*Pages 1--31 from Microsoft Word - 15954* Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 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 ) FOURTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 5, 2002 Released: March 14, 2002 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 2 III. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3 IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 A. Precoordination Database ................................................................................................................ 7 B. Secondary Trunking on Eight Interoperability Channels (12.5 kHz systems) and Eight Adjacent Channels (25 kHz systems)................................................................................... 11 C. Guard Channels.............................................................................................................................. 14 D. Access Priority ............................................................................................................................... 18 E. Channel Designation...................................................................................................................... 21 F. Interoperability Channel Capability Requirement ......................................................................... 24 1. Timeframe for Interoperability Capability .............................................................................. 24 2. Com- Net Ericsson - Petition for Declaratory Ruling .............................................................. 30 G. Other Matters ................................................................................................................................. 32 1. Section 90.548, Interoperability technical standards............................................................... 32 2. Section 90.553, Encryption ..................................................................................................... 36 3. Section 90.531, Band plan....................................................................................................... 37 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 39 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act ............................................................................................................. 39 B. Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................................. 40 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX A......................................................... Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order APPENDIX B.................................................. List of Parties for Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................... Final Rules APPENDIX D................................................................................ 700 MHz Band – Spectrum Designations 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 2 APPENDIX E ..................................................... 700 MHz Band – Segmentation and Channelization Table I. INTRODUCTION 1. In the Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the captioned proceeding, 1 the Commission adopted various technical and operational rules and policies regarding use of public safety frequencies in the 764- 776 MHz and 794- 806 MHz bands (the 700 MHz public safety band) designated for narrowband Interoperability uses. 2 The Commission’s actions in the Fourth R& O were based on the comments received in response to the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, which reflected the recommendations of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC), 3 an advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4 We received four petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the Fourth R& O, as well as responsive comments, oppositions, replies to oppositions, and ex parte filings. This Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order (“ Fourth MO& O”) addresses issues raised in these petitions and other filings, and considers several matters raised sua sponte. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. We have carefully considered the issues presented on reconsideration of the Fourth R& O. We agree with petitioners that “secondary trunking channels” 5 ought to be evenly distributed among all four former TV channels 63, 64, 68, and 69, but decline to designate 6.25 kHz bandwidth "guard channels,” immediately above and below each narrowband Interoperability channel set (12.5 kHz bandwidth). Because the proposed pre- coordination database is not yet operational, we believe it premature, at this time, to mandate that public safety entities use such a database as a condition of licensing in the 700 MHz public safety band. In addition, we continue to believe that states and local jurisdictions are in the best position to determine access priority levels, and we thus refrain from establishing nationwide, codified priority levels in the 700 MHz public safety band. Likewise, we affirm the Commission’s decision not to adopt a table of channel assignments for nationwide use. Finally, we believe adoption of Project 25 Phase I as the digital voice standard for the 700 MHz public safety band Interoperability channels will allow for early entry into that spectrum by public safety entities located in areas presently unencumbered by television stations operating on TV channels 63, 64, 68, and 69; thus we do not believe a transition period is necessary before the standard becomes mandatory. 1 16 FCC Rcd 2020 (2001) (“ Fourth R& O”). 2 The Commission has defined “Interoperability” as “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.” Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 189- 90 ¶ 76 (1998). 3 See Public Safety National Coordination Committee’s Recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission for Technical and Operational Standards for Use of the 764- 776 MHz and 794- 806 MHz Public Safety Band Pending Development of Final Rules (Feb. 25, 2000) (NCC Report). The NCC report included detailed technical information. A copy of the NCC Report can be obtained via the Internet at http:// wireless. fcc. gov/ publicsafety, or from Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12 th Street SW, Room CY- B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202- 863- 2893, facsimile 202- 863- 2898, or via e- mail qualexint@ aol. com. 4 5 U. S. C. App. 2 (1988). 5 In its Report, the NCC recommended that the Commission allow, but not mandate, trunking on some of the Interoperability channels on a secondary basis; these channels have become known as “secondary trunking channels.” NCC Report at 9 ¶ 24; see also Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2033- 37 ¶¶ 36- 45. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 3 III. BACKGROUND 3. In the First Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission adopted licensing and service rules for the 700 MHz public safety band, which consists of twenty- four megahertz of radio spectrum comprised of TV Channels 63, 64, 68 and 69. 6 Specifically, the Commission adopted a band plan that designated 12. 6 megahertz for General Use (approximately one- half of the spectrum), 7 2.6 megahertz for Interoperability, and 8.8 megahertz as Reserve Spectrum. 8 In addition, the Commission found strong support for national planning for both the Interoperability spectrum and the General Use spectrum. 9 Accordingly, the Commission chartered the NCC as an advisory committee for the purpose of addressing and advising it on certain issues regarding the 700 MHz band. 10 4. On February 25, 2000, the NCC submitted its report to the Commission, describing the participants in the NCC’s decision– making process, the meetings that the NCC conducted, and the exchanges of information that occurred in developing the NCC’s recommendations. 11 On August 2, 2000, the Commission released the Fourth Notice seeking comments on the NCC Report and its recommendations. 5. On January 17, 2001, the Commission released the Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, in which it designated rules and policies for the Interoperability spectrum. 12 In the Fourth R& O, the Commission adopted many of the NCC’s recommendations and determined that the administrative and technical oversight of operations on the Interoperability spectrum should be performed at the state level. It also permitted trunked operations on eight of the Interoperability 6 First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 162- 64 ¶¶ 13- 16. 7 The amount was subsequently changed to 12. 5 MHz. See note 14 infra. 8 Id. at 176. The General Use spectrum is administered by regional planning committees and will be licensed for public safety services on a site- by- site basis in accordance with the relevant Commission- approved regional plan and frequency coordination. The Interoperability spectrum is designated for communications 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. Mobile units are licensed by rule and any base stations must be approved by the relevant Interoperability administrator, e. g., designated state agency or RPC, and licensed site- by- site. 9 Id. at 196 ¶ 90. 10 Id. at 197 ¶ 92. Among its major responsibilities, the NCC was charged with: (1) formulating and submitting 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) recommending Interoperability digital modulation, trunking, and receiver standards for Commission review and approval; (3) providing voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional plans; and (4) providing general recommendations to the Commission on operational plans of the public safety community. Id. See also Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U. S. C. App. 2 (1988). 11 For a discussion of the NCC’s activities from its inception, see NCC Report at 1- 4. 12 The Fourth R& O treated the NCC’s recommendations. We simultaneously issued a Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding migration to 6.25 kHz technology on the General Use channels. We issued this as a separate notice of proposed rule making, as opposed to resolving the migration question in the Fourth R& O, because the issue of migration to 6.25 kHz technology on the General Use channels was not raised in the underlying Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making or in the NCC Report. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 4 channels on a secondary basis, 13 under certain circumstances, and adopted Project 25 Phase I as the digital standard for the 700 MHz band narrowband Interoperability channels. The Commission also stated that licensees may employ encryption on any Interoperability channel, except the two calling channels, provided that they use the encryption standard specified by the Commission. Certain recommendations from the NCC and other commenters that the Commission did not codify or adopt are the subject of the petitions for reconsideration that we address in the instant Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order. In addition, we take this opportunity to clarify other matters relating to the Fourth R& O. 6. As noted above, the Commission first adopted spectrum designations for the 700 MHz public safety band in 1998; since then, it has revised these designations twice. 14 For convenient reference, the table in Appendix D sets forth the spectrum designations to date, which are not changed in the instant Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order. IV. DISCUSSION A. Precoordination Database 7. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission agreed that the pre- coordination database referenced in the NCC Report 15 had merit and could be used as an effective planning tool. 16 Nonetheless, because the database was still under development, i. e., incomplete and untested, the Commission declined to require its use “at this time.” 17 Of particular concern, the Commission noted that a decision to require the use of a database under development could inadvertently delay the actual use of the spectrum. 18 8. Petitioners John S. Powell (“ Powell”) 19 and the Public Safety Wireless Network (“ PSWN”) 20 both assert that the Commission should, in fact, mandate that public safety entities use a pre- coordination 13 Certain interoperability channels are available for non- interoperability trunked (12. 5 kHz) systems on a secondary basis to interoperability. “Secondary trunking” channels can be added designated interoperability channels when needed for non- interoperability trunked 25 kHz systems. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission established the parameters of permissible secondary trunking use. See paras. 11- 13 infra. 14 The Fourth R& O designated 0. 2 megahertz of Reserve spectrum, adjacent to the eight Interoperability channels, to be Secondary Trunking channels. See Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2036- 37 ¶ 44- 45. In September 2000, the Commission revised the 1998 band plan by adopting, inter alia, “State License” and “Low Power” designations. See The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19844, 19848 (2000). 15 In its Report, the NCC noted that “[ t] he National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has requested the NCC to recommend that the Commission take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Regional Planning Committees make mandatory use of a 700 MHz public safety pre- coordination database when specifying interoperability channel assignments. The database is to be used on a real time basis to provide optimum spectrum use and to avoid selection of channels that would result in interference conflicts. The database would be provided and maintained by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center – Rocky Mountain Region (NLETC) and would be funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).” NCC Report at 23 ¶ 74 (footnotes omitted). 16 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2028 ¶ 18 citing Joint Commenters Comments at 16. 17 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2028 ¶ 18. 18 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2028 ¶ 18. 19 John Powell is a 25- year veteran sergeant with the University of California Police Department at Berkeley, California. Among other positions, he currently chairs the NCC’s Interoperability Committee. Powell Petition at 2- 4. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 5 database. 21 Expressing concern that not mandating participation in such a database will result in incomplete or inaccurate information to public safety entities, PSWN further notes that the database “would give the regional planning committees (RPC) the ability to choose Interoperability channels that would avoid co- channel and adjacent channel interference on the 700 MHz band of spectrum.” 22 In addition, “[ t] he obligation to create, initially populate and/ or administer this pre- coordination database will not fall to the Commission, the states nor the [RPCs],” 23 according to Powell, who adds that the RPCs will be major users and beneficiaries of such a database. 24 In this connection, we also note that the Public Safety Communications Council (PSCC) “support[ s]” the 700 MHz pre- coordination database and is “committed to use [it] for the purposes of pre- coordination . . . .” 25 9. In reviewing the petitions, we continue to believe it is premature to mandate use of a precoordination database. Moreover, as the Commission stated in the Fourth R& O, “we believe the pre-coordination database may have the greatest benefit in planning for the General Use channels, given that we expect to have more applications filed for the General Use channels, and to have more licensees in the General Use channels.” 26 In this connection, we note that applicants for General Use channels are likely to propose high- power base stations at specific locations and that such applications must be frequency coordinated. A precoordination database could greatly assist the RPCs in developing the regional plans that must precede the filing of individual applications. Thus, in addressing the petitions, we emphasize that the Fourth R& O established rules for the Interoperability channels only, and that it remains unclear “to what extent public safety entities will build infrastructure for use on the Interoperability channels as opposed to using the Interoperability spectrum for mobile- to- mobile communications” 27 that do not require coordination because they are licensed by rule. Furthermore, we note that the petitions do not address the concerns raised in the Fourth R& O that mandating the use of a pre- coordination database that is under development could inadvertently delay access to the 700 MHz public safety band. 28 We further note that neither the States nor the RPCs have sought to have the Commission mandate the use of a pre-coordination database. Thus, we are not inclined to change our decision on this matter. 20 PSWN is “a federally funded initiative operating on behalf of all local, state, and federal public safety agencies. The Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury are jointly leading the PSWN Program’s effort to plan and foster interoperability among public safety wireless networks.” PSWN Petition at 2, note 3. PSWN has been an active participant in NCC- related meetings and proceedings. 21 See Powell Petition at 5; PSWN Petition at 3- 4. 22 PSWN Petition at 4. 23 Powell Petition at 5. 24 Id. 25 See, e. g., WT Docket 96- 86, Letter from the Public Safety Communications Council, Al Mello, Chairman, to Marilyn Ward, Chairperson, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (dated May 24, 2001). The PSCC letters states the position of AASHTO, APCO, FCCA, and IMSA/ IAFC (the four FCC- certified public safety coordinators) regarding the pre- coordination database. Id. at 1. 26 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2028 ¶ 19. 27 Id. 28 Id. at 2028 ¶ 18. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 6 10. We nonetheless reiterate our support for development of a pre- coordination database for the 700 MHz public safety band. 29 We note, however, that the commitment of AASHTO, APCO, FCCA, and IMSA/ IAFC to use the database may moot any need for the Commission to adopt a requirement. These development issues aside, we do agree conceptually that such a database, once fully functional, could be a useful tool for RPCs. We also believe that use of it as a planning tool would increase the accuracy of the 700 MHz public safety band planning data while facilitating inter- regional coordination. Furthermore, we note that all of the frequency coordinators certified for the 700 MHz public safety band are committed to using the database. 30 Nonetheless, we also note our disinclination to require RPCs to participate in a third- party database if adopting such a requirement would establish the database as the gatekeeper of the General Use spectrum. Put differently, our concept of the pre- coordination database, referenced in the NCC Report and the petitions, anticipates a planning resource that assists each RPC in developing its plan in coordination with other relevant RPCs by providing spectrum- management recommendations and accessible, online data sharing capabilities among RPCs. B. Secondary Trunking on Eight Interoperability Channels (12.5 kHz systems) and Eight Adjacent Channels (25 kHz systems) 11. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission allowed, but did not mandate, trunking on a permissive basis on the Interoperability channels. 31 Further, the Commission concurred with the NCC that to obtain the benefits here, the Commission needs only to allow secondary trunking on a few of the Interoperability channels. 32 The majority of Interoperability channels would remain available for the most likely interoperability communications scenario, i. e., conventional communications on a unit- to- unit basis. To ensure that these Interoperability channels 33 are always available when necessary for conventional interoperability operations, the Commission allowed trunking only on a secondary basis. 34 The Commission also adopted the NCC’s recommendation of limiting the number of Interoperability channels that can be used for secondary trunking to eight 12.5 kHz Interoperability channels. 35 To accommodate trunking formats that utilize 25 kHz bandwidth channels, 36 the Commission also designated eight 12.5 kHz Reserve Spectrum channels that were adjacent to the eight Interoperability channels, as secondary trunking channels. Thus, eight of the thirty- two 12.5 kHz Interoperability channels are available for secondary trunking use by trunked systems that utilize 12.5 kHz bandwidth format. For trunked systems in any given area using a 25 kHz bandwidth format, the same eight 12.5 kHz 29 PSWN indicates that “[ t] he National Institute of Justice [a division of the U. S. Department of Justice] has agreed to fund the pre- coordination database. Moreover, the certified Public Safety Frequency Coordinators have agreed to enter and maintain the applicable information in the database as part of the pre- established licensing process. Thus, the obligation to create, populate, and administer the pre- coordination database will note fall to the states, RPCs, or the Commission.” PSWN Petition at 4. 30 See, e. g., WT Docket No. 96- 86, Letter from The Public Safety Communications Council Executive, Al Mello, Chairman, to Marilyn Ward, Chairperson, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (dated May 24, 2001). 31 Id at 2035 ¶ 40. 32 Id. at 2036- 37 ¶ 45. 33 See Appendix C infra. 34 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2036 ¶ 42. 35 Id. 36 4. 8 kilobits per second per 6. 25 kHz for narrowband interoperability channels. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 7 Interoperability channels are available along with the eight 12.5 kHz adjacent channels that were redesignated from Reserve Spectrum to secondary trunking. 37 12. Petitioners Powell and PSWN seek reconsideration of our decision to place all secondary trunking channels in only the bandwidth associated with former Television Channels 63 and 68. 38 They assert that distributing the secondary trunking channels evenly among all four television channels is preferable. 39 13. We agree with Petitioners that evenly distributing the secondary trunking channels among the four television channels is a practical and flexible approach that maximizes the early availability of at least half of the secondary trunking channels throughout the nation. 40 We note that this action does not change the amount of spectrum dedicated to Interoperability. Accordingly, public safety base stations will operate on frequencies within former Television Channels 63 and 64, paired with mobile units operating on former Television Channels 68 and 69, respectively. However, until the conclusion of the DTV transition period, Television Channel 63 may not be vacated in some regions of the country where Television Channel 64 is vacated and vice versa. C. Guard Channels 14. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission declined to designate the 128 channels (6.25 kHz) immediately above and below each 12.5 kHz Interoperability channel as “guard channels” for interference protection purposes. 41 The Commission concluded that the record before it did not sufficiently demonstrate that setting aside guard channels in this context was warranted. 42 15. Petitioners Powell and PSWN seek reconsideration of the Commission’s determination that the band plan adopted in the Fourth R& O would not cause harmful interference. PSWN observes that the NCC proposal and the result reached by the Commission are similar, in that they both seek to prevent harmful interference on adjacent channels. PSWN notes that the plan adopted by the Commission accommodates 25 kHz trunked systems and essentially provides guard channels either above or below some Interoperability channel sets. However, PSWN asserts that the NCC plan is superior because it accommodates 25 kHz trunked systems and provides dedicated guard channels above and below each 37 Id. at 2036- 37 ¶¶ 44 45. The Commission stated that the Reserve Spectrum channels will be designated as secondary trunking channels and may only be used in connection with the adjacent Interoperability 12. 5 kHz channel pair in a trunked system. The Fourth R& O also specified the specific 6.25 kHz channels that can be combined to form the eight 25 kHz trunked channels. 38 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2036- 37 ¶ 45. 39 Powell Petition at 6; PSWN Petition at 6. 40 We are adopting rule revisions in Appendix C to designate certain 6.25 kHz Reserve Spectrum channels as secondary trunking channels that can be combined with adjacent Interoperability channels to form 25 kHz channels. 41 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2039 ¶ 53. 42 By way of reference, in adopting service rules for the commercial portion of the 700 MHz band, the Commission established “Guard Bands to protect the immediately adjacent public safety licensees on Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 from harmful interference from operations on the 30 megahertz segment.” Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 20845, 20873 ¶ 69 (2000) citing First Report and Order, WT Docket No. 99- 168, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 490- 91 ¶¶ 33- 34 (2000). See also Second Report and Order, WT Docket No. 99- 168, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000). 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 8 Interoperability channel set. 43 They note that since the Commission released the Fourth R& O, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) has done significant research to show that, if a 6.25 kHz guard channel on either side does not protect the Interoperability channels, then there is the potential for significant interference to Interoperability users from other users on adjacent General Use channels in the same geographic area, and request the Commission to “defer its determination” to consider the TIA Report. 44 16. We have reviewed the additional information submitted regarding guard channels in the 700 MHz public safety band and find that petitioners have failed to present any argument that was not presented and treated in the Fourth R& O. In this connection, we note that in the Fourth R& O, the Commission acknowledged that while most commenters generally agreed with the NCC (when it recommended a band plan different than the one presented in the Third MO& O), their reasons were more for adopting any band plan where aggregation to 25 kHz operations could occur, as opposed to protecting against adjacent channel interference. 