******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) The Development of Operational, ) Technical and Spectrum Requirements ) For Meeting Federal, State and Local ) WT Docket No. 96-86 Public Safety Agency Communication ) Requirements Through the Year 2010 ) ) Establishment of Rules and Requirements) For Priority Access Service ) FIRST REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: August 6, 1998 Released: September 29, 1998 Comment Date: [60 days after Federal Register Publication] Reply Comment Date: [90 days after Federal Register Publication] By the Commission: Table of Contents Title Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 III. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. FIRST REPORT AND ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. BAND PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3. Types of Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4. Band Design Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Channelization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B. ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A LICENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1. Purpose of Spectrum Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2. Identity of Licensee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3. Noncommercial Proviso. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C. ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 1. Interoperability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2. Regional Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3. National Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4. Frequency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 5. Construction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 D. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 1. Overview of Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 2. Technical Requirements for the Nationwide Interoperability Channels107 3. Technical Requirements for General Use and Reserve Channels.124 4. Technical Standards for all 700 MHz Band Public Safety Equipment133 E. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION/DIGITAL TELEVISION (TV/DTV) STATIONS.146 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 2. Protection of TV Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150 3. Protection of DTV Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 4. TV Protected Service Contour Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . .156 5. TV/DTV Protection from Control and Mobile Stations . . . . . . . .160 6. Protection of Public Safety from TV/DTV Stations . . . . . . . . .163 F. CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 V.THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 A. USE AND LICENSING OF RESERVE SPECTRUM . . . . . . . . . . . . .169 B. INTEROPERABILITY BELOW 512 MHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 1. Interoperability Channels in Existing Public Safety Bands . .190 2. Interoperability Channels in the 138-144 MHz Band . . . . . .192 3. Interoperability Channels from the VHF Maritime Band. . . . .194 C. GLOBAL ORBITING NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GLONASS) AND GLOBAL POSITIONING SERVICE (GPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 D. PREPARATION OF COMPUTERS TO ACCOMMODATE YEAR 2000 . . . . . . 202 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208 VII. ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 APPENDIX A . Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (First Report and Order) APPENDIX B . . . . . Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Third Notice) APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Pleadings APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Regions APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Rules for First Report and Order APPENDIX F . . . . .Proposed Rules for Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making APPENDIX G . . . . . . Technical Analysis of Second Harmonics Pertaining to GLONASS and GPS Receivers APPENDIX H . . . . . Channelization Plan for the 700 MHz Public Safety Band I. INTRODUCTION 1. As stated in the Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), "[n]o responsibility is more fundamental and reflective of the Nation's values than that of its public safety agencies." In this combined First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making (hereinafter First Report and/or Third Notice, as applicable), we recognize this fundamental responsibility, and take additional steps toward achieving our goal of developing a flexible regulatory framework to meet vital current and future public safety communications needs. We also strive to ensure that sufficient spectrum to accommodate efficient, effective telecommunications facilities and services will be available to satisfy public safety communications needs into the 21st century. Our actions herein constitute significant steps toward resolving certain of the telecommunications challenges facing the public safety community, including, but not limited to, making available sufficient spectrum to take advantage of innovation in technology. 2. In this First Report, we establish a band plan and adopt service rules necessary to commence the licensing process in the newly-reallocated public safety spectrum at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz (hereinafter "the 700 MHz band"). In addition, we designate 2.6 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for interoperability purposes (the ability of different governmental agencies to communicate across jurisdictions and with each other). We also adopt certain technical specifications that enhance spectrum efficiency, promote nationwide interoperability, and minimize harmful interference. In the Third Notice, we seek comment on how to license the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum designated as "reserve" in the First Report. Specifically, we seek comment on whether some or all of this spectrum should be licensed by means of the Regional Planning Committee process, licensed directly to each state, or licensed pursuant to any alternative licensing process not expressly described herein. Further, we propose technical criteria to protect satellite-based global navigation systems from harmful interference. We also seek comment on proposals to promote interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz. Additionally, we seek comment concerning how the public safety community is addressing computer hardware and software adjustments needed to remedy the Year 2000 problem. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. In this First Report and Third Notice, we fulfill the Congressional mandate expressed in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to establish the terms and conditions that will govern use of the 24 megahertz of spectrum recently reallocated from broadcast to public safety services. The statute defines in detail the services for which Congress intends this spectrum to be used and requires the Commission to establish service rules, by September 30, 1998, that will commence the process of assigning licenses for this spectrum. The legislative history reflects that the licensing commencement date was added to the statute in light of the critical need for public safety spectrum in some markets. The service rules that we adopt today, therefore, are balanced to give effect to each provision of the statutory definition of public safety services for which the spectrum is allocated, in order to commence licensing expeditiously, and with minimal information submission requirements or similar regulatory burdens. With these aims in mind, we believe that Congress expected the Commission to draw on its extensive, relevant experience in allocating and licensing other Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) spectrum designated for public safety-related activities. 4. By enacting the 1997 Budget Act, Congress sought to achieve two important goals. The first was to provide spectrum sufficient for public safety services to meet current and projected communications requirements, including innovative technical applications. The second was to provide the minimum technical framework necessary to standardize operations in this spectrum band, including, but not limited to: (a) establishing interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block and service areas; (b) establishing technical restrictions necessary to protect full-service analog and digital television service during the transition to digital television services; (c) permitting public safety licensees the flexibility to aggregate multiple licenses to create larger spectrum blocks and service areas, and to disaggregate or partition licenses to create smaller spectrum blocks or service areas; and (d) ensuring that the new spectrum will not be subject to harmful interference from television broadcast licensees. 5. We believe that the rules adopted and proposed herein provide a regulatory framework that meets Congress' goals. Specifically, the First Report and Third Notice provides a structure to: (1) enable the development of a national interoperability plan; (2) allow Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) maximum flexibility to meet state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, and accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology and equipment; (3) provide the spectrum management and planning mechanisms necessary to develop multiple user public safety communications systems and local and regional interoperability systems that effectively incorporate all public safety services providers; (4) adopt licensing rules for eligibility, permissible use, and coordinated spectrum planning for the 700 MHz band; and (5) adopt such competitively neutral technical standards as are required to efficiently achieve interoperability in designated spectrum. 6. By establishing a flexible regulatory framework for public safety use of the 700 MHz band, we seek to enable public safety organizations to effectively use this new allocation for a variety of operational modes (voice, data, image/high speed data (hsd), and video), to promote competition in the equipment markets through flexible technical standards, and to promote development of innovative public safety technologies. After careful consideration of the comments in this proceeding, we adopt a band plan for the new public safety allocation in the 700 MHz band that we believe will best achieve these goals. This band plan is supported by a direct outgrowth of the record and will provide some technical features common to the entire band, while allowing local public safety entities, through RPCs, the discretion to configure channels to meet their individual needs. We believe that this band plan strikes an appropriate balance between the standardization necessary to achieve nationwide interoperability, the development of competitive equipment markets, and the degree of regional flexibility necessary to allow entities the opportunity to fashion approaches tailored to meet the individual needs of diverse regional communities. 7. Within our band plan, we designate approximately 10 percent of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum for nationwide interoperable communications. Interoperability is the ability of units from two or more government agencies to effectively interact with one another and exchange the full range of information needed for public safety entities to apply their best efforts to resolution of even the most critical situations. Interoperability signifies the crowning achievement of this proceeding. In both the First Notice and the Second Notice, the Commission repeated its conclusion that the inability of public safety agencies to efficiently communicate with one another is a glaring deficiency in present day public safety communications. As a result of the interaction of numerous political, technological, financial and regulatory obstacles that work to inhibit attempts to establish universal public safety interoperability, this deficiency has persisted despite many years of efforts to eradicate it. In view of this situation, we believe that it is necessary for the Commission to dedicate sufficient spectrum to nationwide interoperability, and charter a federal advisory committee (The National Coordinating Committee [NCC]) that will develop operational and technical recommendations. The operational recommendations (e.g., protocols for prioritizing user access) of the NCC will, however, be subject to Commission approval. Because the NCC will be required to become American National Standards Institute-certified, the Commission will not unnecessarily disturb technical standards recommended through this open and neutral process. Finally, in the Third Notice we are seeking comment on whether the interoperability spectrum should be licensed by means of the Regional Planning Committee process or licensed directly to each state. We also invite commenters to suggest alternative methods. 8. We also are designating a large number of channels (approximately 53 percent in the 700 MHz band) for general (i.e. local, regional or state) use. The RPCs will determine the specific uses of these channels, and they may begin the planning process to use these channels upon release of this First Report. Finally, the Third Notice seeks comment on proposals for use of the remainder of the band (approximately 37 percent). This 8.8 megahertz of spectrum will be designated as "reserve spectrum" during the pendency of the Third Notice. 