WPC? 2MB%RK Z#|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNAh H H7Number yLof =4Channels H MHz y(Approximate)c  N H   yO9 #X\  P6G;QwP# 2550 4 r(VHF high band)   QG315   6.3        g 150174 4 r(VHF high band)   RQG242  3.6         220222 > (220 band)  zK10  0.1         450470  (UHF band)  zK74  3.7       rJ806821/851866 (800 bands))  zK70)  3.5       ZD v821824/866869 7 Z(800 public safety bands)A  GQ230 RA 6 H  ) I  N TOTAL w QG941 I c23.2H  AI yO-  XQ-#Xj\  P6G;XP#Public safety agencies also are eligible to operate on other shared frequencies. For example,  X:-various frequencies from 2 to 25 MHz are available for disaster communications.Y:$ {O-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.263 and 90.264.Y Public safety agencies are eligible for licensing in the Private OperationalFixed Microwave  X -Service. Z$ yO -ԍ Microwave spectrum in the bands above 1000 MHz also is available for public safety communications.  {O -See 47 C.F.R.  94.5.  X-x16. 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."k"0*((!"Ԍ X-ԙ B. xRecent Legislative and Regulatory Developments  X-x17. Since 1980, the Commission has initiated over 40 general and servicespecific proceedings seeking to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and enhancement of public  X-safety communications.6 $ {O-ԍ See e.g., Report and Order, Docket No. 21142, 43 Fed. Reg. 6779 (1978) (permitting use of digital voice modulation in the Police and Fire Radio Services and nonvoice digital modulation in all private land mobile  {O-services); Report and Order, PR Docket No. 79191, 85 FCC d 56 (1980) (allocating 50 "reserve pool"  {Oy-frequency pairs in the 800 MHz band for use by public safety licensees); Second Report and Order, PR Docket No. 79191, 90 FCC 2d 1281 (1982) (allocating an additional 70 channels in the 800 MHz band, except in the  {O -Canadian and Mexican border areas, as public safety spectrum); First Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 81413, [cite] (permitting use of spread spectrum and other wideband technologies on certain frequencies in the  {O -Public Safety Radio Services); Notice of Inquiry, PR Docket No. 84232, 49 Fed. Reg. 9754 (1984) (seeking  {Og -comment on public safety spectrum needs); Memorandum Opinion and Order, GEN Docket 88441, 4 FCC Rcd 3874 (1989) (determining it unnecessary to impose a uniform trunking standard for radio equipment  {O -manufactured for use on 800 MHz public safety frequencies); Further Notice of Inquiry, 4 FCC Rad 8519 (1989) (explores standards, technical, economic and regulatory issues that relate to advanced technologies in the Public Safety Radio Services). Moreover, in 1987, the Commission chartered the National Public  X-Safety Planning Advisory Committee. $ {O-ԍ See Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 87112, 3 FCC Rad 905 (1987).  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 (821824/866869 MHz) on a regional basis throughout the United  X1-States.1X $ {O:-ԍ See GEN Docket No. 87112, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 2113 (1988), for a description and list of the 55 regions. The National Plan provides a regulatory framework for 55 regional plans. Recently, Senator Larry Pressler proposed a plan of allocating a large block of  X -spectrum to the states for public safety purposes. $ {O}-ԍ See 142 CONG. REC. 34, S2000, S2002 (daily ed. March 13, 1996) (statement of Senator Pressler). 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.  X -x18. 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.  X-x19. PSWAC, throughout its five subcommittees, is analyzing the communications"D0*((" 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  X-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  X-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 stateoftheart 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.  X{- x  Xd- IV. DISCUSSION ă  X6-x20. As mentioned supra,<6$ {O-ԍ See  2.< 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.  X- A. xInteroperability Issues  X!-x21. 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"U% Z0*(('$" wireless communications systems that permit units from two or more different agencies to  X-exchange information with one another, which we generally refer to as "interoperability."$ {Ob-ԍ See discussion of the definition of interoperability, supra, at para. 26. 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 onscene 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. x  X1-x22. 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 noncontiguous frequencies scattered throughout the VHF and UHF bands.  X -Consequently, local, regional, and national public safety agencies have little or no t ability to  X - communicate with each other. This inability to communicate hinders cooperation and coordination between public safety agencies on a daytoday 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.  X6- x1.` ` "Public Safety" Definition 6Z$ yOA-ԍ We note, however, that the public safety definition that we ultimately adopt in this proceeding does not affect or alter the definition of "public safety facility" which we adopted for purposes of our mandatory  {O-relocation program in the 2 GHz band. See Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of  {O-New Telecommunications Technologies, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET  {Oe-Docket No. 929, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993), aff'd, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943,  3446 (1994).  x23. 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  X-defined as a listing of services included within that classification.?$ yOL -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.15.? 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.  X -x24. In this connection, PSWAC is considering several proposals concerning whether"  h 0*(([" "public safety" should be more strictly defined under the Commission's rules. The following definitions are being considered by PSWAC:  X-x` `  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. (#  Xa-x` `  Public Safety Services: Those services rendered by or through Federal, State, or local government entities in support of public safety duties. (#  X -x` `  Public Safety Services Provider: Governmental and public entities or those nongovernmental, private organizations which are properly authorized by the appropriate governmental authority whose primary mission is providing public safety services.(#  X -x` `  Public Safety Support Provider: Governmental and public entities or those nongovernmental, 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.(#  X-x` `  Public Services: Those services provided by nonpublic safety entities that furnish, maintain, and protect the nation's basic infrastructures  X-which are required to promote the public's safety and welfare.$ {O[-ԍ See Minutes of the Third Meeting of Interoperability Subcommittee of PSWAC, Dec. 14, 1995.(#  X-x25. 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  XX-presented supra, in an effort to encompass the broadest array of the responsibilities and  XC-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,"]% Z0*(('$" including the provision of public safety communications services by commercial entities.  X-x 2.` ` "Interoperability" Definition  X-x26. In order to promote the development of this communication capability, we must  X-first define what is meant by interoperability. In this connection, the In teroperability Subcommittee of PSWAC is considering the following definition of interoperability and  X_-related definitions:_$ {O-ԍ See Minutes of the Third Meeting of Interoperability Subcommittee of PSWAC, Dec. 14, 1995.  X1-x` ` X 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. (#  X -x` `  The communications link may be classified as either of the following two types:(#  Xd-x` `  © Infrastructureindependent: The communications link occurs between subscriber units over a direct RF path. An example is portabletoportable tactical communications at the scene of an incident. (#  X -x` `  © Infrastructuredependent: 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 crossconnecting the audio signals and/or appropriate signaling functions at some central point. (#  X-Xx` `  The communications link, whether infrastructure dependent or independent, must satisfy one or both of the following requirements:(#  X -x` `  © Multijurisdictional: 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. (# "Y% Z0*(('$"Ԍ X-x` `  ©  Multidisciplinary: Wireless communications involving two or more different agencies. One example is a police agency communicating with an emergency medical services agency. (#  X-x` ` X The communications link may involve any combination of subscriber  X-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. (#  X -x27. 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.  X -x 2.` ` Interoperability Needs  X}-.x28. We believe that the need for interoperability in public safety communications arises in three general contexts. One context is daytoday operations. The daytoday 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, daytoday interoperability requirements are local or regional in nature. x29. A second context is mutual aid incidents. We believe that onscene 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.  X-x30. 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 onscene command posts, and dispatch of tactical units throughout a wide area. We believe that interoperable communications systems greatly enhance tactical operations among multijurisdictional and multidiscipline agencies participating on the task force. "'' 0*((%"Ԍ X-x31. 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.  X-x 3.` ` Interoperability Options x32. We recognize that some public safety agencies already have made efforts to address the problems associated with multijurisdictional and multidiscipline interoperability. These initial efforts include provision of compatible radio equipment to units onthescene 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.  Xy-XxoX` ` 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 kHzspaced 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 intraagency 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  X-than law enforcement, fire and disaster preparedness) may join the RCS.EZ$ {OT"-ԍ See San Diego CountyImperial County, Regional Communications System Agreement (March 7, 1995) and Request to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration submitted by the Department of the Navy and County of San DiegoCounty of Imperial (May 12, 1995).E (#`  X!-Xxo X` ` The State of Colorado has commenced a sixphase schedule for implementing a statewide digital trunked radio system using the 800 MHz public safety bands. The implementation model assumes several types of users will seek to associate"#0*((e"" 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  X-monthly service fee.$ yO-ԍ National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Land Mobile Spectrum Planning Options,  {O-October 19, 1995 ("NTIA October 1995 Report") at A7. (#`  Xv-XxoX` ` Other states, such as Nevada and South Carolina, are implementing statewide 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.  X -x 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.  XK-x!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.  X-x"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.  X"-x#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"l$"0*((F#" 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.  X -x$37. Install CrossBand Repeaters. We recognize that installing fixedbase or mobile, multichannel, crossband repeaters is an approach which could address the interoperability needs of public safety agencies expeditiously. Traditional repeaters receive on one channel and retransmit voice or data on another channel. Under this approach, repeaters would be used to allow simultaneous communications on universally designated channels in each of the public safety bands. Moreover, gateways could be used as an alternative to crossband  X{-repeaters.)X{$ yO-ԍ A "gateway" is a conceptual or logical network station that interconnects two otherwise incompatible networks, network nodes, subnetworks or devices. It performs protocol conversion operations across a wide spectrum of communications functions or layers.) Providing interoperability by this approach would require modification of existing dispatch facilities to interconnect the existing bands with universal mutual aid channels and,  XM-thus, investment in existing equipment. A disadvantage of this approach is that interoperability would occur only where the required fixedbase or mobile infrastructure is in place, thereby requiring jurisdictions to acquire such repeaters.  X-x%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 daytoday 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. x&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"#0*((e"" existing communications equipment while achieving interoperability to be a significant  X-advantage as compared to the other approaches described supra. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  X-x'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 daytoday mutual aid activities, and Priority 4 for single agency secondary communications.  XM-x(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,  X-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?  Xi-x)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 multiband radios or special dedicated mutual aid radios could satisfy this requirement. The amateur radio service community currently uses inexpensive multiband 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 multiband radios provides an expedient solution for addressing public safety interoperability requirements.  X#- B.xOperational Issues  XU%-x *43. Traditionally, public safety licensees have used a base station, repeater, and vehicular and handheld portable stations in conducting their twoway communications. Such communications have been conducted using both conventional and trunked operations. With"''0*((%"  X-conventional voice and data systems, a single channel or a pair of channels-Z$ {Oy-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.7. A conventional radio system is a system in which a station is assigned to one or more radio frequency channels. The station may transmit only on its assigned channel(s), and only when it is not in use by another station.- is used to communicate in a dispatch/supervisory mode or in a onetoone 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 subaudible tones may be used to permit any combination of mobile radios to receive the radio transmission. With  Xv-trunked systems, several channel pairs are integrated into a single systemv$ {O -ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.7. A trunked radio system is a system in which a station is assigned to a trunk group. A trunk group is a number of radio frequency channel pairs that are shared by all stations in the system. The station may transmit on any available channel in the trunk group. A trunked system is more efficient than a conventional system because more messages can be transmitted by the same number of stations within a given time. which automatically selects a currently unused channel pair and assigns it to the user desiring to transmit a message. x+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  X -propagation properties than the VHF low band frequencies. Also, most public safety use r s prefer VHF high band and UHF band frequencies for their operations. The VHFlow band  X -frequencies, which offer widearea coverage, continue s 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  Xy-to permit use of repeater stations.2y$ yO-ԍ Signals from a control station or mobile unit are transmitted on one frequency and retransmitted by the repeater to another channel for reception by other control or mobile units. Repeater stations permit greater  {OV-geographic coverage than otherwise possible. See 47 C.F.R.  94.7. A repeater may be a mobile relay station or a mobile repeater station. A mobile relay station transmits on a base station frequency. A mobile repeater station transmits on a mobile station frequency.2 x,45. Public safety agencies also use fixed services to provide radio communications between specified fixed points. These radio communications usually involve pointtopoint 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 X-tomultipoint service in which multiple transmitting or receiving fixed stations are involved.w N $ {O#-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. Part 94 for the rules governing fixed microwave services.w  X-x-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" 0*((3" 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. x` `  X- x1.` ` Service Features  X_-x.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.  Xy-x/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  X-missions:!