17. We also note that the TIA Report upon which Petitioners rely is distinguishable, in that it studies commercial 700 MHz band interference with public safety systems, and not public safety General Use interference with public safety Interoperability use. Other technical information provided with the petitions appears to be merely a recitation of the Commission’s Rules with graphs and charts providing a pictorial of the adjacent channel coupled power (ACCP) rules. 45 Moreover, although we recognize that the location of every incident requiring interoperability communication cannot be predicted or planned, the Petitioners’ technical data is based on an assumption that there will be no geographical separation between the adjacent channel operations. The Petitioners’ technical data also appears to assume that if operation on one Interoperability channel is impaired, by adjacent channel operations, then all thirty- two Interoperability channels will be so impaired. In sum, we find the Petitioners’ contentions unpersuasive. We agree that their approach would reduce interference, but the Petitioners do not balance this benefit against the loss of 0.8 megahertz of spectrum that would be sacrificed for use merely as 6.25 kHz “spacers,” instead of for services to protect the safety of life, health, and property. Additionally, we believe that appropriate design planning should be a sufficient mechanism for minimizing the adjacent channel interference potential in the 700 MHz public safety band. Based on the information before us, we conclude that Petitioners have not established a record sufficient for us to reverse our prior decision on this matter and double the amount of spectrum designated for interoperability purposes. D. Access Priority 18. In its Report, the NCC recommended that the Commission adopt a priority scheme for the use of Interoperability channels. 46 Specifically, it urged that a party wishing to use an Interoperability channel in use by another party would declare its level of priority. The higher level of priority would gain 43 Powell Petition at 6; PSWN Petition at 6. 44 Powell Petition at 7; PSWN Petition at 7. See also Protection of Public Safety Systems From 700 MHz CMRS Band Interference, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA Report) (February 20, 2001). 45 Powell Petition, Exhibits 1 and 2. On August 23, 2001, the Telecommunications Industry Association submitted industry consensus recommendations regarding adjacent channel coupled power (ACCP) requirements for transmitters, 47 C. F. R. § 90. 543. The recommendations were in response to the Commission’s request that the industry “review this technical issue and provide [the Commission], . . . , consensus recommendations for values of ACCP emissions limits.” The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through theYear 2010, WT Docket 96- 86, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16844, 16853 ¶ 16 (2000). The Commission anticipates addressing those recommendations in the near future. 46 NCC Report at 14 ¶ 44. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 9 use of the channel, and the party with the lower priority level would be required to cease its communication immediately. 47 In the Fourth R& O, the Commission adopted the position initially expressed in the Fourth Notice, that, while finding merit in a priority access scheme, the Commission was not persuaded that such a scheme should be codified in our Rules. 48 Specifically, the Commission believed that the states were in a better position to determine priority use and resolve disputes, and noted that the priority levels the NCC recommended differed from the Priority Access Service (PAS) levels the Commission adopted to allow commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to provide PAS for national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) personnel. 49 19. Petitioners Powell and PSWN have asked that the Commission reconsider its rejection of a nationwide, codified access priority scheme. 50 Powell suggests that the Commission “look to the overall NCC objective of a nationwide access system,” 51 and asserts that “there are simply some nationwide requirements that must be codified,” including access priority. 52 In its Petition, PSWN “disagrees with the Commission’s belief that states are in a far superior position to devise, coordinate, and operate an appropriate access formula in the event of a [sic] emergency situation,” 53 and posits that “the goal of nationwide Interoperability at all levels of governments will be best served with the implementation” of codified access priority rules. 20. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission noted that access priority levels are determined as part of a state- level plan, 54 i. e., access priority is one component of administration of the interoperability channels. In this connection, the Commission also determined in the Fourth R& O that states or state-level agencies are the most appropriate entities to plan and administer the Interoperability spectrum. Thus, in considering the petitions, we first note that no state nor state- level agency seeks reconsideration of the Access Priority decision in the Fourth R& O, whereas several states and state- level agencies strongly rejected a required, Federal Access Priority formula in comments to the Fourth NPRM. Next, it is instructive that the NCC and most commenters recommended that administration of the interoperability channels occur at the state- level, if at all possible. Indeed, a recent PSWN study recommends state- level administration 55 and we are concerned about Federal intrusion into an area that state and local entities 47 Id.; see also NCC Report, Appendix D, Voice Channel Priority Recommendations. 48 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2042 ¶ 64, citing Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16907 ¶ 37. 49 See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16720, 16721 (2000). The Commission determined that, should a commercial mobile radio service provider choose to offer PAS, the Commission would require them to “adhere to uniform operating protocols concerning the number of priority levels and the priority level for particular NSEP user.” Id. at 16722 ¶ 4. 50 Powell Petition at 9- 11; PSWN Petition at 5- 6. 51 Powell Petition at 9 (footnote omitted). 52 Id. at 11. 53 PSWN Petition at 6. 54 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2042 ¶ 63. 55 “[ T] he single most critical element [for enhancing interoperability] is the idea of bringing together decision-makers from several governmental sectors, with ultimate authority derived from the executive power of the state.” See PSWN Program, SIECs: States’ Most Effective Tool For Coordinating Interoperability, Washington State Case Study and Best Practices Guide, at 2 § 1.3 (October 8, 2001). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 10 have handled well. 56 Additionally, as noted in the Fourth R& O, the access priority levels that the NCC recommended for the interoperability channels differ from the PAS levels that the Commission adopted in rules allowing CMRS providers to provide PAS for NSEP personnel. We remain concerned that creating yet “another set of priority levels would serve only to create confusion during a large- scale or multi-agency response.” 57 Thus, based on the information before us, it is premature to adopt a rigid access priority regime for the 700 MHz band. Accordingly, we will not reconsider our decision at this time, but will monitor implementation of systems to see if problems develop. E. Channel Designation 21. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission declined to adopt a table of channel assignments, agreeing with the majority of commenters who, while generally supportive of channel designation, expressed concern about codifying the NCC recommendation. 58 22. Petitioners Powell and PSWN suggest that, in failing to adopt a table of channel assignments, the Commission misunderstood the NCC’s recommendation regarding channel designation, suggesting that “a definitive table of assignments was not the intent of the NCC, rather the intent was to provide a baseline for personnel managing emergency responses during the first critical minutes of a developing incident.” 59 PSWN states that it “does not believe that the NCC has proposed to recommend a definitive table of service- specific assignments,” 60 while Powell notes the benefits of specific channel designation, such as allowing same- service officers to respond to a call, regardless of jurisdiction. 61 23. Our review of the NCC Report does not indicate that the recommendation from the NCC Interoperability Subcommittee was merely a suggestion. “The Interoperability Subcommittee’s proposed access priority standards are taken from the PSWAC Report, . . . . T] he [NCC] Steering Committee recommends that the Commission incorporates the standards into its rules.” 62 Read in the context of the NCC Report, then, we believe the proffered table of channel assignments was, in fact, a request to codify that table. 