout the country, multiplying service options and lowering prices for these services. These companies have strong economic incentives to compete for new users, especially large users, and to tailor service offerings to local conditions and needs. We note that public safety entities often are among the largest telecommunications users in their local communities. We also believe that our rules and licensing procedures could be structured to provide public safety agencies with additional incentives to move to commercial offerings. For example, frequencies designated exclusively for public safety uses could be restricted in terms of the types of uses permitted on such frequencies. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and observations. We ask commenters to discuss the types of public safety activities that could be performed using commercial systems with sufficient reliability that lives or property would not be threatened. We also solicit proposals for how to prioritize the communications associated with these existing and emerging activities. 2. Funding for Spectrum Migration 91. As we have discussed supra, we believe that additional spectrum allocations are likely to be a critical step in our efforts to address the current deficiencies with public safety communications, but only one aspect of a more comprehensive approach encompassing increased use of sharing and spectrum-efficient technologies, wide use of commercial services and allocation of additional spectrum. Assuming that migration to newly allocated spectrum is based on the life cycle of present equipment, we believe that the substantial financial requirements inherent in such migration is a significant obstacle to its realization. We further believe that the availability of resources to finance the migration, including necessary new equipment, is tenuous at best because public safety agencies' ability to commit large initial sums of capital investment are likely to be strained significantly. 92. We seek comment on the degree to which the value of present public safety spectrum can be used to underwrite public safety spectrum consolidation. Under such an approach, as public safety users migrate from existing systems, the vacant spectrum could be auctioned. The auction proceeds then could be used to underwrite the migration of incumbent public safety entities to new frequencies. With the important caveat that statutory authority to use auction proceeds in this manner would be required, we believe the value of present public safety frequencies is a potentially important source of relocation funding. We seek comment on the statutory amendments and associated regulatory modifications that would be required to enable private sector demand for additional spectrum to be used for this purpose. We also seek comment on whether there are other methods of funding available for the transition. Alternatively, auction winners could be required to pay the cost of relocation of public safety incumbents, possibly with an auction price discounted by the cost of relocation. We seek comment on this proposal as well. 3. Improving Public Safety Spectrum Administration 93. We tentatively conclude that present spectrum allocation and administration processes for public safety services are inefficient and too lengthy. Currently, these processes require public safety entities to predict future spectrum requirements, initiate equipment procurement actions, obtain frequency coordination, file license applications, and await processing of such applications. Public safety agencies often must seek modification of the license grants or request waivers of the Commission's rules in the wake of unforeseen emergencies. The Commission's present authorization process requires a determination that: (i) the applicant is eligible, (ii) the channels requested have been properly coordinated, and (iii) the proposed system is in conformance with applicable rules and regulations. Upon approval, the information is added to the licensee data base and a license is granted for a five-year term. We seek comment and suggestions on methods of streamlining and improving these processes. 94. We propose to require frequency coordination post-license grant for public safety licensees rather than pre-license grant. Under this proposal, we would grant to each eligible entity a license that is subject to coordination. The frequency coordinator would be responsible for maintaining an accurate data base accessible by the public. We tentatively conclude that this would be an improvement upon our current procedures because the licensing process will be streamlined. Thus, public safety users will receive their authorizations more quickly. We seek comment on this proposal and tentative conclusion. We ask commenters to address what modifications to existing licensing processes and regulations, including those relating to public safety frequency coordination and the continuing need to coordinate border frequencies with neighboring countries, would be required to implement this proposal. F. Competition in the Supply of Goods and Services 95. We believe that another contributing factor to the deficiencies in today's public safety communications is the lack of a vigorous competitive market for the purchase of communications equipment and services employed by public safety agencies. Subsequent to initial procurement, competition is virtually non-existent; therefore, maintenance, upgrades, and expansion are often limited to one provider. Consequently, not only must agencies pay higher prices, but also technological innovation and expanded product choice are inhibited. 96. It is our understanding that the market for public safety land mobile radio equipment is primarily confined to two suppliers, Motorola, Inc. and Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson previously has noted that based on the market shares of these two companies, the Herfindah-Hirschman Index (HHI) for public safety land mobile radio equipment is estimated to be over 5,700. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Merger Guidelines promulgated in 1992, state that the degree of market concentration is broadly characterized as unconcentrated when the HHI is below 1,000, moderately concentrated when the HHI is between 1000 and 1800, and highly concentrated when the HHI is above 1800. 97. We reiterate that the Commission's goal in this proceeding, as in others, is to create a regulatory environment which fosters competition. In the public safety context, we believe that competition will result provided that we formulate policies which allow for a wide range of services to be provided by both simple and complex technologies. We also believe that competition will be present and thrive in those circumstances where initial equipment purchase does not limit choice in upgrade and expansion, innovation does not require an entirely new system, and most importantly, manufacturers and service providers accept the competitive environment. As a result, we tentatively conclude that any rules adopted in this proceeding should be technology-neutral. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on whether adherence to such a position is mutually exclusive with consideration of the alternative of a single set of protocols or standards to foster, for instance, interoperability in public safety communications. We also ask commenters to address what measures, if any, must be taken in order to ensure that our rules do not favor use of a particular technology over another. 98. We recognize that similar goals have been established for the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) Project 25. Commenced in 1989, Project 25 seeks to increase radio spectrum efficiency, enhance competition in the public safety equipment and services market, and provide interoperability capability. Project 25 evolved from the Commission's 1989 decision not to adopt protocol standards for communications equipment operating in the 800 MHz public safety bands that foster spectrum efficiencies and interoperability in GEN Docket. No. 88-441. APCO completed Project 25's first phase in August 1995, which set protocol standards. 99. We note that the record in Gen. Docket No. 88-441 concerning adopting protocols for the 800 MHz public safety bands reflects several positions. It was argued that any standard would be a product of compromise, not creativity. Additionally, it was asserted that the lead time to comply with the standards would divert effort away from innovation, and that the technical improvements that evolved could not be implemented without agreement to change the standard. It was asserted that protocol standards would stifle future advanced telecommunications systems in providing a higher form of interoperability, enhanced competition, and the spectrum efficiencies needed to handle future increased communications requirements. 100. In addition, Ericsson raises competitive and other concerns regarding Project 25. It believes that Project 25 will further restrict competition in a market already concentrated, not contribute to spectrum efficiency, and not move public safety communications closer to interoperability. The Commission seeks comments on Project 25 that addresses its goals and objectives, the status of these efforts, and the issues raised by Ericsson. 101. Beyond the efforts by APCO and others, we believe that it is our responsibility to examine how best to enhance competition in the public safety communications market, bring about interoperability, greater spectrum efficiency, and overall, more effective communications. In our 1989 decision, we noted the drawbacks to standard setting in face of projections of technical advances that would produce spectrum efficiency and interoperability and our preference for allowing these forces to evolve. We ask commenters to discuss how we can foster a more competitive environment for the supply of goods and services related to public safety communications while encouraging greater efficiency and innovation. V. CONCLUSION 102. Throughout this Notice, we have emphasized two primary issues. The first issue is the critical nature of public safety responsibilities to the Nation's well being and the role of modern wireless communications in ensuring that these duties are fulfilled effectively. The second issue is that the fragmented nature of present public safety wireless communications has a detrimental impact on present and future capabilities. We believe that bringing about improved quality and tangible access to expanded services is dependent largely on public safety operating in a wider and more consistent environment. This proceeding seeks to broaden the opportunity for public safety agencies to obtain access to the benefits that accrue from the increased competition and innovation that has emerged in telecommunications generally while maintaining the independence, reliability, universal service and security that are integral to public safety. We believe that a regulatory structure can emerge that is more efficient, commits more discretion to users, and facilitates access to a much broader range of services. VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 103. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. 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 Notice of Proposed Rule Making, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1981). B. Ex Parte Rules -- Non-Restricted Proceeding 104. This is a non-restricted 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. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). C. Comment Dates 105. Pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested persons may file comments on or before September 20, 1996, and reply comments on or before October 18, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you should file an original and nine copies. You should send your comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. E. Ordering Clause 106. Authority for issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303(r). F. Contact Person 107. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert McNamara at (202) 418-0680 (Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary