********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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.

*****************************************************************
Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of

Amendment to Parts 73 and 90 of the  
Commission's Rules to Authorize the 
Transmission of Emergency Signals 
on Channel 200
)
)
)
)
)
)


RM-9719



                             ORDER

   Adopted:  January 22, 2001           Released:  January 24, 2001 

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

     I.   introduction
1.     On August 2, 1999, the Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) filed by
Federal Signal Corporation (Federal Signal) requesting amendment of Parts 73 and 90 of the Commission's
Rules to allocate Channel 200 (87.9 MHz) for the use and operation of an Emergency Radio Data System
(ERDS).  On September 14, 1999, the Commission issued a Public Notice inviting comments by interested
parties.  After careful review of Federal Signal's Petition and reply, as well as the numerous comments
received in response to the Public Notice, we conclude that a rulemaking proceeding on this issue is not
warranted.
     II.  background
3.     Federal Signal proposes the use of Channel 200 on a nationwide basis for the exclusive operation
of ERDS by existing and future public safety licensees.  Federal Signal envisions that ERDS would be a low
power system for disseminating emergency information to motorists so that they may take appropriate action
to avoid traffic accidents, oncoming emergency vehicles and weather-related disasters.  ERDS would be
capable of transmitting voice and data emergency messages from both mobile and fixed locations to broadcast
channels.  Power output would be limited to a 1-watt effective radiated power.  When activated, ERDS
automatically would tune a car radio to the ERDS's operating channel (200), even if the car radio were not in
use or being used to play an audiocassette or a compact disc. 
4.     Numerous comments were filed in response to the Public Notice.  All but one commenter oppose
the establishment and implementation of ERDS.  Comments in opposition to Federal Signal's proposal argue
that either there is no need for ERDS, or that the proposal can be accommodated in other spectrum
specifically allocated for such communications.  Specifically, they assert that current public safety systems,
and newly developed ones, such as the Intelligent Transportation Services (ITS), are capable of providing
more than adequate safety service to the public. They suggest that ERDS, if implemented, should operate on
spectrum dedicated to public safety.  Finally, opponents express serious interference concerns regarding
reception to TV Channel 6 and FM stations operating on 88.1 MHz. They also indicate that ERDS, as
proposed, could negatively affect radio's future transition to digital.
5.     We nonetheless note that attached to the Petition was correspondence from various police and fire
departments supporting the ERDS proposal.  These letters generally contend that there is a significant need
for improved warning methods that will overcome driver preoccupation by providing more specific advanced
warning, information, and instruction to the motoring public.  They also submit that with the noise reduction
efforts of the auto manufacturers, it becomes increasingly difficult for operators of newer cars to hear external
audible warning devices.  Therefore, they assert, the use of ERDS may be able to prevent accidents to
emergency and private vehicles, as well as save lives. 
     VI.  discussion
7.     After careful review of the instant record, we agree with most of the commenters and are not
persuaded that a new rulemaking proceeding is warranted at this time.  In this connection, we believe that
current and planned radio communications services should more than adequately meet motorists' need and
demand for receiving timely, localized emergency information.  Contrary to Federal Signal's assertion,
reliance on timely messages is placed not only on the Travelers Information Stations (TIS), and the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) but, more importantly, on newly developed ITS services.  While TIS and
EAS will continue to play a complementary role in the country's public safety communications scheme, it is
anticipated that ITS will significantly improve the efficiency and safety of surface transportation systems.
8.     In 1991, a national program within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) was
established to develop ITS within the United States.  On June 11, 1998, the Commission initiated a
rulemaking proceeding, which proposed to allocate the 5.85-5.925 GHz band on a primary basis to the mobile
service for use by Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)-based ITS operations.  On October 21,
1999, the Commission adopted a Report and Order allocating 75 MHz of radio spectrum to implement the
proposal.  We envision that ITS services will improve traveler safety and decrease traffic congestion, among
other goals.  In particular, DSRC-based ITS systems are being designed to transfer information via a short-
range wireless link between vehicles and roadside systems.  An example of emerging applications is
"Incident Management" operations which would use roadway sensors and DSRC-equipped vehicles to detect
more quickly traffic congestion and dispatch any necessary emergency personnel or take other needed action.

9.     Contrary to the assertions of Federal Signal, we believe that the needs of ERDS can be addressed
by other existing radio services.  In this regard, we agree with those commenters who state that the ERDS
proposal is unnecessary given allocation of a significant amount of spectrum for use by DSRC systems
operating in the ITS radio service.  Further, we believe that initiating a new rulemaking proceeding to adopt
ERDS would essentially be duplicative of the pending ITS/DSRC proceeding given that these services have
substantially similar objectives.  Thus, at this juncture, we believe that the more prudent course of action
would be to incorporate the instant record into the ITS/DSRC proceeding to promote a more robust and
complete record in that proceeding.  As a result, the Commission would be able to consider Federal Signal's
suggestions during its deliberations, while avoiding the establishment of inconsistent or duplicative radio
services. 
10.    Commenters further object to Federal Signal's proposal because of interference concerns, i.e.,
interference to viewers and listeners of TV Channel 6 and FM stations operating on 88.1 MHz.  The
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), in particular, argues that Federal Signal not only conducted
limited testing for analyzing interference to FM stations and TV Channel 6 operations, but failed to test on
other types of receivers, such as portable, personal and clock radios. Amherst Alliance asserts that the
ERDS proposal would universally preempt 87.9 MHz operations, thus, unduly restricting the availability of
radio frequencies for low power radio and hampering this new service.  In addition, several commenters have
expressed serious reservations concerning ERDS's effect on radio's future transition to the digital mode.
Federal Signal, however, asserts that commenters' interference claims are overstated. In its view, precisely
controlled (directional) antenna patterns and tailored, reduced power levels can be used at fixed sites to further
limit interference concerns.  For the same reasons stated previously, we believe that this issue, if relevant to
ERDS operations, is best explored in the pending DRSC/ITS rulemaking and, therefore, decline to discuss the
merits here.
     XI.  conclusion
12.    Because the Commission is currently considering licensing and service rules in its ITS/DSRC
rulemaking proceeding, we believe that a separate rulemaking regarding ERDS, as Federal Signal proposes,
would be duplicative, and, therefore an unnecessary burden on the Commission's resources. 
Notwithstanding our decision to dismiss Federal Signal's request and in recognition of the significant overlap
between the issues developed in the present record and that of the ITS/DSRC rulemaking proceeding, we
hereby incorporate the record of this matter into that of the ITS/DSRC rulemaking.  
     XIII.     ordering clauses
14.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), (j), and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j), and 303(r), and Section 1.401(e) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.401(e), that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Federal Signal
Corporation, RM-9719, on August 2, 1999, IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

15.    This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331.
                         
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         
                         
                         D'wana R. Terry                                                                     
                         Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division                     
                         Wireless Telecommunications Bureau