63 Moreover, if, as petitioners suggest, the NCC intended its recommendation as mere 56 PSWN advises that “even federal entities are generally subject to state law for activities entirely within that state’s borders unless the Congress chooses to preempt that right specifically and for a clearly defined purpose.” Id. at 8 § 2.5. 57 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2042 ¶ 64. 58 Id. at 2039 ¶ 55, “Florida, for example, while noting that such a designation ‘has considerable value to the effective and cooperative use’ of mutual aid channels, expressed concern about ‘the degree of specificity and exclusiveness incorporated in the NCC- recommend (sic) naming and use designation . . . .’ For their part, the Joint Commenters asserted that adoption of a table of assignments would be Federal micro- management of a local issue, resulting in the deprivation of the states’ flexibility to address local situations.” (Footnotes omitted). 59 PSWN Petition at 7; see also Powell Petition at 7, “as chair of the Interoperability Subcommittee throughout this discussion within the NCC, I can assure the Commission that a hard and fast table was not the intent of the NCC, rather the intent was to provide a ‘first place to go’ for fast breaking operations of the primary emergency responders . . . during the first critical minutes of a developing incident.” 60 PSWN Petition at 8. 61 Powell Petition at 8, “Of critical importance to [channel designation], the initiating officer need not be a local officer or even an officer from that state; a call for assistance could go out immediately on the law enforcement channel with some hope of getting an immediate response from a law enforcement agency because the channels are standardized across the nation.” 62 NCC Report at 15 (footnote omitted). 63 Id.; see also NCC Report, Appendix D. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 11 guidelines, they do not explain how this would support codifying them as rules. We note that the Commission cannot practically adopt a recommendation it cannot enforce. It can enforce a recommendation that has been adopted as a rule. Further, we ask who would be responsible for maintaining any such table, and note the practical difficulties of administering such a table (e. g., were such a table to be codified, even a minor change to the table would entail notice and comment rulemaking). In addition, we note that the Commission, through establishing nationwide Interoperability channels, designating two Interoperability calling channels, and devoting two channels exclusively to data transmission, attains some of the same benefits that the Petitioners contend channel designation would bring. Petitioners, however, have not demonstrated how mandating channel designation outweighs the inherent inflexibility and burden to local public safety officials; thus, we decline to grant their petition. At the same time, we acknowledge the value of the NCC Interoperability Subcommittee’s deliberations and agree with the petitioners’ that providing the public safety community with the NCC’s “default designation” would serve the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission stands ready to assist in disseminating any NCC “default designation” recommendations to the public safety community. F. Interoperability Channel Capability Requirement 1. Timeframe for Interoperability Capability 24. In the Fourth R& O, the Commission adopted the Project 25 Phase I standard as the digital voice standard for the Interoperability channels. The Commission noted that most commenters supported the Project 25 Phase I standard, 64 and concluded that adopting this standard would further the goal of providing public safety entities access to the Interoperability channels on a near- term basis in a cost- effective manner. 65 The Commission noted its desire to promote the immediate “development and deployment of 700 MHz band public safety equipment or the planning and construction of public safety systems in this band.” 66 The Commission decision was based on its long- held belief that “interoperability signifies the crowning achievement of this proceeding.” 67 25. In its petition for reconsideration, the North America TETRA Forum (“ NATF”) did not retract its acceptance (first expressed in its comments to the Fourth Notice) 68 of Project 25 Phase I as the digital voice standard for the Interoperability channels. Rather, it avers that the Commission erred by failing to establish a reasonable transition period before Interoperability capability becomes mandatory for all 700 MHz band public safety equipment. 69 In this connection, NATF avers that the Commission may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act “[ b] ecause the Commission did not address the significant number of comments in the record regarding the need for a transition period before Phase I 64 See Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2044 ¶ 70; See also Comments to Fourth Notice - North America TETRA Forum Comments at 10- 11 (supported adoption of standard on a short- term basis); Nokia Comments at 6; Com-Net Ericsson Comments at 15; Orange County Comments at 4; E. F. Johnson Comments at 2; Ronald J. Gillory (Gillory) Comments at 1; Buchanan Comments at 5; Mesa Comments at 7; Kenwood Comments at 11; NCC Comments at 17; Florida Comments at 5; APCO Comments at 4; IACP Comments at 2; Motorola Comments at 4; FLEWUG Comments at 3; PSWN Comments at 9; Project 25 Steering Committee Comments at 3. 65 Fourth Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 16918 ¶ 46. 66 Fourth R& O 16 FCC Rcd at 2048 ¶ 78. 67 First Report and Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd. at 156 ¶ 7. 68 NATF Comments to Fourth Notice at 6, “NATF agrees with the Commission’s recommendation of using Project 25, Phase I for Interoperability Channels with the one voice per 12. 5 kHz of bandwidth.” 69 NATF Petition at 2. NATF contends that the Commission should have provided a “transition” period before the interoperability capability requirement becomes effective. Id. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 12 capability becomes mandatory, . . . .” 70 Furthermore, NATF asserts that the Commission’s approach stifles competition and improperly favors Motorola by, in effect, giving that equipment manufacturer a five- year “head start” over other manufacturers. 71 Specifically, NATF contends that we must grant a transition period until 2006, during which time non- interoperable equipment could be type certified and used, because: manufacturers of 6.25 kHz equipment need a transition period before Phase I capability becomes mandatory in order to have the time to develop dual mode handsets. 72 For this reason, according to NATF, the Commission should grant a transition period until 2006 during which period public safety users can deploy 6.25 kHz spectrally efficient technology without Project 25 Phase I interoperability capability. 73 To do otherwise, it suggests, would be to “sacrifice competition and spectrum efficiency, in favor of realizing Interoperability six years before the earliest date implementation will become a practical necessity.” 74 26. In disagreeing with NATF, the Association of Public- Safety Communications Officials International (“ APCO”) notes that “[ l] icensees may still operate using any technology they wish on the General Use portion of the [700 MHz public safety] band (including TETRA), 75 but they must be able to communicate using Project 25 Phase I standard on the Interoperability channels. Without that standard, there is no Interoperability.” 76 Furthermore, APCO contends, [t] he TETRA Forum claims that they will not be able to produce TETRA equipment with the Project 25 Phase I standard mode for Interoperability channel use until 2006. Therefore, for no apparent reason other than to prevent other manufacturers from obtaining a “head start,” TETRA Forum asks the Commission to establish a “transition period” during which equipment could be marketed for use in the 700 MHz public safety band even though it does not have the capability to operate in the Interoperability mode. 77 27. We do not believe that NATF’s claim concerning the need for a transition period until 2006 before Interoperability equipment should be required is consistent with one of the fundamental goals of this proceeding. The goal of Interoperability was the starting point of this proceeding and public discourse that the Commission has encouraged. Specifically, to provide formality to the NCC and to ensure participation by representatives of all elements of the public safety community, we chartered the 70 Id. at 8. 71 Id. at 6. 72 Id. at 4- 5. 73 Id. at 7. 74 Id. at 9. 75 TETRA, the European Technical Standards Institute 392 TErrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) system, is a four-slot Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) standard in which four voice channels are realized with a 25 kHz bandwidth. See, e. g., NCC Report at 17 ¶ 51. 76 APCO Response to Petitions for Reconsideration at 3. 77 Id. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 13 NCC pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 78 and required the NCC’s technical- standard recommendations to be ANSI accredited. 79 Furthermore, as APCO points out, our rules do not preclude type certification of TETRA equipment so long as it is capable of interoperability on the narrowband Interoperability channels. Rather, each potential manufacturer of 700 MHz band public safety equipment is governed by its own business plan and judgment and we decline to adopt an arbitrary transition period merely to accommodate the business plans of some TETRA manufacturers. 28. The interoperability capability requirement provides an equal incentive for all potential equipment manufacturers to produce compliant equipment at the earliest possible time. NATF provides no basis for delaying the public safety community’s access to interoperable 700 MHz band public safety equipment. We are concerned that granting NATF’s request would allow manufacturers to populate the 700 MHz public safety band with non- interoperable equipment, thereby contradicting one of the primary goals of implementation of the 700 MHz public safety band spectrum. 80 29. In addition, we find that NATF’s Administrative Procedure Act claim is not persuasive. Back in 1998, the Commission adopted the interoperability capability requirement, signaling that “all narrowband mobile and portable 700 MHz public safety band radios [must] be capable of operating on all of the narrowband nationwide Interoperability channels.” 81 The only question remaining was which standard the Commission would adopt. As soon as the Commission made that decision in Fourth R& O, the interoperability capability requirement became effective henceforth. In other words, industry has known since 1998 that the Commission has an Interoperability capability requirement; the only remaining question related to which standard the Commission would adopt for immediate implementation. We note that Nokia did not file a petition for reconsideration of our 1998 decision regarding the interoperability capability requirement. Had Nokia been concerned about a transition period to whatever standard the Commission adopted for the Interoperability channels, Nokia should have raised that issue, forcefully, 78 See Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U. S. C. App. 2 (1988). The Commission cosponsored the NCC along with the United States Department of Justice, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, the United States Treasury Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 79 The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), describes itself as a private sector organization that, among other things, serves as the policy forum for the U. S. standards and conformity assessment communities, accredits domestic standards developers, approves standards as American National Standards, and safeguards the integrity and value of the American National Standard designation by requiring due process, balance of interests, consensus and openness to all directly and materially affected interests in the private and public sectors. See Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 8059, 8064 ¶ 8 (1999). The Commission clarified that the NCC could either become ANSI- accredited or make use of the work of existing ANSI- accredited Standards Developers. Id at 8065 ¶ 11. 80 As noted, “[ i] nteroperability signifies the crowning achievement of this proceeding.” First Report and Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 156 ¶ 7. See also Dataradio Corporation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 22283 (WTB/ PSPWD 2000) recon. denied, Order on Reconsideration, DA 01- 2843 (WTB, rel. Dec. 10, 2001), which denied petitioner’s request to be allowed to manufacture narrowband mobile and portable transmitters incapable of operating on the narrowband Interoperability channels. The Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) of the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau based its decision, inter alia, out of concern that public safety entities that purchase non- interoperability capable equipment “will be reluctant, perhaps financially unable, to buy radios that comply with the 700 MHz interoperability standards,” thereby jeopardizing the Commission’s overall interoperability plan. Id. at 22287 ¶ 11 (footnote omitted). The Division also noted that in adopting Section 90. 547, the Commission “foreclosed users from the option to elect whether or not to purchase 700 MHz radios without interoperability capability.” Id. at ¶ 9. 81 47 C. F. R. § 90.547 (1998). The record reflects that NATF raised issues during the Fourth Notice comment period that might have been more timely presented several years earlier. In this connection, NATF’s comments were not responsive to the issues raised in the Fourth Notice, and instead, sought to re- open matters decided several years earlier. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 14 since 1998. Moreover, type certification for all narrowband equipment was deferred pending the adoption of a digital voice standard for Interoperability channels, which is precisely why the Interoperability standard became effective as soon as possible after adoption in January 2001. Whichever Interoperability standard was adopted would become effective immediately so that public safety entities could use the 700 MHz band where it was unencumbered by broadcast television stations. 82 By comparison, the Commission elected not to adopt a standard for the General Use channels in the Fourth R& O after noting that the Fourth Notice did not address this subject. 83 2. Com- Net Ericsson - Petition for Declaratory Ruling 30. On May 10, 2001, Com- Net Ericsson 84 filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling believing that Section 90.547 of the Commission’s Rules, as promulgated in the Fourth R& O, does not adequately reflect the Commission’s intent. 85 Specifically, Com- Net Ericsson asserts that the wording of the rule contradicts the language of the rule preamble. In the preamble to the rule, the Commission stated, “[ f] inally, we adopt our proposal that end user equipment designed for data is not required to be voice-capable. Further, end user equipment designed for voice is not required to be data capable.” 86 31. Com- Net Ericsson suggests that the wording of the rule is less clear than the language in the preamble, where the Commission made clear that voice- capable equipment need not be data- capable, and data- capable equipment need not be voice- capable. We believe that Com- Net Ericsson has correctly pointed out a potential source of conflict or confusion in reading this rule provision. Therefore, on our own motion, we will amend Section 90.547 to reflect our intention as reflected in the preamble of the Fourth R& O. We will also revise the rule to clarify that equipment that operates only on 700 MHz public safety wideband channels is not subject to the narrowband interoperability capability requirements of Section 90.547. G. Other Matters 1. Section 90.548, Interoperability technical standards 32. Motorola seeks clarification of Section 90.548 (a)( ii). Motorola contends that the rule as published in the Federal Register 87 requires data devices to conform to both the packet data and the 82 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2044 ¶ 70. Having determined in 1998 that radios working in the 700 MHz Public Safety band must be interoperability- capable, the question then became, which technology standard ought the Commission adopt? The Fourth R& O resolved this question and we do not believe it is prudent or in the public interest to delay realization of interoperability, where available, any longer. 83 Id. at 2048 ¶ 79. 84 On May 22, 2001, the Commission received a letter informing it that “Com- Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. was acquired by a parent holding company of Tyco International, Ltd., a Fortune 500 company. The entity that formerly operated under the name Com- Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. will now be operating under the name M/ A- COM Private Radio Systems, Inc.” For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we shall continue to refer to Com- Net Ericsson, as that is the name the company operated under when it initially filed its petition. 85 See Com- Net Ericsson Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 5. On May 24, 2001, Com- Net Ericsson filed a copy of this pleading in the captioned docket (for informational purposes). See May 24, 2001, Letter from Robert J. Speidel, Com- Net Ericsson, to Secretary, FCC. In a separate May 24, 2001, letter, Com- Net Ericsson modified its Petition. 86 Fourth R& O, 16 FCC Rcd at 2052 ¶ 90. 87 66 Fed. Reg. 10632, 10636 (February 16, 2001). 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 15 circuit data descriptions. 