9. The band plan we adopt today also accommodates all of the existing operational modes that we described in the Second Notice (voice, data, image/hsd, and video) but is also flexible enough to allow deployment of the technologies of tomorrow. As recommended by some of the commenters, we are dividing the band into separate segments for narrowband and wideband communications. To promote efficient spectrum usage and flexibility, our band plan incorporates a "building block" channelization approach, based on the smallest practical channel sizes for narrowband and wideband public safety communications. The RPCs will be allowed to combine these minimum size standard channels, to create larger channels as needed to accommodate transitional technology, such as 12.5 kHz voice and data, or communications requiring wider bandwidths, such as 19.2 kilobits per second (kbps) data. Some of these features are illustrated generally in the following charts: Spectrum Overview 700 MHz Public Safety Band 24 megahertz of spectrum (as adopted by the Commission December 31, 1997) TV 60 TV 61 TV 62 TV 63 Public Safety 6 MHz TV 64 Public Safety 6 MHz TV 65 TV 66 TV 67 TV 68 Public Safety 6 MHz TV 69 Public Safety 6 MHz First Report and Order  Designates for General Use (12.6 MHz)  Designates for Interoperability (2.6 MHz)  Designates as Reserve Spectrum (8.8 MHz) Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  Seeks comment on State Licenses for Interoperability Channels (2.6 MHz)  Seeks comment on Use and Licensing of Reserve Spectrum (8.8 MHz) Band Plan - Arrangement of Channels 12 megahertz of spectrum shown is for TV Channels 63 and 64 (TV Channels 68 and 69 follow the same arrangement) TV Channel 63 (6 MHz) TV Channel 64 (6 MHz) Narrowband 6.25 kHz channels (aggregate to 25 kHz) Wideband 50 kHz channels (aggregate to 150 kHz) Narrowband 6.25 kHz channels (aggregate to 25 kHz) Channel Pattern 52 General Use 2 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 2 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 6 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 12 Reserve Channels (the above repeats 5 times, then the channel pattern continues as follows) 52 General Use 14 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 12 Reserve Channels Channel Pattern 6 Reserve Channels 3 Interoperability 24 General Use 3 Interoperability 21 Reserve Channels 6 Interoperability 21 Reserve Channels 3 Interoperability 24 General Use 3 Interoperability 6 Reserve Channels Channel Pattern 52 General Use 2 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 2 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 6 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 12 Reserve Channels (the above repeats 5 times, then the channel pattern continues as follows) 52 General Use 14 Reserve Channels 2 Interoperability 12 Reserve Channels 10. Additional major conclusions of the First Report are as follows: þ We adopt a three-pronged test for determining eligibility to hold a license in the 700 MHz band which follows the 1997 Budget Act definition of public safety services. The three prongs for determining eligibility are: (a) purpose of use; (b) identity of licensee; and (c) noncommercial proviso. Based on this criteria, we conclude that entities eligible to be licensed in the 700 MHz band public safety spectrum are: (1) state and local governments and (2) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) expressly authorized by a state or local governmental entity whose mission is the oversight of or provision of services to protect the safety of life, health or property. þ In situations where a state or local governmental licensee needs to communicate by radio with a public safety service provider that is not licensed in the 700 MHz band, the licensee may permit the unlicensed provider to share the use of its system for noncommercial public safety services under Section 90.179 of the Commission's Rules. þ Federal public safety providers may be authorized to use the public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band pursuant to the existing NTIA/FCC process for Federal government use of non-Federal government spectrum, as set forth in Part 2 of the Commission's Rules. Federal use of the nationwide interoperability channels will be addressed in the recommendations to the Commission made by the NCC (described below). þ We adopt a regional planning approach to spectrum management for specific channels throughout the 700 MHz band, identified on the Spectrum Overview and Band Plan charts above as "General Use" (a total of 12.6 megahertz of spectrum). The 700 MHz band regional planning process will be similar to that which governs management of public safety spectrum in the 821-824 MHz and the 866-869 MHz bands. To allow for additional flexibility, however, we provide a mechanism that allows states that either are included in multi-state regions or have portions of their states included in more than one region to opt out of their current regions and to form new regions along geographical lines conforming to state boundaries. Thus, a state split among more than one RPC may opt, through consensus of the state representatives, to reform RPC boundaries so that the state participates in a single RPC. Similarly, all representatives to RPCs from the same state may, by consensus, create a new RPC that conforms to the boundaries of that state. þ We will charter the NCC in accordance with the procedural steps contained in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that will seek American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certification and provide a national structure for use of the 700 MHz band nationwide interoperability spectrum. The major responsibilities of this committee will be to: (1) formulate and submit for Commission review and approval an operational plan to achieve national interoperability that includes a shared or priority system among users of the interoperability spectrum, for both day-to-day and emergency operations, and recommendations regarding Federal users' access to the interoperability spectrum; (2) recommend interoperability technical standards for Commission review and approval; (3) provide voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional plans; and (4) provide general recommendations to the Commission on operational plans of the public safety community. þ We allow all of the certified public safety frequency coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band, so that competition among coordinators will provide incentives for lower coordination fees and better quality services. þ We adopt technical regulations sufficient to establish a general framework for seamless nationwide interoperability, facilitate spectrum management, encourage efficient and effective spectrum use, promote competition and avoid undue delays in equipment development. þ We adopt geographic separation requirements based on a 40 dB Desired-to-Undesired signal strength ratio (D/U) to protect the TV/DTV stations and public safety spectrum users from harmful interference to each other and to comply with the requirements of the 1997 Budget Act. We emphasize that the necessity for public safety licensees to share this 24 megahertz of spectrum with both analog and digital TV broadcast stations until December 31, 2006 will require the utmost cooperation between the TV stations and the public safety community. þ We adopt rules requiring that licenses for public safety facilities proposed to be located within 75 miles of the U.S.-Canada border or the U.S.-Mexico border be conditioned on avoiding harmful interference to television station receivers in those countries. We note that additional licensing conditions governing cross-border sharing between public safety and television operations may be required after final agreements with the governments of those countries are signed. 11. The major proposals in the Third Notice are as follows: þ We seek comment on how to license the portion of the 700 MHz band designated as reserve spectrum. Specifically, we request comment on whether some or all of the reserve spectrum should be licensed by means of the RPC process or directly to each state for deployment of statewide systems. The Third Notice also invites commenters to suggest other proposals for licensing of the 8.8 megahertz of spectrum. þ We also seek comment on whether the channels designated in the First Report for nationwide interoperability (2.6 megahertz of the 700 MHz band subject to interoperability guidelines to be recommended by the NCC and approved by the Commission) should be licensed by means of the Regional Planning Committee process or licensed directly to each state. þ In response to the extensive public safety comments submitted in this record that additional interoperability spectrum is needed below 512 MHz to fully address interoperability nationwide, we examine three additional possible interoperability solutions. We propose to designate five channels in each of the existing public safety bands at 150-174 MHz and 450-512 MHz for mutual aid purposes. We also seek further comment on the need for a separate interoperability band below 512 MHz. Specifically, we seek comment on the feasibility of using the 138-144 MHz band currently used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a separate interoperability band. We also seek comment on our proposed reallocation of two channel pairs in the VHF 156-162 MHz band for interoperable channels of communication in 33 Economic Areas (EAs), which are now available for assignment to public safety entities. þ We also propose technical solutions and invite comments on how to protect certain global navigation satellite systems, particularly the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems (GLONASS) and Global Positioning System (GPS). We are concerned that second harmonic emissions from public safety equipment operating in the 794-806 MHz band (TV channels 68 and 69) may cause harmful interference to aeronautical users of GLONASS and GPS receivers and seek further comment to supplement the record on this matter. þ We also seek comment on how best to ascertain the extent, reach, and effectiveness of Year 2000 compliance initiatives that have been or are being undertaken by public safety entities, so that we can better understand the nature of the Year 2000 problem and the potential risks it poses to public safety communications networks. 12. The rules we adopt today represent an important step in advancing the goal of creating a national public safety wireless network. Achieving a flexible, efficient and effective framework to fully meet the communications needs of the public safety community on an ongoing basis, however, will require the long-term, coordinated efforts of public safety radio users and spectrum administrators at the Federal, state and local levels of government. The reallocation and availability of the 700 MHz band, made possible through the enactment of the 1997 Budget Act, provides not only a resolution for current spectrum deficiencies but also constitutes an important step toward solving the problem of how and where to accommodate the projected growth of both traditional and advanced voice, data, HSD and video communications services that will be required by public safety agencies into the 21st century. III. BACKGROUND 13. In 1993, Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to ensure that public safety communications needs are met through the year 2010. Pursuant to that directive, the Commission issued a report to Congress identifying a need to gather additional information on the present and future communications requirements of public safety agencies. In 1995, the Commission, together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), to provide advice and recommendations regarding the communications needs of public safety agencies through the year 2010. Shortly thereafter, the Commission commenced this rulemaking proceeding, which sought to evaluate and plan for present and future public safety communications requirements. In the First Notice, the Commission sought comment on a wide variety of public safety communications issues, including, but not limited to, future public safety spectrum needs, projected operational and technological requirements for interoperability (between and among public safety entities on a local and regional basis), and technical parameters needed to ensure efficient and effective communications. 14. In September 1996, the PSWAC Final Report was submitted to the Commission as part of the record in this proceeding. The PSWAC Final Report found that the spectrum then allocated to public safety was insufficient to support the current and projected voice and data needs of the public safety community, did not provide adequate capacity for obtaining interoperability, and was inadequate to meet future needs, based on projected population growth and demographic changes. The PSWAC Final Report concluded that in order to meet these needs, 25 megahertz of new public safety spectrum allocations would be needed within five years. The PSWAC Final Report further stated that data communication and wireless video needs were also expected to grow rapidly, and additional spectrum was required to support new capabilities and technologies, including high speed data and video. 15. On August 14, 1996, the Commission released a Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the digital television (DTV) proceeding, in which it acknowledged that a portion of the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60-69 when DTV is fully deployed "could be used to meet public safety needs." In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would initiate a separate proceeding to address the issue of how best to allocate TV channels 60-69, and would give serious consideration to allocating 24 megahertz of that spectrum for public safety use. Subsequently, in the 1997 Budget Act, Congress directed the Commission to reallocate 24 megahertz of the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60-69 as a result of DTV implementation for public safety services. Shortly thereafter, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in ET Docket No. 97-157 which led to the adoption of a Report and Order reallocating 24 megahertz of spectrum located in the 700 MHz band for public safety services. This new allocation is the largest ever made for public safety communications and constitutes a significant public benefit derived from the conversion of television broadcasting in the United States from analog technology to state-of-the-art digital technology. 16. In the Second Notice in this proceeding, the Commission continued its inquiry into the present and future public safety communications needs and how best to use the newly reallocated 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. It sought comment on a broad range of options to promote the efficient and effective use of the 700 MHz band to meet those needs. Fifty comments, forty reply comments, and numerous ex parte presentations were received in response to the Second Notice. IV. FIRST REPORT AND ORDER A. BAND PLAN 1. Introduction 17. In this section, we discuss the band plan we are establishing for the 700 MHz public safety band. For the technical and policy reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, we are dividing the band into separate segments for wideband and narrowband communications, establishing flexible channelization standards for these segments, designating some of the channels thereby created for nationwide interoperability and designating most of the other channels for general public safety use, pursuant to regional planning. The remaining channels will be held in reserve pending our adoption of the licensing proposals made in the Third Notice. 2. Interoperability 18. In the Second Notice, the Commission proposed to dedicate a significant amount of spectrum in the 700 MHz band solely for interoperability communications. We stated that the precise amount of spectrum devoted to interoperability would reflect the record of public safety user expertise, particularly with respect to the channelization required to maximize functionality. The Commission solicited comment on whether it is necessary or advisable to allot specific interoperability channels to accommodate each discrete use. We also solicited comment on whether channels should be designated solely for interoperable voice, data, image/hsd, or video, and, if so, how many channels should be designated for each category of use. 19. Nearly all commenters agree that the establishment of nationwide public safety interoperability is in the public interest. The comments, however, oppose dedicating substantially more than 2.5 MHz or 10 percent of the 700 MHz band, solely for interoperability communications. Several commenters note that limiting a larger portion of the spectrum to interoperability operations (e.g., mutual aid, day-to-day and task force) would severely curtail the availability of the 700 MHz band for routine daily operations, such as dispatch. 