WPC| 2BJ Courier3|j Times New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman(Additional)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\ |X@26 FKP Z3|P "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lCdYddCoCCCYYFdCNC2Cdddd(dC7dqCdPn<dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 4Si (Additional)HPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\ |XP2 %KXq05-28-96 11:44a  ,Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItaliczzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5  < X-ԍ Yoder Comments at 1.> In addition, Yoder objects to the Regional Review Committee's characterization that the proposed amendment received unanimous approval by the Regional Review Committee. In fact, Yoder states that the Regional Review Committee failed to provide adequate notice to all those in the Committee regarding the filing of the amendment to transfer unused statewide channels and that the proposal failed to gain  X -full support, as some state agencies still will require the use of these channels.@  t < X?-ԍ Yoder Comments at 12.@ Additionally, Yoder asserts that there are several frequencies, other than those proposed for use, which can  X -be reallocated or resorted and used to meet the requirements of Region 51 presently. % < X-ԍ Yoder Comments at 1. Yoder argues that other 821 MHz channels allocated to other Texas counties could be used instead of using the allocated statewide channels. x4. In reply, Harris County states that similar reallocation of channels in other regions  X -had not been treated as major amendments of their Plans. < X-ԍ Reply Comments of Harris County at 12, referring to the Region 40 Plan for the DallasFort Worth area, in which several statewide channels were reallocated and classified as a minor amendment to the Region 40 Plan. Harris County also indicates that the resort of frequencies Yoder requested has been completed and shows that frequencies are  Xy-not available to satisfy Harris County's application.5yB< Xl$-ԍ Id. 5 Further, Harris County states that it has been unable to find any single state agency that has a plan for statewide radio"b0*(("  X-communications.P< Xy-ԍ Reply Comments of Harris County at 2. P The Region 51 Chairman, in his comments, also questions the need to retain statewide channels for extended periods, without use, as the Region 51 Plan requires that applicants furnish a detailed buildout schedule. He contends that it is not the intent of the Region 51 Plan to allow spectrum to be reserved for indefinite or long periods of time and failure of an applicant to timely implement any proposed project will result in loss of  X-spectrum and its return to the general pools.y< X-ԍ Comments of Chairman, Region 51 Regional Review Committee at 3. He notes that there are no applications for use from any state of Texas agency pending. However, he asserts that several public safety agencies have funding for the development of shared wide area communications systems and have made application for spectrum assignments. In addition, he states these agencies have expressed willingness to cooperate with other entities requiring future communications capabilities. He argues that the proposed modification to the Region 51 Plan will allow the implementation of these spectrum efficient public safety systems that directly impact the local  X -cities and counties.i < X-ԍ Comments of Chairman, Region 51 Regional Review Committee at 3.i Further, the Region 51 Chairman maintains that the Regional Review Committee did consider Yoder's objection to the proposal in its Region 51 Committee meeting held on February 21, 1996. Notwithstanding Yoder's position, there was unanimous approval for the amendment.  X<x5.  Discussion. We have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Region 51 Plan and the comments on the proposed amendment, and decline to reject or table it. The parties opposing the amendment are requesting that we conduct an independent review of the arguments presented to the Regional Review Committee and either overturn or delay its decision. They also request, in essence, that we allow state users up to ten more years to utilize these channels. The record shows, however, that state users have been unable to secure appropriations from the state legislature to use these channels. We regard claims of future use contingent on funding as speculative.  X-x6. In the Report and Order establishing the National Public Safety Planning process, the Commission stated that one of its primary objectives was to promote efficient use of  X-public safety spectrum.\< X !-ԍ Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 913 (1987).\ In adopting the National Planning approach, the Commission sought to provide the regions with as much autonomy as possible to develop plans that meet their  Xi-differing communications needs.Hiw< X$-ԍ Id. at 906. H It also found that regional planning committees should allow local authorities to address the unique spectrum allocation requirements of public safety while providing sufficient flexibility for regional planners to develop efficient and effective";* 0*(("  X-solutions to local public safety problems.<< Xy-ԍ Id. at 905. < We will not, therefore, conduct de novo reviews or overturn decisions made by regional coordinating committees unless commenters show the  X-committee has not complied with the requirements set forth in the Report and Order,{< X-ԍ The Report and Order established a mechanism for modifying a regional plan. See  X-Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 911 (1987). or that amendments to a Regional plan have resulted in elimination of an element that we found  X-should be included.<< Xr -ԍ Id. at 911. < In this case, the Regional Review Committee of Region 51 weighed the arguments now before us, and it approved those modifications it judged necessary to satisfy new operational requirements. We conclude that approving this amendment is consistent with  Xc-the Report and Order because, based on the decision of the Region 51 Regional Review Committee, it furthers the interests of the eligible public safety entities within the Region.  X -x7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Public Safety Radio Plan for Region 51 IS AMENDED, as set forth in the Region's letter of February 26, 1996. This amendment is effective immediately. x8. For further information, contact William T. Cross at (202) 4180680. x  X-x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(#(#X x` `  hhBruce A. Franca x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology    &&i~~ . .   Robert H. McNamara  X-&&i~~ . .   Chief, Private Wireless Division