$ {OQ-ԍ See Coalition of Private Users of Emerging Multimedia Technologies (COPE), Petition for Rule Making, Spectrum Allocations for Advanced Private Land Mobile Communications Services, filed December 23, 1993.  X-x` `  Enhanced Dispatch: Basic onetomany select group communications  X-and onetoone communications with enhanced features (e.g., call setup, priority interrupt, and interconnection with the Public Switched Network)(# x  X;-x` `  Transaction Processing: Provision of shortduration, packetized alphanumeric data responses typical of current statusmessage systems  X-(e.g., preset encoded status entries indicating start/end route or minimal data entries)(# x  X -x` `  Facsimile: Wireless version of landline service that provides text and black and white imagery(#  X#-x` `  Snapshot: Service with a higher resolution than facsimile that is capable of grayscale or color imaging nonalphanumeric text and used primarily"t$"!0*((F#"  X-for the transmission of photographs (e.g., mug shots and pictures of crime scenes or accidents)(#  X-x` `  Decision Support: A highspeed data service that provides for interaction between mobile terminals and central data files enabling on X-line decisionmaking by field personnel (e.g., firefighting decisions where volatile chemicals are involved)  XN-x` ` X Full Motion Video: Movietype 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 highresolution color images at modest frame rates (e.g, one frame per second) and could be provided realtime or on a store and forward basis (e.g., visual information of patient injuries sent directly to trauma specialists).(#  X- x` `  Linking/Roaming: Similar to cellular offerings, services should be W!W!W!W!W!W!transparent to the user across a variety of wireless networks including PSTN, ISDN, and packet networks.(#  X>-x049. 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?  Xo-x150. 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 daytoday operations of public safety licensees differ from those associated with unforeseen occurrences? What factors affect the level of differences? xXp x (08 #$@')+H.02P57:X<>AhX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. 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. "%'!0*((%"Ԍ X-ԙx?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 120degree 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.  Xa-x@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 nontrunked 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. xA66. 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.  X9-xB67. 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"%'!0*((%" frequency coordinators in this context. We also seek comment on other means of providing public safety agencies with the optimal amount of operational flexibility.  X-xC68. 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  X -be desirable but also would enhance the sharing potential."  yOe -ԍ NTIA, U. S. Department of Commerce, NTIA Special Publication 9431, "U.S. National Spectrum  {O--Requirements: Projections and Trends," March 1995, at 179 (NTIA March 1995 Report). 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.  Xb- D.xSpectrum Allocation  X4-x 1.` ` Overview of Spectrum Issues  X-xD69. 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 costefficient manner.  X7-xE70. In determining spectrum requirements, several factors must be considered. The  X -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  X -the bandwidth of the channel occupied by the transmitted signal.# " yO%-ԍ Bandwidth is that portion of the radio spectrum that is between the upper and lower limits of the channel. For example, one video" #0*(("  X-channel utilizing today's broadcast television transmission standardsP$ {Oy-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  73.862.P 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.  Xv-xF71. 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,  XH-however, the demand for spectrum is usually not for spectrum per se but for increased  X3-capacity, which ultimately translates into more spectrum if the same technology is used.P%3Z {O> -ԍ NTIA October 1995 Report at 32.P 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  X -services including public safety uses over the next ten years.M&  {O-ԍ NTIA March 1995 Report at 38.M We are aware that public safety agencies have a wide range of existing and future needs. We seek comment on the  X -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.  X- x2. Spectrum Allocation Options  X-xG72. 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 spectrumefficient 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"!~&0*(( " 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.  X-xH73. 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  XJ-spectrum below 1 GHz makes immediate additional allocations very difficult.'J yO -ԍ Although spectrum below 1 GHz currently is very congested, additional spectrum may become available  {O -in the future. See e.g. Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Third Notice of Inquiry, MM Docket  {OU -No. 87268, 10 FCC Rcd 10540 (1995) (digital television spectrum); Report and Order and Further Notice of  {O -Proposed Rulemaking, PR Docket No. 92235, 10 FCC Rcd 10076 (1995) (increasing efficiency below 512 MHz). 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.  