88 Motorola believes that requiring manufacturers to support both formats within a single device will prohibit manufacturers from introducing any compliant data technologies on the narrowband Interoperability channels. 89 Motorola appears to suggest that by adding the word, “or” between the two formats, the problem will be eliminated, as manufacturers can adopt one or the other protocol. 90 33. In general support of Motorola’s request for clarification, Com- Net Ericsson believes that by adding “or” and deleting the semicolon between the packet data and the circuit data specifications, the Commission eliminates the apparent requirement to incorporate two different data formats in order to comply with Section 90. 548. 91 Yet, Com- Net Ericsson points out that such a change would allow a manufacturer, as opposed to the Commission, to determine which format to incorporate in its radios, regardless of what the users and other manufacturers decide is optimal for operations on the narrowband data Interoperability channels. According to Com- Net, the possibility exists that fully compliant radios made by different manufacturers might not be able to communicate with each other on the narrowband data Interoperability channels. 34. On June 6, 2001, the NCC recommended that the Commission delete reference to circuit data specification and adopt packet data specifications exclusively. 92 The NCC noted that, “packet data is now so ubiquitous in the industry that there no longer is any need for, indeed any conceivable use for, circuit data capability in a 700 MHz public safety radio. Thus, requiring both circuit data and packet data capability in a radio – as a literal reading of the [] rule may suggest – would serve only to add to the cost, complexity and size of the radio, all to no purpose.” 93 35. For the reasons set forth above, we agree that the rule should be clarified so that reference to circuit data capability is deleted. This action will promote interoperability, and lessen cost, confusion and potential inefficiency among manufacturers of 700 MHz public safety band radio equipment. 2. Section 90.553, Encryption 36. On January 23, 2001, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published the Project 25 DES encryption standards. 94 Our rules will be amended to note this change, from interim standards (IS) to permanent ANSI standards. 3. Section 90.531, Band plan 37. We are taking this opportunity to correct minor publication errors, including Section 90.531( c)( 1), wideband interoperability channels. The Commission intended to designate wideband 88 Motorola Request for Clarification at 3. 89 Id. 90 Id. at 4. 91 Com- Net Ericsson response to Motorola Request for Clarification at 1. 92 June 6, 2001, Letter from NCC Chair Kathleen Wallman. 93 Id. 94 ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. AAAA- A- 2001 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 16 channels 82- 84 for nationwide interoperability licensing and use 95 but the current rule refers to wideband channels 83- 84. We will also revise the rule to clarify that wideband interoperability channels will be available for licensing and use after the Commission adopts a wideband interoperability standard. 38. We also are correcting Section 90.531( d), Combining channels. Through an inadvertent oversight, it now appears that Section 90.531( d)( 1) and (2) were deleted from the rules. We are hereby restoring (1) and (2), with minor corrections. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 39. Appendix A contains a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) with respect to the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 96 the Commission has prepared the analysis of the possible impact on small entities of the rules set forth in this document. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 40. This Memorandum Opinion and Order does not contain any new or modified information collection. Therefore, it is not subject to the requirements for a paperwork reduction analysis, and the Commission has not performed one. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 41. Authority for the issuance of this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order is contained in Sections 4( i), 4( j), 7( a), 302, 303( b), 303( f), 303( g), 303( r), 307( e), 332( a), and 332( c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 154( j), 157( a), 302, 303( b), 303( f), 303( g), 303( r), 307( e), 332( a), 332( c). 42. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. Part 90 IS AMENDED as specified in Appendix C. 43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order will be effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. 44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Section 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1. 429( i) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.429( i), that the petitions for reconsideration, clarification, and/ or a declaratory ruling filed by Motorola, the North America TETRA Forum, Sergeant John S. Powell, the Public Safety Wireless 95 Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19844, 19857 ¶ 32 (2000). 96 See 5 U. S. C. § 601, et seq. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 17 Network, Com- Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and otherwise ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 APPENDIX A Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated into the Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fourth R& O and Fifth NPRM) 2 of this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Fifth NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. 3 The present Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) conforms to the RFA. 4 A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order: Our objective is to promote the early and efficient use of public safety spectrum in the frequencies at 764- 776 MHz and 794- 806 MHz (the 700 MHz band). Specifically, this action will: promote spectrum efficiency through allowing secondary trunking on the Interoperability channels; promote efficient administration of the Interoperability channels by state or local entities; permit encryption on the Interoperability channels; and establish digital voice standards and efficiency standards for the Interoperability channels. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA: No comments were submitted in response to the IRFA. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply: The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 7 A small business concern is one which : (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 8 A small organization is 1 See 5 U. S. C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 2 16 FCC Rcd 2020, 2060 (2001). 3 Id. 4 See 5 U. S. C. § 604. 5 5 U. S. C. § 603( b)( 3). 6 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6). 7 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (incorporating by reference the definition “small business concern” in 15 U. S. C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition( s) in the Federal Register.” 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3). 8 Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 632 (1996). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 2 generally “any not- for- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 9 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. 10 "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000." 11 As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. 12 This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety- six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. 13 The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (ninety- one percent) are small entities. Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. 14 Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by 47 U. S. C. § 337. Non- Federal governmental entities as well as private businesses are licensees for these services. All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity. 15 Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the SBA's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. 16 Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U. S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small 9 5 U. S. C. § 601( 4). 10 1992 Economic Census, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the SBA). 11 5 U. S. C. § 601( 5). 12 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments." 13 Id. 14 See Subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 90. 1 - 90. 22. Police licensees include 26, 608 licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and facsimile (printed material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include 40, 512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325 forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications facilities. 15 5 U. S. C. § 601( 5). 16 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 3663. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 3 entities. 