******************************************************** 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. 20554 In the matter of ) ) Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ) Regional Public Safety Plan ) Gen. Docket No. 90-7 (Region 20) ) ) Philadelphia Metropolitan Area ) Regional Public Safety Plan ) Gen. Docket No. 89-573 (Region 28) ) ORDER Adopted: December 9, 1996 Released: December 9, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, and the Chief, Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Order addresses amendments submitted by the regional planning committees of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ("Region 20") and the Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Area ("Region 28"). In separate amendments, each committee proposes to modify their respective regional plans for the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands as provided by the Public Safety National Plan ("National Plan"). Oppositions have been filed against both amendments. Both amendments concern the manner in which public safety spectrum governed by the National Plan is allocated among adjacent regions to meet the mobile communications requirements of public safety and special emergency entities. For the reasons discussed below, the Region 20 amendment is conditionally accepted subject to the submission of additional information as detailed herein, and the Region 28 amendment is returned for further coordination with adjacent regions. This decision furthers the Commission's goal of promoting efficient and effective public safety communications. II. BACKGROUND 2. In November 1987, the Commission adopted the National Plan to govern the use of the 821-824/866-869 MHz public safety bands. The structure of the National Plan consisted of national and regional planning elements that would facilitate interoperability between communication systems and promote the efficient use of the newly allocated 6 megahertz of public safety spectrum. The National Plan, as set forth in the originating docket, was to serve as an umbrella to guide the development of regional plans. In establishing the National Plan, the Commission sought to balance the primary goal of maximizing spectrum efficiency while ensuring sufficient flexibility to accommodate the wide variety of specific communications requirements in different areas of the country. The Commission established 55 regions throughout the country which it stressed would have to work together to coordinate their respective regional plans, particularly as they affect metropolitan areas. Regional boundaries were developed to minimize potential inter-regional conflicts. The Commission outlined the general objectives of the planning process and set forth specific information that each regional plan had to contain. Each region then commenced to evaluate their needs and submitted their plans for individual review and approval by the Commission. The last of the 55 regional plans were approved under delegated authority in August 1993. Since 1993, many of the regions have amended their plans several times to accommodate additional requirements for new or expanded public safety systems in their regions. 3. In establishing the National Plan in November 1987, the Commission stated that it wished to provide localities with the flexibility to make decisions to provide for their unique needs. In doing so, however, the Commission stressed that the regions were required to work together to coordinate their regional plans. The Commission stated that many diverse interest would have to be reconciled in any negotiations between adjacent regions and that compromises may need to be made. Coordination with adjacent regions was one of the prime elements that had to be included in all of the regional plans. In addition, each plan needed to describe the provisions made to ensure that these channels will work and be managed effectively across regional boundaries. In May 1989, the Commission again emphasized this need for inter- regional coordination when it accepted the New York City Region 8 plan, and the requirement was clarified to denote that "all regional public safety plans not currently filed with the Commission include a statement that the plan has been coordinated with adjacent regions. They must give the dates of notification and the response from each of those regions. Regional Planning Committees may wish to include copies of letters to meet this requirement." The amendments currently before us for Regions 20 and 28 propose to amend the plans for the Washington, DC, and the Philadelphia metropolitan areas, respectively. In the paragraphs below, we address each amendment separately. III. DISCUSSION A. Region 20 amendment 4. On November 25, 1994, Region 20 submitted an amendment to their plan which was subsequently modified by an addendum filed on January 26, 1996. In the amendment currently before us, Region 20 indicates that it is proposing a revision to its frequency matrix, Appendix I, to reflect assignments made as a result of its second filing window. Region 20 also indicates that a complete plan replacement had been submitted to reflect non-substantive editorial changes and the addition of paragraph numbering to the Region 20 Public Safety Plan. 5. On February 12, 1996, the proposed amendment was placed on Public Notice to provide interested parties an opportunity to file comments. Comments opposing the Region 20 amendment were submitted by five parties -- the State of Delaware; Chester County Department of Emergency Services, West Chester, PA ("Chester County"); the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the New Jersey State Police; and the Region 28 Planning Update Committee ("Region 28"). Reply comments in support of the amendment were received from Region 20, and the County of Fairfax, VA. The opposing comments raise two general issues: lack of coordination of the proposed amendment with surrounding regions and alleged interference to existing or planned systems in adjacent regions. In reply, Region 20 and Fairfax County outlined their longstanding commitment to coordinate with adjacent regions and cited to the extensive discussion contained in the ex parte letter of January 5, 1996, as evidence of their efforts to resolve differences. 6. In opposition, Region 28 states that several conflicts exist between the proposed Region 20 plan and the State of Delaware, the City of Philadelphia, PA, Chester County, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the New Jersey State Police, and it provides a list of 26 channel assignments that it considers problematic. Region 28 also states that without coordinates for the specific location of the stations Region 20 proposed to license, the list is incomplete. The State of Delaware requests that the Region 20 amendment be rejected because it will cause interference to its digital, trunked radio system which currently is under construction. The State of Delaware includes a list of 17 potential conflicts and notes four of the proposed assignments for the State of Maryland (Northeast) as serious problems. The New Jersey State Police also object to the amendment noting that the plan was not reviewed prior to submission to the Commission, and that there is a potential for interference to New Jersey's allotments on Channels 700 and 792. Chester County states that it is constructing a county-wide, trunked radio system, and that it is concerned that Region 20 will cause harmful interference to its system. Specifically, it is concerned about the channels that are proposed for Northern Maryland which could cause interference to those assigned to Chester County. It states that the protection criteria used by Region 20 is not clear. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania objects to Region 20's allocation of Channel 606 in Allegheny County and Channel 619 in Washington County, Maryland, on the basis of potential co-channel and adjacent channel interference with Greene and Washington Counties, PA. It states that other conflicts may also exist but they have not been provided access to specific coordinates and other details by which to conduct a technical evaluation. New Jersey State Police and Chester County both claim that Region 20, which has chosen not to participate in the voluntary APCO regional plan data base, has not insured that operations in adjacent regions are considered in the allocation process. They claim that Region 20 appears to be philosophically opposed to inter-regional coordination, and therefore, the amendment should not be approved without detailed planning and the consensus of surrounding regions. 7. In reply, Region 20 and Fairfax County state that the channels as listed by the opposing parties, all involve allotments previously approved in either the initial plan or earlier amendments, and that these channels are not affected by the amendment currently under consideration. Region 20 further notes that the objections are made without qualitative or quantitative engineering data. Nonetheless, Region 20 states that it has reviewed all claims of harmful interference and does not believe that a 5 dBu (0.35 uv) signal strength contour terminating at Region 20's border could cause harmful interference to stations in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Region 20 indicates that the amendment currently under consideration is a result of applications filed during its second filing window by (1) Alexandria City, VA, (2) Carroll County, MD, (3) Manasass City, VA, and (4) Prince William County, VA. Of these, it claims that only applications filed by Carroll County, MD, could potentially cause any interference concern. 8. Region 20 also responded to its alleged failure to use the APCO data base. Region 20 stressed that the use of APCO's data base for regional planning is strictly voluntary, i.e., not mandated by the Commission. Region 20 indicates that it did participate in the development of the regional data-base by CET, Inc. ("CET-sort") during the initial planning stages. Region 20 states that it used the CET-sort as a foundation for its regional planning but has proceeded to use predicted signal strength contours for co-channel and adjacent channel separations. Regarding its inter-regional coordination practices, Region 20 indicates that it has a long history of coordinating with adjacent regions as set forth in its ex parte letter of January 5, 1996, and indicates that it has continued to seek information from Region 28. Fairfax County reiterates Region 20's position regarding attempts to coordinate its plan with surrounding regions. Fairfax County states that, in its view, Region 28 has not looked closely at the proposed Region 20 amendment and its addendum. Fairfax County notes that it is in desperate need of additional services to improve its public safety system and requests the Commission to render a decision forthwith. 