20. Some commenters argue that the 700 MHz band is not as desirable as the 150 MHz and 450 MHz bands, from a radio propagation standpoint. Others prefer that interoperability channels be located in the bands below 512 MHz because of their proximity to the majority of current public safety operations. Some of these commenters also advocate negotiating with the Department of Defense to allow shared interoperability use of the 138-144 MHz band. Other commenters advocate designating two sets of channels for interoperability, one in the 700 MHz band and the other in the VHF band (150- 170 MHz). Nonetheless, the comments overwhelmingly support a flexible interoperability allocation that allows day-to-day, mutual aid, and task force interoperability operations in the 700 MHz band on a dynamic basis, and urge adoption of the PSWAC recommendation of 2.5 megahertz or approximately 10 percent of the spectrum as being the appropriate amount. We observe that the requirement for interoperable communications systems includes both routine and emergency communications needs. After consideration of how these needs could be met by the new 700 MHz spectrum in combination with other existing and possible future interoperability channels, we have decided to designate 2.6 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for nationwide interoperability purposes. 21. Many commenters informed us that designating nationwide interoperability channels in the 700 MHz band alone will not provide a comprehensive interoperability solution for many public safety agencies. Because effecting the changes necessary to achieve nationwide, comprehensive interoperable communications involves complex, systemic problems, we believe that we must approach this undertaking simultaneously on several fronts. Therefore, we are also seeking comment regarding possible alternatives for interoperable communications on channels below 512 MHz in the Third Notice in this proceeding. 3. Types of Communications 22. In order to successfully perform their missions in the modern world, public safety entities must rely on a forward-looking spectrum policy that promotes beneficial technological advances into their communications systems. When the Commission last allocated spectrum for public safety in 1987 it acknowledged the need for both voice and data communications. Comments in response to the First Notice, however, suggested a need for even more advanced forms of public safety communications and maintained that this need extends beyond the context of interoperability. In consideration of those views, the Second Notice sought comments regarding what types of public safety communications should be provided in the 700 MHz band. In particular, the Commission asked for comment on whether public safety entities would be better positioned to deploy advanced technologies in an orderly way if we were to subdivide the 700 MHz band into four communications modes: voice, data, image/hsd, and video. 23. Most of the commenters support allowing all four types of communications in the 700 MHz band. California, however, recommends that no spectrum in the 700 MHz band be allocated specifically for image/hsd or video anywhere in the country. California and Ericsson argue that voice and data are the only types of communications that are needed for interoperability use. Many of the other commenters, however, support having the flexibility to select from among all four types of communications on interoperability channels as well as the general use channels. 24. There continues to be a demand for additional voice channels in many of the larger metropolitan areas. Indeed, for most public safety operations, voice is and will continue to be the best and most effective means of communications. The additional 24 megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band can address some of the requirements for additional voice channels in many areas in the near term, and in every area of the country at the end of the DTV transition period. There are also projected needs for additional spectrum to accommodate growth, for regional integrated systems, and to support the use by the public safety community of data applications, which are expected to increase exponentially in the next decade. Public safety entities also seek additional spectrum to develop emerging technology applications, such as image/hsd, video, and perhaps multimedia applications, which will enable them to better and more efficiently serve the public. We note that only a limited number of channels for image/hsd and video can be provided in the 700 MHz band, because of the large bandwidth typically necessary for those applications. We continue to believe, however, that the tentative conclusion in the Second Notice to make provision in the 700 MHz band for both current and evolving operational modes are sound. Accordingly, for both nationwide interoperability and general use spectrum, our band plan is designed with sufficient flexibility to accommodate all four types of operational modes currently identifiable in use, and should also be able to keep pace with technological innovation. 4. Band Design Details 25. The Second Notice offered three alternative approaches to the task of determining an appropriate channel plan for the 700 MHz public safety band to address the communications needs of the public safety community. One approach would allow each of the RPCs complete freedom to independently decide how the 700 MHz band should be used in its region. Under a second approach, the Commission would specify nationwide standards for the basic channelization for the band, but allow the RPCs to combine and/or split contiguous channels as needed to customize the national band plan to best meet the particular needs of their regions. The third approach would be for the Commission to adopt a nationwide band plan mandating a specific channelization that would be used uniformly by all regions. There is little support in the record for affording complete discretion over the design of the 700 MHz band plan to either the Commission or the RPCs. Instead, the comments generally support roles for both the Commission and the RPCs in establishing the band plan. 26. In regard to the portions of the band to be used for nationwide interoperability, we believe that we should set some of broad parameters for the band plan, such as the amount of spectrum to be devoted to interoperability and location in the spectrum of interoperability channels, and also to provide for a national coordinating body to determine and advise us as to more specific technical and operational requirements. Concerning the portion of the allocation designated for general public safety use, however, we agree with the commenters that neither of the exclusive approaches offered in the Second Notice would be appropriate. On one hand, giving the RPCs complete discretion could lead to vastly dissimilar usage patterns, resulting in fragmentation of the equipment market and conflicts between adjoining regions. On the other hand, denying the RPCs input as to how the spectrum will be used would deprive them of the ability to optimize efficient spectrum use by tailoring the band plan to more closely fit local needs. We are concerned that a fixed national band plan with no allowance for customization would deprive public safety entities of the flexibility needed to construct systems that will best meet their communications needs. Consequently, for the general use channels, we favor a joint approach, with the Commission setting only basic nationwide allocation and channelization standards, and the RPCs handling the detailed plans for use of the channels. 27. Accordingly, we will standardize only those aspects of band plan design that are necessary to avoid undue delays in equipment development, to ensure that the 700 MHz band will be able to support future communications technologies, to promote a competitive equipment market, and to provide for nationwide interoperability. Specifically, we are adopting rules that will determine the following: (1) channel pairing requirements; (2) the portion of the band to be used for narrow bandwidth applications; (3) the portion of the band to be used for wide bandwidth applications; (4) the amount of spectrum to be designated for national interoperability use; (5) the amount of spectrum to be initially provided for general (regional, local and/or statewide) use; (6) the minimum and maximum channel sizes for narrow and wide bandwidth uses; (7) spectrum usage efficiency standards for narrow and wide bandwidth applications; (8) a channel numbering system; and (9) the specific channels to be dedicated for national interoperability use. Other planning matters, such as the use of specific channels for particular public safety agencies, purposes or technologies will be determined by the RPCs as part of the regional planning process. 28. Base/Mobile Pairing. In the Second Notice, the Commission asked for comment on our proposal to designate 764-776 MHz (TV Channels 63 and 64) for base-to-mobile transmissions and 794-806 MHz (TV Channels 68 and 69) for mobile-to-base communications. In addition, the Commission proposed that base transmit channels in TV Channel 63 be paired with mobile channels in TV Channel 68 and likewise that base channels in TV Channel 64 be paired with mobile channels in TV Channel 69. We noted that this would provide approximately 30 MHz separation between base and mobile transmit channel center frequencies. This was suggested because of the close proximity of TV Channels 68 and 69 to the 806-824 MHz band, which contains the transmit channels for mobile and portable radios operating in that band, which also use a 30 MHz separation. We anticipated that in the future, public safety equipment for this part of the spectrum could be designed to operate in both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands. 29. Most comments responding to these requests support the proposed channel pairing scheme. One commenter, however, claims that a base/mobile pairing scheme is outdated by the more progressive block approaches for frequency management. Another requests that non-standard pairing be allowed during the DTV transition period. We continue to believe, nonetheless, that base/mobile pairing is essential to facilitating the rapid development of reasonably priced mobile and portable radios capable of operating in the 700 MHz band. Because pairing provides simplicity and uniformity to band design, we anticipate that it will reduce costs for equipment manufactured to operate in this band. Therefore, we will, as proposed, require channel pairing. 30. We recognize, however, that uniform pairing of base and mobile channels may not always be possible during the DTV transition period. For example, there are geographical areas where either licensed or otherwise protected full-service television stations are currently authorized to operate on TV Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69. The occupation of one or more of the four TV channels may preclude pairing of the channels in accordance with our requirement. Furthermore, the use of TV Channel 69 may be contingent on some additional technical requirements necessary to prevent interference with an aeronautical navigation system used in the United States. Therefore, to provide for cases where standard pairing is not practicable during the DTV transition period, we will allow the RPCs to pair base- to-mobile channels in TV Channel 63 with mobile-to-base channels in TV Channel 69 and/or base-to- mobile channels in TV Channel 64 with mobile-to-base channels in TV Channel 68. Because such non-standard channel pairing could cause some problems when the band becomes more fully occupied, we expect the RPCs to permit such non-standard channel pairing only when absolutely necessary, and we may require stations to return to standard channel pairing after the DTV transition period is over. Furthermore, we will not permit non-standard channel pairing on the nationwide interoperability channels in the 700 MHz band because of the need for nationwide uniformity of these channels. One additional detail that was not specifically mentioned in the Second Notice, but was mentioned in Motorola's comments, is the question of whether we should allow mobile transmissions on any part of the 700 MHz band, not just the upper 12 MHz. We will allow this because, as some of the commenters note, it will facilitate direct mobile-to-mobile communications (i.e., not through a repeater) that are often employed at the site of an incident, where wide area communications facilities are not available or desired. Also we note that allowing mobile transmissions on both halves of a paired channel is generally consistent with our rules governing use of other public safety bands. 31. Band Segments. We turn now to the matter of establishing separate segments in the 700 MHz band for narrowband and wideband communications types. Initially, we note that Motorola, NPSTC, and Florida submitted comprehensive band plans. For the purpose of these plans, these commenters generally combined the four types of communications into two categories: narrowband communications comprising voice and slow speed data ("integrated voice and data") and wideband communications comprising image/hsd and video. Separating narrowband from wideband removes an element of uncertainty as to the potential for adjacent channel interference, leading to less complicated frequency coordination requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum. We agree with this approach and for the purpose of putting compatible communications types together in band segments, we likewise are classifying the four communications types into two categories, narrowband and wideband communications. For the purpose of the 700 MHz public safety band, we define the narrowband category for integrated voice and data as any emission bandwidth less than or equal to 25 kHz. In similar fashion, we define the wideband category for image/hsd and video as any emission bandwidth greater than 25 kHz. 32. In their proposed band plans, Motorola and NPSTC generally agree that each of the four TV channels should be divided into three segments: narrowband channels for voice and data, wideband channels for image/hsd and video, and a reserved block for future expansion of these two categories. After reviewing the proposed band plans, we agree that a band layout similar to that suggested by NPSTC and Motorola is appropriate for the 700 MHz band. Because the near-term availability of the spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety use in any particular area will depend on the presence or absence of nearby operating TV broadcast facilities, we must assume that one or more of the four 6 megahertz TV channels may be unavailable to public safety entities in some cities during the DTV transition period. As suggested by the commenters, our band plan takes this into consideration by providing for each type of communications within each of the TV channels. 33. Within each of the four 6 megahertz TV channels, we designate two segments. One segment will be used for narrowband communications and the other will be used for wideband communications. In recognition of the statutory deadline for the reallocation and adoption of service rules as directed by Congress, plus the public safety community's identification of an immediate need for an additional 25 MHz of spectrum for public safety services, we believe that the bulk of the spectrum should be made readily available to the public safety community. We also believe that the public interest would be served by our consideration of other uses and licensing approaches for a certain portion of the 700 MHz band that may best serve other significant public safety purposes. Thus, we will designate 8.8 MHz of spectrum as "reserve," which will be subject to the Third Notice. Unlike the reserve spectrum designations in Motorola's and NPSTC's suggested band plans, the nature of such designations are not necessarily long-term but may in fact be short-term based on the comments received to the Third Notice. The 764-770 MHz (TV Channel 63) and 794-800 MHz (TV Channel 68) bands are arranged with the narrowband and wideband blocks laid out from lower to higher frequencies, while the 770-776 MHz (TV Channel 64) and 800-806 MHz (TV Channel 69) bands are the reverse of this, with the wideband and narrowband blocks laid out from lower to higher frequencies. As noted by some of the commenters, this arrangement ensures that the wideband segment is not adjacent to non-public safety portions of the 700 MHz band. This is important because the adjacent channel interference potential of wideband emissions has not yet been determined. A simplified chart of this band segmentation follows: Frequency (MHz) 764 770 776 794 800 806 TV Channel 63 TV Channel 64 TV Channel 68 TV Channel 69 NB WB NB NB WB NB NB = narrowband channels WB = wideband channels 5. Channelization 34. Channel Size and Spectrum Efficiency. Many comments support having the Commission specify an assortment of channels of different sizes and allowing the RPCs to "aggregate" and "disaggregate" the channels to accommodate their needs. The comments regarding the channel bandwidth for integrated voice and data were mixed. A few commenters suggest 25 kHz. Others urge adoption of 6.25 kHz. Most commenters favor 12.5 kHz channel size for voice and data applications. Pennsylvania suggests that the spectrum be divided into narrowband channels, while allowing licensees to request assignments in wider channels if needed. Ericsson and Motorola urge us to adopt a 6.25 kHz channel size with the ability to combine these narrow channels into larger channels in multiples of the 6.25 kHz channel. Motorola suggests channelizing the whole 24 megahertz using 6.25 kHz spacing and combining contiguous groups of these narrow channels into wideband channels for image/hsd or video applications. Similarly, NPSTC advocates channelizing the whole band using 12.5 kHz channels and allowing these channels to be combined for medium or wideband data applications. 35. For wideband operations, Motorola suggests assigning the narrow channels in multiples of 100 kHz, while NPSTC prefers 125 kHz channels. Florida suggests 150 kHz channels for wideband applications. NPSTC and Florida also advocate a group of medium size channels (25 kHz) for data applications. All three would allow the RPCs to combine or split channels as needed. 36. As stated above, we believe that standardizing channelization on a national basis will provide for reasonably rapid development of a cost-based equipment market for the 700 MHz band, while local flexibility can be provided, as the commenters point out, by allowing combining of channels. We believe, however, that it would be inefficient to specify a single standard channel size for all types of communication without allowing some type of local flexibility. For this reason, we believe that the best approach is to specify a minimum channel size for narrowband communications, a second minimum channel size for wideband communications, and to allow the RPCs to combine these minimum size channels in specific ways, as needed. 37. Efficient spectrum use is another factor to be considered with regard to channelization of the 700 MHz band. The right to use a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has proven in many cases to be a valuable commodity, but public safety entities are generally insulated from market forces in regard to acquisition of these rights. While the public generally values public safety communications, their provision is not generally the result of market-driven forces. Instead, jurisdictions provide public safety communications to better protect the safety of life and property. How jurisdictions meet these needs may have more to do with budgetary considerations than considerations of what are the most efficient and effective technologies. Therefore, we believe a technical standard is necessary and appropriate to ensure that the spectrum use within the 700 MHz band is efficient. For digital wireless telecommunications systems, spectrum use efficiency can be specified in terms of the data rate per unit bandwidth. In the Refarming Report and Order, the Commission adopted a data rate efficiency of 4.8 kbps for 6.25 kHz equipment and the equivalent 9.6 kbps for 12.5 kHz equipment. We believe this efficiency standard is also appropriate for public safety narrowband communications in the 700 MHz band. For digital voice and data transmissions, NPSTC recommends the equivalent 9.6 kbps for 12.5 kHz channels, 19.2 kbps for 25 kHz channels, and 384 kbps for 150 kHz channels. We agree that a 384 kbps data rate, as recommended in the PSWAC Final Report for HSD and video, is appropriate for 150 kHz channels. Certification of equipment designed for use in the 700 MHz band will be granted only if these guidelines for maximizing spectrum use are met. 38. After full consideration of the record, we have decided to establish a standard channel bandwidth of 6.25 kHz for the narrowband segments. We fully expect that in the next few years it will be both technically and economically feasible to use these very narrow channels individually for certain applications such as digital voice and data. Until then, the RPCs will be allowed to combine these narrow channels like building blocks to create wider channels in two standard bandwidths, 12.5 kHz and 25 kHz, provided that a spectrum use efficiency of 4.8 kbps per 6.25 kHz is maintained. We will not, however, authorize channels wider than 25 kHz in the narrowband segments of the 700 MHz band. Applications that require a larger bandwidth must be accommodated in the wideband segment, and meet the spectrum use efficiency requirement for the wideband segment. Allowing wideband applications in the narrowband channels would upset the initial balance of spectrum allocations we are establishing for these types of communications, and could cause the supply of narrowband channels to be depleted prematurely. Furthermore, we have concerns about whether wideband applications would cause adjacent channel interference and can successfully operate in channels that are adjacent to narrowband applications. 39. Consistent with our narrowband approach, we are adopting a minimum "building block" channel size, which for the wideband segment will be a bandwidth of 50 kHz. Although we are not currently aware of any wideband applications that can operate in this minimum channel size, it is likely that some wideband communications uses will exhibit an asymmetrical data flow (i.e., much more data being transmitted on the downlink than the uplink). In such cases, it could be advantageous to use multiple 50 kHz mobile transmit channels for uplinks (or other purposes) and the paired wider base transmit channel for a common downlink. 40. We also must provide for a wideband channel size sufficient to accommodate the principal wideband applications (image/hsd and video) envisioned for public safety use. We note that 150 kHz has been suggested as a minimum bandwidth necessary, given present data compression technology, to support the data rates required for applications such as slow motion video and rapid distribution of NCIC-2000 data. We are concerned that NPSTC's late suggestion of 125 kHz may not have a mathematical basis, but may merely represent a compromise between its original position and that of Motorola, and be based on an overly optimistic view of future developments in data compression techniques. We do not believe that we can risk adopting a maximum wideband channel size that could later turn out to be insufficient to support wideband applications at a reasonable transmission speed. We also note that 125 kHz is not an integer multiple of the minimum channel size we are adopting today (50 kHz), which would complicate equipment design and channel numbering. For these reasons, we establish 150 kHz as the maximum wideband channel size. 41. We expect that the RPCs will ordinarily combine three adjacent 50 kHz "building block" channels in the wideband general use spectrum to achieve 150 kHz channels. However, as with the narrowband segment of the 700 MHz band, we will, however, allow the use of one or two of these channels (50 kHz and 100 kHz channel bandwidths, respectively). In any event, we are requiring that the equivalent of 384 kbps per 150 kHz spectrum use be maintained in order to ensure that the spectrum available for wideband applications is used efficiently. We will not permit combining the 50 kHz channels to make channels larger than 150 kHz in the wideband segments of the 700 MHz band because allowing a channel size that exceeds 150 kHz could significantly reduce the already limited number of wideband channel assignments possible in the band. 42. Amount of Spectrum. We now turn to the issues of how much spectrum and how many narrowband and wideband channels should be designated for nationwide interoperability and general use. Motorola, NPSTC, and Florida each suggest a specific amount of spectrum and number of channels for interoperability, general use and reserve. A comparison of the these recommendations is shown in the table that follows: Commenter's Suggested Spectrum & Channel Allocations Motorola NPSTC Florida INTEROPERABILITY Narrowband Wideband Total 80 x 6.25 = 0.5 -- 0.5 MHz 64 x 12.5 = 0.8 12 x 125 = 1.5 2.3 MHz 120 x 12.5 = 1.50 8 x 150 = 1.2 2.7 MHz GENERAL USE Narrowband Mid-size Wideband Total 1520 x 6.25 = 9.5 -- 60 x 100 = 6.0 15.5 MHz 800 x 12.5 = 10.0 -- 60 x 125 = 7.5 17.5 MHz 776 x 12.5 = 9.7 24 x 25 = 0.6 48 x 150 = 7.2 13.6 MHz RESERVE 8 MHz 4.2 MHz 4.2 MHz 43. We have evaluated the recommendations of the commenters in light of our decisions to designate a significant amount of spectrum for nationwide interoperability, to provide for both narrowband and wideband public safety communications, and to allow flexibility to permit effective regional planning. We conclude that a composite of the allocation plans submitted would provide the most appropriate balance between general use and nationwide interoperability spectrum, as well as between narrowband and wideband communications. Our plan thus provides for 1920 narrowband (6.25 kHz) channels and 240 wideband (50 kHz) channels. The following table summarizes the spectrum and channel allocations we are adopting today together with those we propose in the Third Notice (which are indicated by the shaded areas in the table). FCC 700 MHz Public Safety Band Spectrum & Channels Designated Purpose Amount of Spectrum Narrowband (6.25 kHz) Wideband (50 kHz) General Use 12.6 MHz (52.5 %) 7.8 MHz (1248 channels) 4.8 MHz (96 channels) Nationwide Interoperability 2.6 MHz (10.8 %) 0.8 MHz (128 channels) 1.8 MHz (36 channels) Reserved 8.8 MHz (36.7 %) 3.4 MHz (544 channels) 5.4 MHz (108 channels) TOTAL 24 MHz (100 %) 12 MHz (1920 channels) 12 MHz (240 channels) 44. Channel Numbering. To avoid confusion in identifying channels that could be of several different sizes, we will show channel numbers instead of channel center frequencies in the rules we adopt today for public safety facilities in the 700 MHz band. Motorola suggests numbering 6.25 kHz channels in sequence of ascending frequency. This appears to be a good approach, except that we see no purpose in numbering the wideband segment in 6.25 kHz increments when we have decided not to allow wideband channel sizes smaller than 50 kHz. Instead, we will number 50 kHz channels in the wideband segment. We will identify combined channels by their lowest and highest constituent channel numbers, separated by a hyphen. For example, a 150 kHz channel comprising wideband channels 1, 2 and 3 is designated as channel 1-3. The channel numbering scheme is detailed in new Section 90.531 (see Appendix E) and shown in the channelization plan (see Appendix H). 45. Dispersion of Interoperability Channels. For the interoperability spectrum, Motorola, NPSTC, and Florida recommend a distribution of narrowband and wideband channels throughout the whole 700 MHz band, rather than all together in one contiguous block. To minimize equipment costs, Florida also recommends that the channels be distributed to allow transmitter combining at no less than 250 kHz spacing between channels for integrated voice and data, and 450 kHz between channels for wideband data and video. Motorola also indicates that it is desirable to separate interoperability channels by an amount adequate to allow low loss cavity combining. NPSTC's detailed band plan shows three 12.5 kHz interoperability channels dispersed every 450 kHz throughout the narrowband segment, beginning 300 kHz above the lower band edge. Motorola suggests that 4 contiguous 6.25 kHz interoperability channels be provided at 500 kHz intervals beginning at the lower band edge. Motorola claims that this will provide better adjacent channel interference protection. Otherwise, the commenter's comprehensive plans propose similar channel separation and disperse the interoperability channels across the band in a similar way. In addition to the narrowband interoperability channels, NPSTC's plan suggests 12 wideband channels (150 kHz channel size) be designated for interoperability purposes, 8 for image/hsd plus 4 for video. 46. The amount of spectrum that we have decided to designate for interoperability provides 128 narrowband channels (6.25 kHz channel size) and 36 wideband channels (50 kHz channel size). The dispersal pattern in the narrowband interoperability scheme we choose is similar to that recommended by NPSTC. The principal difference between NPSTC's plan and the one we adopt today is that NPSTC would have us designate specific purposes and service categories for many of the narrowband channels, whereas we have decided to designate only the channels that are to be used for nationwide interoperability, and to leave decisions as to earmarking the other channels for any specific purpose to the National Coordination Committee, States and/or RPCs. We also note that NPSTC's plan is based on a 12.5 kHz channel size, whereas the plan we adopt is based on a 6.25 kHz channel size. Because NPSTC's plan would allow splitting of the 12.5 kHz channels into 6.25 kHz channels, this distinction is not of much importance. The specific interoperability channel numbers are provided in new rule Section 90.531 (see Appendix E). B. ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A LICENSE 47. The 1997 Budget Act directs the Commission, by January 1, 1998, to reallocate 24 megahertz of spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz (inclusive) for public safety services. We complied with this mandate in our Reallocation Report and Order. The 1997 Budget Act also directs the Commission to commence assignment of licenses for this reallocated spectrum by September 30, 1998. To commence the licensing process, we must first establish criteria for determining eligibility to hold a public safety license in the 700 MHz band. 48. Congress specifically defined the "public safety services" that are intended to benefit from this spectrum allocation. Section 337(f) of the Communications Act defines the term "public safety services" as services- (A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property; (B) that are provided (i) by State or local government entities; or (ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and (C) that are not made commercially available to the public by the provider. Accordingly, we adopt the following 3-pronged test for determining eligibility for use of the 700 MHz public safety allocation and is directly based on the definition of public safety services contained in Section 337(f)(1) of the Communications Act. 1. Purpose of Spectrum Use 49. Section 337(f) requires spectrum in the 700 MHz band to be used for services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property. 