X -xI74. Reallocation. In the spectrum designated for transfer to the Commission,O( ~ {O-ԍ NTIA October 1995 Report at xi.O NTIA has identified nine frequency bands below 3 GHz having the potential for new nonFederal 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."O(0*(("  X   X, X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:|, T AddxN : F  a,ddx,  T H  z A g   X-7#XU4  pQ4X#FREQUENCY BAND cg #XU4  pQ4X#SCHEDULED#XU4  pQ4X# $AVAILABILITYcg  X-,4 <DL!T$a&\+- 0d247l9;>|lt$"T$,%')4,.0<357D:<>LACETHJM\OQ T,BCURRENT AND FUTURE USES#XU4  pQ4X#z C  g*  p  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#G13901400 MHzI >1999I Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years. C C c **  p G14271432 MHz  * >1999 * Federal operation at 14 sites will continue for 9 years. C C  **  p G16701675 MHzC I >1999C I NonFederal use of a limited number of sites could receive consideration earlier. C C   **  p G17101755 MHzI >2004I Under certain conditions, reallocation of the band in 1995 may be possible for the 25 largest U.S. cities.C  ,  *  p G23002310 MHzI I 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. C o *  p G23902400 MHzI  I Commission has allocated this band on a secondary basis for use by unlicensed synchronous Data Personal Communications Services devices.C C  **   G24002402 MHz!I !I Principal users are industrial, scientific, and medical devices, the amateur services, and unlicensed devices.C C  **  pp G24022417 MHzdI dI Commission has allocated this band on a primary basis to the amateur services and to unlicensed devices and servicesC s    *W  p G24172450 MHz!v !v Principal users of this band are industrial, scientific, and medical devices, the amateur services, and unlicensed devices.s   MW""(0*((!Z"  X- , xJ75. 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 46354685 MHz band. NTIA also has suggested that portions of the VHF television band (174216 MHz) that will possibly be used  X-for advanced television services be considered as potential spectrum for land mobile uses.O)D {O-ԍ NTIA October 1995 Report at xi.O 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  XH-spectrum.*HZD yOS -ԍ The channels are at 152.03, 152.06, 152.09, 152.12, 152.15, 152.18, 152.21, 152.51, 152.54, 152.57, 152,60, 152.63, 152.66, 152.69, 152.72, 152.75, 152.78, and 152.81 MHz. Also, there are other VHF segments allocated for use by the Domestic Public Land Mobile Services, including the 152.000152.255 MHz, 152.495152.855 MHz, and 157.755158.155 MHz bands.  X -xK76. Additionally, the 21102120 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  X -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. x xL77. Finally, in the International Telecommunication Union Region 2, the 335.4399.9 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 mobilesatellite service, limited to military operations. We understand that the 380399.9 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 450470 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.  X"-xM78. 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""*0*((!Z" other Federal bands that could or should be reallocated for public safety communications.  X-xN79. 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.  X -xO80. Spectrumefficient systems. We also believe that spectrumefficient 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 spectrumefficient and costeffective. NTIA's and the Commission's "refarming" proceedings promote more efficient use of existing private land mobile radio  X8-(PLMR) spectrum allocations below 800 MHz.<+8D {O-ԍ See note 40.< We request comment on additional methods and technologies that could increase spectrum efficiency in public safety communications.  X -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?  X-xP81.  Options for efficient spectrum use. Notwithstanding the various options described,  X-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. xQ82. Additionally, we direct specific comment to NTIA's proposal of a unique regulatory option of Federal/nonFederal 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 welldefined mission. NTIA states that technology and the agency have become entwined as part of a verticallyintegrated radio communications organization with little incentive to move"#Z+0*((e"Z"  X-to more efficient systems.P,D {Oy-ԍ NTIA October 1995 Report at A1.P 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.  X-xR83. In this connection, NTIA previously has concluded that public safety users should consider implementing shared Federal/nonFederal multisite trunked communications systems or widearea systems using cellular or personal communications services (PCS) technology for  X_-future narrowband operations. z-_ZD {Oj -ԍ NTIA March 1995 Report at 181182; NTIA October 1995 Report at A1.z NTIA suggests that such systems be viewed as an alternative to allocating massive amounts of new spectrum. We note that the implementation of multisite 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 farreaching 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  X -barriers exist that impede frequency band sharing between Federal and nonFederal users.R. D {O[-ԍ NTIA March 1995 Report at 181182.R In this connection, NTIA envisions that multisite 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  X-needs.R/~D {OL-ԍ NTIA March 1995 Report at 177178.R  X-xS84. 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 nonexistent 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.  X -xT85. 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"/0*((;Z" 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.  X-xU86. 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 costeffective 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.  X -  X -    X -E.xTransition  X -xV87. We believe that in order to address the deficiencies of public safety communications, we must not only facilitate the development of featurerich, 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 illadvised 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.  