9. Based on the record, there are three elements of the Region 20 amendment that cause us concern. They are: (1) the lack of coordination with adjacent regions, (2) the licensing of stations prior to plan approval, and (3) a channel designation to an individual. Rather than returning the amendment as deficient, however, we believe that it is in the public interest to accept the Region 20 amendment subject to the conditions described below. Although the Commission has clearly stated that inter-regional coordination is mandatory, the lack of consensus between the parties appears to have inhibited the expansion of public safety telecommunications in these bands for these critical metropolitan areas. As Region 20 points out, our review of the record affirms that the channel assignments cited by Region 28 and other parties as potential problems all pertain to channels contained in plans previously approved by the Commission. Our review further found that the channels under consideration at this time have already been licensed by the Commission. Consequently, we believe it is best to conditionally accept the Region 20 amendment at this time. 10. For the above reasons, Region 20's amendment is accepted subject to the following conditions: (a) a detailed statement that establishes satisfactory inter-regional coordination procedures (see paragraph 11 below) -- to be filed by March 30, 1997; (b) a list denoting the current status of construction and operation of stations licensed on the new channels set forth in the Region 20 amendment (see paragraph 15 below -- to be filed by January 30, 1997; and (c) a change from "MCT Medical Services" to an appropriate channel designation (see paragraph 18 below) -- to be filed by January 30, 1997. These conditions are explained in more detail in the following paragraphs. In addition, we will assist in the continuing dialog among the regional committees to attain a satisfactory resolution to this matter. 11. Inter-regional coordination. In conditionally accepting Region 20's amendment, we stress that the requirement to effectively coordinate and manage channel assignment across regional boundaries is critical to the successful implementation of the National Plan. Region 20 must establish inter-regional coordination procedures that reflect the mandate as stated in the originating proceeding, i.e., that the regions work together to ensure that the channels are managed effectively across regional boundaries. Thus, Regions 20 and 28 must review paragraph 32 of Region 20's amendment and effectuate a mutually acceptable coordination procedure for their regions. Under the conditional grant described in paragraph 10 (a) above, Region 20 is directed to file a further document that sets forth its inter-regional coordination procedures in detail. At a minimum, the filing should contain: (1) provisions that provide adequate protection to adjacent regions, (2) a procedure for maintaining an up-to-date, data base with adjacent regions, and (3) a method for a continued dialog with adjacent regions, in particular Region 28. This filing must be coordinated with Region 28, i.e., the inter-regional coordination procedures must be acceptable to Region 28. To assist the parties in their discussions, the results of our review of the Region 20 amendment are set forth below. 12. First, it was difficult to discern exactly what changes Region 20 proposed because the changes were not clearly defined or marked. Region 20 should clarify exactly what changes to its plan are contained in this amendment, and specifically, identify the channels being added at this time. For example, our analysis indicates that paragraph 32 addressing inter-regional coordination is re-written in its entirety, yet there is no reference to that fact in Region 20's discussion. Additionally, our examination of the amendment, Appendix I, shows that the channels being added at this time are: Channels Alexandria,VA City of Alexandria 673, 675, 810 Alexandria, VA MCT Medical Services 720 Arlington County, VA Metro Wash Airport Auth. 808 Carroll County, MD Carroll County 686, 690, 693, 706, 709, 711, 713, 720, 748 Fairfax County, VA MCT Medical Services 720 Prince William County, VA Prince William County 606, 608, 613, 635, 637, 653, 655, 647, 676, 731, 736, 783, 785, 799, 801, 819, 821, 827 13. Second, many opposing comments alleged interference from Region 20 frequency channels that were previously accepted by the Commission. Channels previously accepted by the Commission, however, are not open to re-negotiation unless agreed to by the parties. Consequently, those objections are moot. On the matter of harmful interference, we reference Section 90.173(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.173(b), whereby licensees are expected to cooperate and resolve such problems on a mutually satisfactory basis. Regarding a common data base, we note that APCO as frequency coordinator in these bands has a responsibility to maintain accurate records of all regional plans. Region 20 should provide updated information regarding its currently licensed stations, planning process, record keeping, and use of the "voluntary" APCO data base. 14. Additionally, much of the technical dispute amongst the parties centered around the alleged lack of protection afforded to surrounding regions. On this point, we note that Region 20's amendment indicates that it would ensure protection of adjacent regions by requiring Region 20 applicants to engineer their systems such that their 5 dBu co-channel and 25 dBu adjacent channel contour did not extend beyond Region 20's boundaries. In effect, the Region 20 amendment seeks to create an "island" whereby Region 20 assignments are configured to limit the potential of interference to stations in adjacent regions. Regions 20 should discuss with its adjacent regions its proposal to limit their station's signal contour to 5 dBu co-channel and 25 dBu adjacent channel at its border, and seek agreement on a mutually acceptable coordination procedure. 