2. Identity of Licensee 50. State or Local Governments and Nongovernmental Organizations. Under the statutory definition of public safety services, the spectrum is to be used by "State or local government entities" and "nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity" whose primary mission is the provision of services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property. Based on its tentative conclusion that the 1997 Budget Act and Section 337 limited licensing to entities whose sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health, or property, the Commission proposed the following eligibility criteria in the Second Notice: Public Safety Service Provider: (1) A State or local government entity that provides public safety services; or (2) a non-governmental organization that is authorized to provide public safety services by a governmental entity pursuant to Section 337(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act. 51. The Commission observed that two groups fit within this definition: (1) governmental public safety services providers, and (2) nongovernmental public safety services providers authorized by governmental entities. The Commission also recognized that other entities with public safety responsibilities, with which eligible entities might need to communicate by radio, did not fall within the definition. The Commission proposed having each regional plan specify the precise types of groups, falling within its definition, that would be eligible to receive frequencies, and asked if additional rules were needed either for eligibility or for applications submitted by nongovernment organizations. 52. With regard to the spectrum in the 700 MHz band governed by Section 337, most commenters disagree with the "narrow" definition proposed in the Second Notice, and favor adoption of eligibility criteria based on the PSWAC definitions of public safety and related service providers to the extent possible under the statute. AMSTV/NAB, however, would limit eligibility to law enforcement, fire fighters, and emergency rescue services, asserting that a broader definition would put these "traditional" public safety users in competition for scarce spectrum with entities that are not critical to public safety efforts. AMSTV/NAB also express concern about minimizing both the number of licensed entities that television broadcasters would have to protect and the sources of potential interference to broadcast television. 53. The rules and policies that we are adopting today include "bright line" application processing criteria, based on the type of entity applying for a license, and consistent with the statutory definition of the services for which this spectrum is to be used. We believe that establishing "bright line" criteria promotes consistent, predictable, and efficient licensing. 54. First, we conclude that state or local government entities are eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band without further showing as to eligibility. We acknowledge, in this regard, our departure from the Second Notice's tentative conclusion that certain state and local government entities would be ineligible for licensing under the statutory definition of public safety services. We are adopting a more inclusive interpretation today because, as suggested by many commenters, the more inclusive definition better reflects the statutory intent. In addition, among the providers of public safety services listed in the statute, state and local governments are referenced first and apart from NGOs. NGOs must also be authorized by "a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services." We believe our revised approach gives meaning to the distinction that Congress made between eligible "State and local governments" and the narrower subset of governmental entities with a primary mission of providing public safety services from which NGOs need authorization. We emphasize, however, that eligibility to use this spectrum is governed by Section 337 of the Act in all aspects; thus, these application processing standards are rebuttable presumptions. We also emphasize that although the statute does not require licensees to have the sole or principal purpose of providing public safety services, Section 337 mandates that this spectrum must be used for services whose sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health or property. 55. In light of these distinctions, we conclude that NGOs are also eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band if approved by an appropriate state or local government entity. Most commenters agree with this approach. APCO argues, however, that licenses generally should be held only by state and local government entities because NGOs only meet the definition if their purpose is providing services authorized by a state or local government that protect the safety of life, health, or property. API and Compu-Dawn counter that the plain language of the statute requires the Commission to receive applications from and consider granting licenses to NGOs. We concur with API and Compu-Dawn that Section 337 also contemplates licensing of NGOs in the 700 MHz band. 56. Thus, we conclude, based on the definition in the 1997 Budget Act for public safety services, that NGOs are eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band when expressly authorized by a state or local governmental entity whose mission is the oversight of or provision of such services. To implement this provision of the statute, NGO applicants must submit a written statement by the state or local governmental entity that is authorizing the NGO to use 700 MHz band spectrum, and the authorizing state or local governmental entity's authorization must certify that its mission includes oversight of or responsibility for providing public safety services. An NGO Neighborhood Watch, for example, would probably seek written authority from the local police department but there are countless variations on how NGO use might present itself among states and localities nationwide. We believe that the certification from one of our licensees provides a reasonable measure of confidence that the NGO has received authorization from a governmental entity that is appropriate under the circumstances. 57. Some commenters disagree whether NGOs should be required to obtain governmental support for their 700 MHz applications in order to be eligible for licensing. While it is true that the statute does not expressly state that NGOs must obtain formal governmental approval to be licensed in the 700 MHz band, we believe that the above-described approach ensures that licensing of NGOs is consistent with the statutory requirements in a manner that minimizes information collection, submission, and other burdens for all interested parties. We note that this approach is consistent with our eligibility rules for public safety spectrum allocated prior to the 1997 Budget Act, where NGOs generally received some type of approval from state or local government entities before being licensed on such spectrum. We also recognize that governmental authorities effectively have veto power over NGO applications for the 700 MHz band because NGOs need appropriate governmental authorization in order to be deemed eligible to receive a license. Thus, under the rules we adopt today, NGOs are required to obtain written consent for their 700 MHz band applications, i.e., initial, assignment, and transfer -- directly from the state or local governmental entity that authorized the NGO to provide public safety services. For application processing purposes, so long as the NGO applicant submits the required written authorization of such a state or local governmental entity, we will deem these provisions satisfied. 58. In sum, NGOs are eligible to be licensed for spectrum in the 700 MHz band that will be used for services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property so long as state or local governmental authorization, from a primary mission provider, exists. To codify this policy and clarify that it applies to all NGO applications and licenses, both initially and on an ongoing basis, the rules we adopt today include a provision that expressly conditions all 700 MHz band licenses issued to NGOs as follows: "This authorization is granted subject to the condition that frequencies in the 764-776 and 794-806 MHz bands shall be used exclusively for public safety services, see 47 U.S.C.  337. If at any time the State or local governmental entity that authorized the applicant/licensee cancels, revokes, or terminates its authorization of the applicant/licensee: (1) in the case of an applicant, such applicant's pending application shall be dismissed automatically; and (2) in the case of a licensee, such licensee's authorization shall terminate automatically and immediately revert to the Commission." In the event that factual or legal disputes arise between NGOs and "supporting" governmental entities, the NGO will bear the burden of proof. Similarly, if another governmental entity challenges the accuracy of an NGO applicant's state or local government authorization, the NGO bears the ultimate burden of proof. If, however, another NGO challenges the state or local government authorization, the challenging NGO bears the burden of proof. 59. If a governmental entity rescinds its authorization and the safety of the public requires immediate suspension of the NGO's 700 MHz band operation, the governmental entity should notify the Commission directly in writing. It is probable that governmental entities will need to communicate with NGOs that they authorize; they also have a strong interest in ensuring that NGOs use public safety spectrum properly. 60. Licensed Federal Use of 700 MHz Band Spectrum. The Commission also tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that Federal government entities were not eligible to be licensed to use the general use spectrum because Section 337 refers to State and local government entities, and NGOs that are authorized by appropriate governmental entities, but does not reference Federal entities. 61. Several commenters, including FLEWUG and NPSTC, argue that licensing Federal entities in the 700 MHz band is essential to promoting interoperability and other important goals of this proceeding. Along this line, NTIA states that Congress required the Commission to consult with the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General in the reallocation of the 700 MHz band spectrum because it recognized the vital role that Federal agencies play in providing public safety related services to the American people. As noted above, many commenters generally support the definitions in the PSWAC Final Report, which include Federal agencies. 62. While Congress directed the Commission to consult with the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General regarding the public safety allocation, we cannot conclude that Congress authorized the Commission to read this consultation provision as an implied exception to express provisions of Section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 305 of the Act precludes the Commission from licensing stations belonging to and operated by the United States. Section 305 provides in part: [R]adio stations belonging to and operated by the United States shall not be subject to the provisions of sections 301 [Commission's licensing authority] and 303 [Commission's general powers] of this Act. All such Government stations shall use such frequencies as shall be assigned to each or each class by [NTIA]. If Congress had intended to create an exception to the licensing provisions of Section 305 of the Act, it could have done so explicitly. In the absence of an explicit statement, we must look to the legislative history and context of Congress' action to discern whether it meant to create an implied exception. Based on our review of the legislative history, there is no evidence that Congress intended to create in the 1997 Budget Act an implied exception to NTIA's authority to assign all frequencies to be used by Federal entities as set forth in Section 305 of the Act. 63. State/Local Governmental Licensees Allied with Federal Public Safety Service Providers. Another scenario where the statute is silent arises when state or local governmental licensees want to approve shared use of their Commission licensed frequencies by Federal public safety service providers. As discussed immediately above, we find no basis for concluding that, in empowering state and local governmental entities as to NGO licensing, Congress intended Section 337(f) to eliminate state and local government licensees' from voluntarily requesting authority for a Federal provider of public safety services to use frequencies for which the state or local entity is licensed. 64. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that public safety service providers that are eligible for licensing in the 700 MHz band would be required to communicate with their ineligible Federal counterparts. The Commission sought comment as to how the Table of Allocations may need to be revised to permit Federal use and whether permitting such use would be consistent with Congressional objectives in adding Section 337 of the Communications Act. The Commission also tentatively concluded that the orderly and effective use of interoperability channels would require that all users state, local and Federal; governmental and non-governmental; those entities that are eligible by definition and those entities that may be eligible as guests should be entitled to use the interoperability channels only in accordance with the interoperability plan. 65. The record before us reflects overwhelmingly that Federal entities provide noncommercial services the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property. As noted above, for example, most commenters support the PSWAC definitions, at least to the extent allowed under the statute, because these definitions include Federal entities among providers of public safety services. Many commenters also state that allowing Federal entities to access the 700 MHz band is essential to promoting interoperability and other important goals of this proceeding. 66. Although the statute does not refer to Federal entities, we agree with NTIA that Section 337 does not bar Federal entities from use of the 700 MHz band. We believe the omission simply reflects the fact that the Commission does not license Federal stations. Likewise, the omission of Federal entities in the definition of public safety services does not mean that Congress rejected the PSWAC Final Report's conclusion that Federal public safety entities are integral members of the public safety community. Rather, as NTIA and FLEWUG argue, the statutory definition is necessarily framed around the Commission's licensing powers and, as such, the omission of Federal entities is only relevant for licensing purposes; it does not mean that Congress determined that Federal agencies do not provide services the sole or principal purpose of which, is to protect the safety of life, health or property. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that the statute defines services, not entities. 