X#-xW88. 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"%' /0*((%Z"  X-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 publiclyfunded, 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.  X -  X -x 1.` ` Increased Use Of Commercial Services  X -  X -xX89. 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.  X6-xY90. We also recognize, however, that public safety agencies have constructed and operated standalone private wireless systems in the past due, in part, to the lack of adequate  X-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 widearea, 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.  XU%-x 2. ` ` Funding for Spectrum Migration  X''-xZ91. As we have discussed supra, we believe that additional spectrum allocations are"''!/0*((%Z" 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 spectrumefficient 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.  X -x[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.  X- x3.` ` Improving Public Safety Spectrum Administration  X-x\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  Xe-procurement actions, obtain frequency coordination,90BeD {O-ԍ See Fact Sheet PR5000 Number 301, Part 90 Frequency Coordinators dated August 1995. The certified coordinator for the Local Government, Police, and 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Services is the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers International, Inc. For the Fire Radio Service, it is International Municipal Signal Association. For the Special Emergency Radio Service, they are the Personal Communications Industry Association, International Municipal Signal Association, and International Association of Fire Chiefs. For the Highway Maintenance Radio Service, it is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. For the Forestry Conservation Radio Service, it is the Forestry Conservation Communications Association.9 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""00*((Z"ԫyear term. We seek comment and suggestions on methods of streamlining and improving these processes. x]94. We propose to require frequency coordination postlicense grant for public safety licensees rather than prelicense 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.  X- F.xCompetition in the Supply of Goods and Services  Xb- x^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 nonexistent; 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.  X-x_96. It is our understanding that the market for public safety land mobile radio  X-equipment is primarily confined to two suppliers, Motorola, Inc. and Ericsson, Inc.1D yO#-ԍ Letter to Philip L. Verveer, Chair, PSWAC, from Dennis C. Connors, Vice President, Ericsson, Inc., and Member of the Steering Committee of the Advisory Committee, dated October 24, 1995 ("Ericsson letter"). Ericsson previously has noted that based on the market shares of these two companies, the HerfindahHirschman 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.  X-x`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"h$# 10*((F#Z" accept the competitive environment. As a result, we tentatively conclude that any rules adopted in this proceeding should be technologyneutral. 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.  XH-xa98. 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  X -interoperability in GEN Docket. No. 88441. APCO completed Project 25's first phase in August 1995, which set protocol standards.  Xy-xb99. We note that the record in Gen. Docket No. 88441 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  X-requirements.<2D yO:-ԍ 4 FCC Rcd at 3879.< xc100. 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  X7-objectives, the status of these efforts, and the issues raised by Ericsson.T3Z7XD {O@ -ԍ See Charles L. Jackson, A Need to Be Heard: Will Project 25 Meet Public Safety Communications Needs  yO !-in 1995 and Beyond (July 1995); Hatfield Associates, Inc., Competitive Considerations Associated with APCO  yO!-Project 25 (Jan. 6, 1996) .T xd101. 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"!$z30*(( Z" 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.  X-x V. CONCLUSION ă  X_-xe102. 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  XM-services.  X-T VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  X-  X- A.xRegulatory Flexibility Act xf103. 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  Xg-A. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in  XP-accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice of Proposed  X;-Rule Making, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as  X&-responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule  X-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.  X-No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).  X!< B.x Ex Parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding  X#-xg104. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  X`%-disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). "4'%30*((%Z"Ԍ X- C.xComment Dates xh105. 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  X-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  X_-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  X -Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.(#(#X  X -  X -E.xOrdering Clause  X -xi106. 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).  XM- F.xContact Person xj107.ؠ For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Robert McNamara at (202) 4180680 (Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau). x` `  hh2@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh2@William F. Caton x` `  hh2@Acting Secretary