15. Station licensing prior to amendment approval. Review of the Region 20 amendment also indicates that Region 20 applicants have been granted licenses on the additional channels listed above prior to the Commission accepting the plan amendment. This result is inconsistent with the Commission's regional planning process. The originating proceeding, GEN Docket 87-112, indicated that modifications of regional plans were subject to Commission review. Thus, we clarify that all assignments within the 821-824/866-869 MHz bands must be made in conformance with regional plans and amendments thereto only after they are approved by the Commission, and licensing of stations on the basis of a proposed amendment is not permitted. Region 20 is directed to file a statement regarding the current status of construction and operation on the channels noted in paragraph 12 above. 16. Channel designations for regional planning. Also at issue is Region 20's proposal to designate a channel in Appendix I of its plan for "MCT Medical Services." Region 20 discussed this proposed change in its addendum filed January 25, 1996, where it noted that during the deliberations of the originating proceeding, GEN Docket No. 87-112, the Commission decided to include eligibles of the Special Emergency Radio Services ("SERS") on the newly allocated frequencies. Region 20 argues that the Commission acknowledged that physicians may, as SERS entities, provide public safety services and left it to the discretion of the regional committee to decide which eligibles are of greatest importance to their regions. Therefore, it states that licensing of "this physician ... is in full compliance with G[E]N Docket 87-112 & 90-7, and 47 CFR Part 90." 17. We do not take issue with the eligibility of a physician who is also a SERS entity, in this case Dr. Michael C. Trahos or MCT Medical Services, to qualify and hold a license within these bands if deemed appropriate by the regional committee. The distinction rests, however, between regional plan designations, as set forth in Appendix I of the Region 20 Plan, and application licensing, as defined in the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 90. A regional plan should be more than a list of licensees. As the Commission envisioned it, the channel listing should be a planning tool for regional public safety systems as conceived by a cross-section of regional public safety telecommunication officials. While permitting both Public Safety Radio Services and SERS to be licensed in these bands, the Commission noted that within these two broad categories are many entities whose responsibilities vary from one region to the next. It emphasized that while leaving review to the discretion of the regional committee, highest priority must be given to those organizations that are most fundamentally involved with the protection of life and property. Additionally, the Commission required that the plans include a detailed description of how the plan puts the spectrum to the best possible use, and it required small entities with minimal requirements to join together to form or share a single system where possible. 18. In this matter, we defer to the Region 20 planning committee's judgement that the priorities within its region and the availability of channels warranted the licensing of a single physician to Channel 720. However, we cannot accept a designation within a regional plan that would provide a single individual with exclusive use of a channel. The proposed designation, i.e., Dr. Trahos or MCT Medical Services, would preclude licensing to another individual, the re-assignment to another licensee, or small entities from joining together to form a shared system. Thus, the designation must be changed to a generic designation, such as "Physician's Services, SERS Channel, Medical Alert Services, or Emergency Medical Services." Such a change better describes the channel's potential use and would allow other eligibles access to this channel, if deemed appropriate by the Region 20 planning committee. Region 20 is directed to modify the designation for Channel 720 from MCT Medical Services to a generic designation. B. Region 28 amendment 19. On June 4, 1996, Region 28 filed an amendment to modify its plan. The amendment was opposed by Region 20. The New York Metropolitan Area ("Region 8") also indicated that it had some concerns with the proposal and could not concur with the amendment without further study. The amendment was held pending further discussions among the parties of interest. 20. As discussed in detail above, "coordination with adjacent regions" is a requirement for acceptance of regional plans or amendments thereto. In submitting the amendment, Region 28 indicated that "[a] copy of these new assignments have been mailed to the adjacent regions with instructions to forward any comments to Region 28 with a copy to the FCC." Thus, Region 28 had not coordinated its amendment in advance as required; and further, to date it has not obtained concurrence from the adjacent regions. Consequently, we are returning the Region 28 amendment for further coordination. Unlike the Region 20 amendment, the Region 28 amendment did not rely on a technical methodology for inter-regional coordination, i.e., prescribed limits on interference contours, nor has it involved the extensive negotiations among the parties as described above. Thus, we believe that the process would best be served by returning Region 28's amendment so that further discussions may commence between the interested parties. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 21. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Public Safety Radio Plan for Region 20 IS AMENDED, as set forth in the Region's filing of January 26, 1996, conditioned upon satisfying the requirements set forth in paragraph 10 herein. 22. Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Region 28 amendment dated June 4, 1996, IS RETURNED. 23. For further information, contact William T. Cross at (202) 418-0680. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Bruce A. Franca Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Robert H. McNamara Chief, Private Wireless Division