67. In the United States, radio spectrum may be allocated exclusively or for shared use to either government (Federal government) or non-government (state/local governments and civilians). Spectrum in the 700 MHz band is allocated exclusively for non-government assignments. Federal government stations, however, may be authorized to use non-government frequencies, under Section 2.103 of our rules, if the Commission licensee(s) supports the Federal use and certifies that it is necessary for the coordination of Federal government and non-Federal government activities. Requests for Federal use of 700 MHz band frequencies must be filed with the Commission by the state or local governmental licensee (for the 700 MHz band frequencies involved) that supports the Federal use. Additionally, Federal entities must submit their requests to use non-Government spectrum with NTIA in accordance with Section 305 of the Act. 68. Although we conclude herein that Federal entities are ineligible for Commission licensing in the 700 MHz band, they are eligible to receive authorization to use this spectrum in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2.103 of our rules for Government use of non-Government spectrum. This use of the 700 MHz band by Federal public safety providers falls within the reasonable interpretation of the uses for which the spectrum is allocated because such use will benefit, support, and in some cases be critical to, the successful provision of public safety services by Commission licensees. It also generally is consistent with the consultation provision of Section 337. This process is also consistent with Section 337 because a state or local governmental licensee must agree to the Federal use of its licensed frequencies. We are adopting conforming revisions to Section 2.103 to clarify the Commission's standards for this process for spectrum governed by Section 337 of the Act. 69. In sum, if a state or local governmental licensee desires for a Federal public safety entity to receive access to some or all of its licensed frequencies, the licensee can join in the request, under the NTIA/FCC process, to authorize Federal use of its non-government frequencies for noncommercial public safety services. In addition, NTIA's comments in this proceeding express strong approval of this Federal use of non-government frequencies. We observe that there may be benefits to providing for the adoption of a single, "blanket" authorization that would confer NTIA's authorization to all Federal entities as described in Section 2.103 of the Commission's Rules. 70. Section 337 Statutory Eligibility; Relation to PLMR Sharing. While Section 337(f) requires the spectrum to be used for public safety services and sets forth the statutory prerequisites of licensed state and local governmental and NGO use, the statute is silent as to the permissibility of state or local government licensees allowing shared use of their licensed frequencies for noncommercial public safety services. If our existing private land mobile radio (PLMR) "sharing" rules apply to 700 MHz band licensees, one sharing scenario will likely occur when a state or local governmental licensee has declined to authorize NGO licensing but agrees to permit the NGO to share the use of its licensed system. We find no basis for concluding that in empowering state and local governmental entities as to NGO licensing Congress intended Section 337(f) to eliminate state and local licensees' privilege, under our current rules, to share their licensed systems with unlicensed entities for noncommercial public safety services. As such, we are extending the scope of our PLMR sharing rules and policies to include state and local governmental licensees in the 700 MHz band. In accordance with Section 337(f)(B)(ii), NGO licensees in the 700 MHz band may share their licensed frequencies with noncommercial public safety service providers only with the express written approval of the authorized governmental entity. This approval requirement ensures that NGO licensees operate within the scope of the permission conferred by the authorized governmental entity and joins any issues before a disapproved use of the spectrum occurs, thereby avoiding automatic cancellation of the NGO's conditional license. 3. Noncommercial Proviso 71. Under the statutory definition of public safety services, the spectrum cannot be used for services to protect the safety of life, health, or property, that the provider "makes commercially available to the public." Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that entities not eligible for licensing on this spectrum included government or NGOs in the context of public safety services that they make commercially available to the public. 72. We adopt this tentative conclusion and confirm that potential applicants, whether state or local government entities or NGOs, may not claim eligibility for licensing in the 700 MHz band on the basis of public safety services that they make commercially available to the public. Because the statute defines the public safety services, and not the entities, for which the spectrum is allocated, we also note that commercial providers of public safety services are not barred, per se; thus, these entities could be eligible for NGO licensing under particular circumstances but only in connection with providing public safety services that they do not make commercially available to the public. As such, we disagree with APCO's conclusion that commercial entities are ineligible in all events because their principal purpose is not the protection of the safety of life, health, or property. In connection with UTC's observation that the "narrow" definition in the statute generally does not include utilities and pipelines, we note that entities are not disqualified, per se, by their commercial status. For example, a commercial utility company, with appropriate governmental authorization, is eligible to hold licenses for spectrum in the 700 MHz band for use when it provides services to protect the safety of life, health or property that it does not make commercially available to the public. C. ADMINISTRATION 1. Interoperability 73. The band plan that we adopt in this First Report designates specific channels (representing approximately 10 percent of the 700 MHz public safety band) for interoperability communications. As a general matter, interoperability refers to the ability of units from two or more government agencies to interact with one another and exchange information. In this subsection of the First Report, we adopt general guidelines for operation and use of the spectrum dedicated to interoperability. 74. Public safety agencies have traditionally operated their own systems using frequencies and equipment that are not necessarily compatible with those used by other agencies. In the First Notice and Second Notice, the Commission discussed the need for interoperability in public safety communications in the general contexts of mutual aid incidents, emergency aid incidents or task force operations, and day- to-day operations. The Commission observed that interoperability must often be established during emergencies and under conditions that allow little opportunity for prior planning; that communications must often be established among numerous smaller groups, each with its own talk group; and that, once responders are on the scene, mutual aid interoperability usually involves the use of portable radios. The Commission also noted that emergency preparedness involves planning for disaster relief that may include many public safety agencies from various jurisdictions. Task forces also typically involve agencies from many disciplines and jurisdictions, and thus require interoperable communications systems; they also frequently deploy emergency operations centers, establish on-scene command posts, and dispatch units throughout a wide area. The Commission also noted that day-to-day operations are those requir- ing routine communications capabilities, as when personnel in adjoining jurisdictions, or within different disciplines in the same jurisdiction, need to exchange information and that, typically, these requirements are local or regional, as when agencies with concurrent jurisdiction need to monitor each other's routine traffic. 75. In the First Notice, the Commission proposed a formal definition of interoperability and related definitions that at the time were under consideration by the Interoperability Subcommittee of PSWAC. These definitions were ultimately adopted by PSWAC and included in the PSWAC Final Report. In the Second Notice, the Commission stated that a primary goal with respect to interoperability should be seamless interoperability on a nationwide basis. Towards attaining this important goal, the Commission also tentatively concluded in the Second Notice that the earlier-proposed definitions should be adopted. Commenters to the Second Notice generally support the adoption of these proposed definitions. 76. Based on the record before us, we now confirm the definition for interoperability. We anticipate that this definition will serve as the framework that the National Coordinating Committee will follow as it adopts guidelines for more specific interoperability standards and protocols. Specifically, we adopt the following definition for interoperability: þ Interoperability: An essential communications link within public safety and public service wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more different entities to interact with one another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable results. 2. Regional Planning 77. Regional Planning Process. In the Second Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that the regional planning approach afforded the flexibility to accommodate the wide variety of communications requirements in different areas of the Nation, and for that reason proposed to use a regional planning approach for the 700 MHz band similar to that relied upon for the 800 MHz band. Under the regional planning approach used for the 800 MHz band, the nation was divided into regions that would have as much autonomy as possible to develop plans that met their different communications needs. The Commission felt that (1) establishing the separate regions would encourage uniformity and broader coordination in the public safety community in the particular geographical area; and (2) limiting the size of the regions would speed up the planning process and increase responsiveness to the unique local needs of the public safety community. Of the 55 regions that were established, most were designed along state boundaries. There were, however, states that were divided into different regions and states in multi-state regions. Each region formed a planning committee to develop a regional plan. Membership was open to all eligible user groups. APCO, as a certified frequency coordinator representing these eligible users, was directed to appoint a local convener who would organize and publicize the initial meeting. After the plan was approved by the Commission, applications were normally submitted to the committee in accordance with the procedures contained in the plan, and then, if approved, the applicant would forward them to APCO for filing with the Commission. 78. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the regional planning approach is appropriate for assignment of licenses for that portion of the 700 MHz band designated in the band plan for general use. We agree with the majority of the commenters' assessment that the regional planning approach has, for the most part, succeeded in ensuring that the 6 megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 800 MHz band was assigned fairly and efficiently and put to its best, most appropriate, and most efficient use for public safety services. Based on the Commission's experience with assignment of licenses for the 800 MHz band public safety spectrum, we believe that the regional planning approach maximizes spectrum efficiency and facilitates accommodation of a wide variety of localized public safety communications requirements in different areas of the Nation. We also clarify that the 700 MHz band RPCs are organizations separate and distinct from the existing 800 MHz band RPCs because eligibility in the 700 MHz band is governed by Section 337 and there may be members of 800 MHz band RPCs that are not eligible to join the 700 MHz band RPCs. Additionally, we are providing several "opt out" elections to the 700 MHz band RPCs that cannot be extended to the 800 MHz band RPCs on the basis of the record developed in response to the Second Notice, which focused on the 700 MHz band. 79. The Joint Commenters oppose the regional planning approach, however, arguing that RPC efficiency has been hampered by politics, inadequate diversity of representation across the community of public safety entities, lack of funding for RPC activities, lack of coordination with adjacent RPCs (sometimes resulting in conflicting assignments in adjacent metropolitan areas), and inability to coordinate statewide channel assignments. The Joint Commenters submit that because of these problems, the Commission should implement a different planning approach by giving the duties of RPCs to planning committees organized and maintained by the states. They further assert that in many instances the implementation of a state planning approach would not require any changes to the boundaries of the existing regions and would resolve the inequities and imbalances experienced under the regional plans. They submit that one of the primary advantages of giving these duties to the states would be that each state would be represented by its own planning committee in the development of a mutually agreeable resolution to inter-state issues. In addition, the Joint Commenters propose that each state would be responsible for funding the activities of its own planning committee. We agree that these are valid concerns. Therefore, we offer the following recommendations to address these concerns. 80. Regarding inability to coordinate statewide channel assignments, given that most regions are defined along state boundaries we believe this experience is limited to multi-state regions. For example, Pennsylvania asserts that the current use of multi-state regions to address the needs of large metropolitan areas often hampers the ability of states to coordinate statewide systems, and that the regional boundaries should, at least, encompass an entire state. The Joint Commenters argue that some states in multi-state RPCs have been hampered by regional politics and have been unable to obtain frequencies they vitally need. In this connection, they cite to the inability of the southern New Hampshire Fire Department to secure channels because all available frequencies in Region 19 had been assigned in northern Massachusetts. To alleviate this concern, we will allow RPC members from a state that either is included in multi-state regions or has portions of its geographic boundaries included in more than one region, to "opt out" of such regions to form a new RPC that would correlate to their state's geographic boundaries. To exercise this form of "opt out," all regional planning members/representatives that are from the state seeking to exercise its "opt out" right must reach a consensus decision and, if so, this would result in the formation of a new RPC for the 700 MHz band. The RPC for the new region would be required to adopt a plan based on the same criteria made applicable to the regions, as discussed infra. For those states having portions of their geographic boundaries included in more than one region, but not wishing to form a separate region, we will also provide the option for all RPC representatives from that state to join a single RPC instead of continuing to be divided among several RPCs. For example, Pennsylvania is part of Region 28 and Region 36. If all RPC members/representatives from Pennsylvania reach a consensus decision, they could elect to have Pennsylvania be a part of either Region 28 or Region 36, whichever it wishes. 81. Regional Plan. In the Second Notice, the Commission proposed to retain the existing RPCs for the 700 MHz band and incorporate the 700 MHz plans into the existing 800 MHz plans. Although some support was expressed in the comments for this proposal, we believe that integration of the two plans would be difficult because of the alternative planning approaches adopted herein. Moreover, the technical and administrative rules are different so as to make a combined plan difficult to interpret and understand. Therefore, we will require that there be two separate and distinct regional plans, one for the 800 MHz band and one for the 700 MHz band. The 700 MHz committee may be the same as the 800 MHz committee, or may be different, depending upon the boundaries and the administration selected. 82. The National Plan Report and Order required the 800 MHz regional plans to include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) a cover page that clearly identified the document as the regional plan for the defined region; (2) the name of the regional planning chairperson, including mailing address and telephone number; (3) the names of the members of the regional planning committee, including organizational affiliations, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers; (4) a summary of the major elements of the plan; (5) a general description of how the spectrum would be allotted among the various eligible users within the region; (6) an explanation of how the requirements of all eligible entities within the region were considered and, to the degree possible, met; (7) an explanation as to how needs were assigned priorities in areas where not all eligible entities could receive licenses; (8) an explanation of how the plan had been coordinated with adjacent regions; (9) a detailed description of how the plan put the spectrum to the best possible use by requiring system design with minimum coverage areas, by assigning frequencies so that maximum frequency reuse and offset channel use may be made, by using trunking, and by requiring small entities with minimal requirements to join together in using a single system where possible; and (10) the signature of the regional planning chairperson. 83. In the Second Notice, we proposed to adopt these requirements for the 700 MHz regional plans and invited comment on the adequacy of these common elements. None were received. Comments were received, however, recommending the general need for improvement in the regional planning process. FLEWUG suggests that the 800 MHz RPCs have tended to be dominated by law enforcement agencies from large metropolitan jurisdictions. Other commenters note that the active membership of some committees is not fully representative of all the types of public safety entities needed to ensure an effective and balanced process. Therefore, while we are retaining some of the existing plan requirements and modifying others for the 700 MHz band, we will add some additional elements to the 700 MHz regional plan requirements in order to remedy some of the problems. 84. Under the revised elements, we expect all RPCs to ensure that their committees are representative of all public safety entities in their regions by providing: (1) adequate notice of all meetings; (2) opportunity for comment by all interested parties; and (3) reasonable consideration of the views expressed. We also expect the plans to list the steps undertaken to encourage and accommodate all eligible entities to participate in the planning process. Examples of material to include in the plan to meet this requirement are a description of steps taken to hold meetings in various parts of the region, copies of meeting notices and publications in which the notices were placed, and making all submission of materials available to each member. In addition, we believe that all RPC meetings should be open to all members of the public safety community. We believe that affording representatives of all entities in the public safety community the opportunity to participate in the planning process is essential. The revised elements for the 700 MHz plans are: þ Identification of the document as the regional plan for the defined region with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and organizational affiliations of the chairpersons and all members of the RPC. þ A summary of the major elements of the plan and an explanation of how all eligible entities within the region were given notice, an opportunity to participate in the planning process and to comment and have those comments reasonably considered. þ A general description of how the spectrum would be allotted among the various eligible users within the region with an explanation of how the requirements of all eligible entities within the region were considered and, to the degree possible, met. þ An explanation as to how needs were assigned priorities in areas where not all eligible entities could receive licenses. þ Evidence that of how the plan had been successfully coordinated with adjacent regions. þ A description of how the plan encourages the efficient and effective use of the spectrum; employs system design flexible enough to accommodate improvements in technology, build systems with sufficient capacity to accommodate the full grange of functionalities needed to meet the communications needs of the public safety community of today and tomorrow. þ A description of the planning procedures, both present and future, including, but not limited to, amendment process, meeting announcements and minutes, data base maintenance, and dispute resolution. þ A certification that all RPC meetings, including subcommittee or executive committee meetings, were open to the public and the signature of the RPC chairperson. 85. Implementation of the Plan. The states wishing to "opt out" of regions to form a new region defined by geographic boundaries should do so within 120 days of the effective date of this First Report. For a state to "opt out" there must be a consensus to withdraw between all those representatives to the RPC from that particular state. 86. For the first RPC meeting, we request that the current regional chair or the state, if applicable, appoint a local convener who will be responsible for organizing and publicizing the meeting. We request that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the conveners be provided to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau within 120 days of the release date of this First Report. Parties interested in participating in the regional planning process should contact the appropriate convener. Officials responsible for National Security and Emergency Preparedness within the region should be notified of the initial planning meeting and invited to participate. At the first meeting, a Regional Chairman must be elected from among the membership. Once a Chairman has been elected, the name, address, and phone number of that individual should be sent to the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. The RPC should promptly adopt operating procedures to govern its operations. These procedures should ensure that all entities will be given reasonable notice of all committee meetings and deliberations, an opportunity to comment and be given reasonable consideration in the planning process. In developing their regional plans, the committees may take into account any and all guidelines developed by the National Coordinating Committee. Once the plan for a region has been finalized, an original and five copies of the plan should be forwarded by the RPC Chairman, to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 87. Review and Modifications of Regional Plans. In establishing the framework of the National Plan, the Commission determined that its role in relation to the RPCs was limited to: (1) defining the regional boundaries; (2) requiring fair and open procedures; (3) specifying the elements that all regional plans were to include; (4) reviewing and accepting the plans, or rejecting them with an explanation; and (5) reviewing and accepting requests for modification of the plans, or rejecting them with an explanation. Except as to matters requiring the exercise of Commission oversight, we reaffirm those roles with regard to the 700 MHz band. We clarify that "fair and open procedures" require notice, opportunity for comment, and reasonable consideration. 88. For the 800 MHz band, the Commission staff are required to examine the proposed plan, or any modification thereof, to ensure that public safety needs are fully addressed, that the spectrum has been used efficiently, that coordination with adjacent regions has occurred, and that all requirements of the National Plan are met. The Second Notice proposed retaining this same procedure for reviewing regional plans and modifications thereof in the 700 MHz band. Region 49 argues that modification of plans should not require the express concurrence of adjacent regions because that gives the adjacent regions de facto veto power. We continue to believe that inter-regional cooperation and concurrence remains the best, most cost effective, and least complicated method for avoiding cross-border harmful interference problems between regions. Thus, we reaffirm our conclusion that our current review procedure appropriately balances the requirements of fairness and efficiency, and we will require that all 700 MHz plans, and any future modifications, continue to be reviewed and approved using this procedure with one exception. The requirement to coordinate with adjacent regions is clarified to require that letters of concurrence with the proposed modification, signed by the chairperson of each adjacent region, be submitted to the Commission with a region's modification request. At present, APCO, acting in its frequency coordination role, or the regional planning chairperson may recommend, in writing, changes to a regional plan. We decline to continue this process. Instead, we modify our present practice to require that the RPC chairperson, as elected by the membership, initiate, in writing, any plan modification. 89. If a region does not choose to administer its plan, the certified frequency coordinators would be permitted to continue to process applications consistent with the existing plan. If the RPC disbands prior to the adoption of a 700 MHz plan, and its members did not choose to establish separate plans pursuant to the options discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, supra, the five certified frequency coordinators could come to consensus and adopt a joint default plan, approved by the Commission, and process applications based on that plan. The frequency coordinators' authority to use the plan would be terminated by the filing of an applicable regional plan for the region or any of its members. Any amendments or modifications to the default plan would require prior Commission approval. 3. National Planning 90. In the Second Notice, we stated that our primary goal with respect to interoperability should be seamless interoperability on a nationwide basis. To accomplish this goal, we asked whether a national planning committee was needed to develop recommendations on policies for the portion of the spectrum devoted to interoperability. The comments filed herein strongly support the need for national planning not only for the interoperability portion of the new spectrum, but for general use spectrum also. 91. Based on the record before us, we conclude that a national committee would provide valuable assistance to both the Commission and the public safety community as a mechanism to ensure the most efficient use of the new spectrum. We believe that the public safety community, and many of the regional disputes, could be assisted or resolved by national guidelines. We note that some commenters suggest that the scope of responsibility for a national planning committee include: (1) determining the structure and administrative responsibilities of regional planning committees; (2) adopting generic channel plans; (3) ensuring efficient channel usage; (4) providing a workable and enforceable plan for return of channels replaced by new spectrum; (5) coordinating inter-regional planning; (6) serving as an appellate board for review of regional committee decisions or disputes between regions; and (7) providing a common database platform to maintain the operational specifics of each licensee. The Joint Commenters recommend the adoption of a national plan that includes: (1) eligibility guidelines; (2) application submission and processing procedures; (3) methods for enforcing construction requirements; (4) a channel "giveback" program; (5) procedures for resolving inter-regional disputes; (6) the provision of oversight and advice for local planning; and, (7) an express reservation of final authority to the Commission. 92. While we are persuaded that a national committee is warranted, we are not convinced that a national committee with oversight responsibilities is in the public interest. We believe that such responsibilities should reside with the Commission. Instead, we find that a national committee should assist and augment the regional planning process. Our most effective activities with the public safety community have been within the formal structure of the National Public Safety Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) and the PSWAC. Consequently, we will charter through the procedures provided in the FACA the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (National Coordination Committee or NCC) as a federal advisory committee for the purpose of addressing and advising the Commission on policy relating to matters discussed below. By using FACA procedures, we intend to provide formality to the NCC and to ensure participation by representatives of all elements of the public safety community. The National Coordination Committee is intended to operate over a period of four years, and its major responsibilities will be to: (1) formulate and submit for Commission review and approval an operational plan to achieve national interoperability that includes a shared or priority system among users of the interoperability spectrum for both day-to-day and emergency operations and, in this connection, recommendations regarding Federal users' access to the interoperability spectrum; (2) recommend interoperability digital modulation, trunking, and receiver standards for Commission review and approval; (3) offer voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional plans; and (4) provide recommendations on other technical matters that are common to the public safety community generally. The NCC's charter will also specify that it or a working group established thereunder is to be accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop all technical standards. Because the NCC will be required to become American National Standards Institute-certified, the Commission will not unnecessarily disturb technical standards recommended through this open and neutral process. Further, because realization of interoperability is of critical importance to the public safety community, the charter will include milestones for timely accomplishment of certain tasks to ensure that the NCC's work is completed in the most expeditious manner practicable. 93. FLEWUG recommends the formation of both a national general use coordination body and a national interoperability coordination committee because it asserts that the planning and management processes for the general use channels and the interoperability channels are similar but not identical. In addition, FLEWUG suggests that these two bodies establish a standing working group to meet regularly to ensure adequate coordination and integration. We find that one national committee would be more effective and efficient than two. Although there may be some differences between the process required to develop a national interoperability plan and the processes involved in developing policies for general service spectrum, we find that such differences are not so great as to justify the duplication of effort, personnel, and expense necessarily involved in creating two national committees. A single committee could address both issues, would better conserve scarce public safety financial resources and more efficiently focus the talent and expertise of the public safety communications community, which is often represented by a small group of dedicated individuals in each region. We are convinced that if we were to form two committees, many of the same individuals would end up serving on both. We conclude, therefore, that the establishment of a single national committee provides the best approach without duplication. 94. Some commenters favoring a national committee stress the need for representation on the committee to include all levels of the public safety community, the Commission, and individuals with technical expertise and proven leadership in the regional planning process. Others indicated that the committee would be most knowledgeable, most representative, and most likely to be effective if it were made up of representatives from the public safety user community across the country, rather than public safety organizations. Based on our experience gained from both NPSPAC and PSWAC, we conclude that a national coordination committee composed of a broad range of representatives of the public safety user community is appropriate. 4. Frequency Coordination 95. Coordinators. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private organization recommends to the Commission the most appropriate frequencies for private land mobile radio (PLMR) service applicants. Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of the applications, resolving potential interference problems at the source. There are currently four frequency coordinators certified to coordinate frequencies for public safety applicants. Until 1997, each public safety frequency coordinator was authorized to coordinate frequencies only in certain identified groups of frequencies, called "Services." In the Refarming Second Report and Order, the Commission established a structure whereby each of the existing certified public safety frequency coordinators continued to manage the frequencies for which they were responsible prior to consolidation. The one exception to this scheme was the Local Government Radio Service, which the Commission opened to all of the certified public safety coordinators. The Commission adopted this exception, in part, because frequencies in the Local Government Radio Service were routinely used by all Public Safety Radio Services. 96. In the Second Notice, we did not directly address the issue of frequency coordination. Nonetheless, several commenters address the question in connection with the new spectrum. APCO, for example, requests designation as the sole coordinator for the new spectrum, and several commenters filed in support. In justification of its request, APCO suggests that, as the sole coordinator for the 800 MHz public safety spectrum, it is the only coordinator with experience in working with regional planning and in coordinating spectrum for wide-area, multi-agency systems in that band. Furthermore, it claims that it is the only coordinator with a network of local frequency advisors in each of the public safety planning regions. If APCO is selected as the sole coordinator for the 700 MHz band, it offers to provide reasonable direct technical, organizational, and financial support for regional planning activities and to maintain a separate and unique regional planning database available to all regions over the Internet. 97. AASHTO urges the Commission to allow all of the certified coordinators to provide coordination services in the 700 MHz band and asserts that it has had a system of frequency coordinators in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, for over 40 years. Moreover, AASHTO argues that at least one state experienced substantial delay in its efforts to expand its "shared resource" statewide telecommunications system because of APCO's failure to process the applications. This delay would not have occurred, AASHTO asserts, if there had been multiple coordinators. The Joint Commenters oppose APCO's designation as sole coordinator and urge the Commission to allow any of the certified frequency coordinators to provide frequency coordination services. Ericsson recommends that frequency coordination be open to all organizations engaged in the process of coordination, and asserts that competition will result in lower overall costs for public safety licensees. 98. We will adopt for the general use portion of this band the same frequency coordination processes adopted for the Local Government Radio Service in the Refarming Second Report and Order. Therein, we reasoned that since the frequencies in the Local Government Radio Service were available to all public safety entities (just like they are for the new spectrum) any of the certified public safety coordinators may provide coordination. While we acknowledge the generous offers of assistance to RPCs by APCO, we nevertheless decline to choose it to be the sole coordinator for the public safety frequencies in the 700 MHz band. We continue to believe that by encouraging competition among coordinators, we will promote cost-based pricing of coordination services and provide incentives for enhancing service quality. Therefore, we will allow any of the certified public safety coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band. 99. Data Base. In order to make the best possible frequency recommendations, coordinators must have complete and accurate knowledge of the radio environment in which a proposed system is designed to operate. Several commenters argue that a common data base for the new spectrum is essential. Some suggest that it be maintained by the National Coordinating Committee. Others suggest that the Commission maintain the database, and Ft. Lauderdale recommends that APCO maintain the data base. As mentioned above, APCO indicated that it would make its database available to all regions if it were the sole coordinator. AASHTO asserts that, through its data base contractor, it has achieved near "real time data transfer which eliminates the need for a "single data base" as proposed by APCO. Moreover, AASHTO asserts that such a data transfer methodology would be accomplished easily for the 700 MHz band. 100. We believe that, if it were attainable, a common coordinator data base would be the best method for providing all coordinators with accurate up-to-date information needed to formulate accurate frequency recommendations. However, since there is no evidence in the record indicating that a consolidated database created by the frequency coordinators is a viable option, we conclude that the notice and waiting-period provisions adopted in the Refarming Second Report and Order are the most practical methods by which accurate frequency coordination decisions can be made. Specifically, all frequency coordinators must provide notice of all frequency recommendations made to the Commission to all the other frequency coordinators, with one-business day of making such recommendation. In addition, all applicants for new or modified facilities are required to observe a ten-day waiting period before commencing operation in order to avoid the possibility of interference with existing facilities. Finally, we reject APCO's suggestion that its database should serve as the official coordination tool for the 700 MHz band because it is predicated on our designation of APCO as the sole coordinator, which we have declined to do. 5. Construction Requirements 101. As noted in the Second Notice, Part 90 of the Commission's Rules generally requires a licensee in the 800 MHz band to construct a station and place it in operation within eight months for conventional systems and twelve months for trunked systems. In certain instances, the construction period can be longer, even up to five years upon appropriate justification. In the Second Notice we sought comment on the appropriate construction requirements for public safety stations licensed in the 700 MHz band. 102. The responses to our request vary in their approach, yet all of the commenters recommend that the construction period be longer than the standard eight to twelve months for Part 90 public safety licensees. NPSTC recommends a two or three year deadline with the possibility of extending the construction period up to five years if good cause is demonstrated. Florida suggests a three year construction period with routine extensions allowed to five or even ten years. Other commenters advocate a five year construction period. New York State Police recommend that large scale, statewide systems be allowed a ten year construction period. 103. We conclude that a twelve month construction deadline should apply to public safety applicants in the 700 MHz band. Nonetheless, because state and local governments often follow multi- year cycles for the planning, approval, funding and purchasing of their public safety systems, we will also follow Section 90.155(b), which permits local government entities a longer period for placing a station in operation where the applicant submits a specific schedule for the completion of each portion of the entire system, along with a showing that the system has been approved and funded for implementation in accordance with that schedule. None of the commenters have made a convincing argument that the Commission's current rules, which allow public safety entities to request an extended implementation schedule of up to five years, would not be adequate. Thus, an applicant will have twelve months to place a system in operation or up to five years if application is made pursuant to Section 90.155(b). We continue to believe that allowing public safety applicants up to five years allows sufficient time to complete the planning, approval, funding, and construction needed to place a proposed system in operation. D. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Overview of Technical Requirements 104. In this section, we consider technical requirements for systems and equipment to be used in the 700 MHz band. In particular, we discuss technical specifications that determine the spectrum use efficiency, interoperability, and interference potential of public safety systems. We believe that only a minimal set of Commission technical regulations is necessary to enable nationwide interoperability, to facilitate spectrum management, to encourage efficient and effective spectrum use, and to promote competition and avoid undue delays in equipment development. 105. As previously noted, one of our principal goals in this proceeding is to provide a significant amount of spectrum for public safety interoperability. Having reserved approximately 10 percent of the 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band for interoperability channels, we must now, as we proposed in the Second Notice, adopt technical standards sufficient to ensure that these channels will be usable for interoperability purposes anywhere in the country. Accordingly, we must consider more extensive technical requirements for equipment and systems using the nationwide interoperability channels than for equipment and systems operating in statewide, regional and local channels. Although we are setting a few of the basic technical standards in this First Report, many of the specifications for advanced innovative technology that will be needed to ensure successful nationwide interoperability in this band have only begun to be developed by the equipment manufacturers and public safety committees. Our preference is for these standards, which will apply to use of the nationwide interoperability channels, to be developed by an ANSI-accredited industry body and recommended by the National Coordination Committee for our consideration, within a set time frame. 106. We are also mindful that the basic technical framework we adopt today will affect the equipment design of future public safety systems. Therefore, we recognize that, consistent with our often-repeated regulatory goals, these regulations must provide the minimum necessary constraints that meet reasonable goals for interoperability, spectrum use efficiency and interference protection. In addition, we believe that the rules we adopt must be as competitively and technologically-neutral as possible to allow for competing equipment designs and to avoid hindering or precluding future innovative technological developments. We note that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense spectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs. Conversely, while wider tolerances may allow manufacturers to use less costly component parts in transmitting equipment, they may also result in less efficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe the technical regulations we adopt herein provide a reasonable balance of these concerns. 2. Technical Requirements for the Nationwide Interoperability Channels 107. Modulation Type. We will first discuss the issue of whether we should allow or require the use of analog modulation or digital modulation (or both) for interoperable 700 MHz band public safety systems. In the Second Notice, we tentatively concluded that in order to provide for nationwide interoperability, we must, at a minimum, specify whether analog or digital modulation is to be used on the interoperability channels. 108. Although most of the commenters generally support the use of digital modulation on the interoperability channels, many also favor specifying an analog modulation type as a baseline. Several of the commenters suggest that we specify analog FM voice modulation on the interoperability channels, either as an interim standard to be used until a digital standard is established and equipment for that standard is developed, or indefinitely as a baseline interoperability mode. We have considered this suggestion, but reject it for the following reasons. First, if we allow the construction of analog-only systems in this band, this could once again create a situation where a public safety band becomes encumbered with a significant financial investment in an obsolete technology. Second, the availability of less expensive analog-only equipment could diminish the market for digital equipment, resulting in delays and higher costs for those users who do wish to buy digital equipment in order to obtain its benefits. Third, establishment of analog-only systems would diminish the availability of spectrum for digital modulated equipment. Fourth, digital technology is better suited to accommodate emerging technologies and advanced capabilities for the equipment operating in this band. 109. We believe that digital modulation technology is a very important factor in optimizing efficiency of spectrum use, and as such, it will be a key technology for the future of land mobile radio. Because land mobile radio equipment (analog or digital) designed to operate in the 700 MHz band is not yet available, we are presented with a unique opportunity to ensure that spectrally efficient modulation technology is incorporated in public safety equipment for this band from the outset. 110. We are concerned with the amount of time that standards development processes require, and in the Second Notice we asked whether the possible delay in setting a digital modulation standard for interoperability might outweigh the advantages of digital modulation. This assume