17 We do not have information that indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. However, Motorola and Ericsson, two of the six manufacturers, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and, thus, we conclude that these manufacturers would not qualify as small businesses. Television Stations. This proceeding will affect full service TV station licensees (Channels 60- 69), TV translator facilities, and low power TV (LPTV) stations. The SBA defines a TV broadcasting station that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. 18 TV broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by TV to the public, except cable and other pay TV services. 19 Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other TV stations. 20 Also included are establishments primarily engaged in TV broadcasting and which produce taped TV program materials. 21 Separate establishments primarily engaged in producing taped TV program materials are classified under another NAICS Code. 22 There were 1,509 TV stations operating in the nation in 1992. 23 That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,551 operating TV broadcasting stations in the nation as of February 28, 1997. 24 For 1992 25 the number of TV stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments, or approximately 77 percent of the 1,509 establishments. 26 There are currently 95 full service analog TV stations, either operating or with approved construction permits on 17 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC 3663. 18 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, SIC 4833 (1996). 19 Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series UC92- S- 1, Appendix A- 9 (1995) (ESA 1992 Census). 20 See Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), at 283, which describes TV Broadcasting Station (SIC 4833) as: Establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational and other television stations. Also included here are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials. 21 ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A- 9. 22 ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A- 9; NAICS Code 51211 (Motion Picture and Video Tape Production); NAICS Codes 51229, 53249, 56131, 71111, 71112, 71132, 71141m 71151, 561399 (Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (producers of live radio and TV programs)). 23 Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22953 (1998), at Appendix C; ESA 1992 Census at Appendix A- 9. 24 Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) at Appendix C. 25 A census for communications establishments is performed every five years ending with a "2" or "7." See ESA 1992 Census at III. 26 The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number of small business establishments because the relevant Census categories stopped at $9, 999, 999 and began at $10, 000, 000. No category for $10.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as is possible to calculate with the available information. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 4 channels 60- 69. 27 In the DTV Proceeding, we adopted a DTV Table that provides only 15 allotments for DTV stations on channels 60- 69 in the continental United States. 28 There are seven DTV allotments in channels 60- 69 outside the continental United States. 29 Thus, the rules will affect approximately 117 TV stations; approximately 90 of those stations may be considered small businesses. 30 These estimates may overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from non- TV affiliated companies. We recognize that the rules may also impact minority- owned and women- owned stations, some of which may be small entities. In 2000, minorities owned and controlled 23 (1. 9 percent) of 1,288 full power commercial TV stations in the United States. 31 According to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, in 1987 women owned and controlled 27 (1.9 percent) of 1,342 commercial and non- commercial TV stations in the United States. 32 There are currently 4,977 TV translator stations and 1,952 LPTV stations. 33 Approximately 1,309 low power TV and TV translator stations are on channels 60- 69 34 which could be affected by policies in this proceeding. The Commission does not collect financial information of any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these broadcast facilities. We will assume for present purposes, however, that most of these broadcast facilities, including LPTV stations, could be classified as small businesses. As indicated earlier, approximately 77 percent of TV stations are designated under this analysis as potentially small businesses. Given this, LPTV and TV translator stations would not likely have revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as small businesses. 27 See Allocation Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 14142. 28 See DTV Proceeding, 12 FCC Rcd 14588. 29 See Allocation Notice 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n. 5. 30 We use the 77 percent figure of TV stations operating at less than $10 million for 1992 and apply it to the 117 TV stations to arrive at 90 stations categorized as small businesses. 31 Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the United States, U. S. Dep't of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, The Minority Telecommunications Development Program (" MTDP") (Dec. 2000). MTDP considers minority ownership as ownership of more than 50 percent of a broadcast corporation's stock, voting control in a broadcast partnership, or ownership of a broadcasting property as an individual proprietor. The minority groups included in this report are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. 32 See Comments of American Women in Radio and TV, Inc. in MM Docket No. 94- 149 and MM Docket No. 91-140 at 4 n. 4 (filed May 17, 1995) (citing 1987 Economic Censuses, Women- Owned Business, WB87- 1, U. S. Dep't of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August 1990 (based on 1987 Census)). After the 1987 Census report, the Census Bureau did not provide data by particular communications services (four- digit SIC Code), but rather by the general two- digit SIC Code for communications (# 48). Consequently, since 1987, the Census Bureau has not updated data on ownership of broadcast facilities by women, nor does the Commission collect such data. However, we sought comment on whether the Annual Ownership Report Form 323 should be amended to include information on the gender and race of broadcast license owners. Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 2788, 2797 (1995). 33 See Allocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22986 at Appendix C. 34 See Allocation Notice at 12 FCC Rcd 14142, n. 3. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 5 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: The Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order does not adopt rules that will entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/ or third- party consultation. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U. S. C. §603. The NCC, comprised of representatives from government, the public safety community, and the communications equipment manufacturing industry, was chartered by the FCC as a Federal Advisory Committee, effective February 25, 1999. The NCC made recommendations concerning various issues addressed in the Fourth Notice. We note that in several instances, to benefit all entities, including small entities, we did not propose a particular recommendation. In formulating the rules in the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, we reduced economic burdens wherever possible. The regulatory burdens that we have adopted are necessary to ensure that the public receives the public safety benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient manner. For example, we have adopted technical and operational rules that will promote competition in the equipment market. We believe that the rules must be as competitively and technologically neutral as possible, in order to allow for competing equipment designs and to avoid hindering future innovative technological developments. We note that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense spectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs. Conversely, although wider tolerances may allow manufacturers to use less costly component parts in transmitting equipment, they also may result in less efficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe that the technical regulations we adopt herein provide a reasonable balance of these concerns. Under the regional planning process, frequency coordination is competitive. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private organization recommends to the Commission the most appropriate frequencies for private land mobile radio service applicants. 35 Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of the applications and resolving potential interference problems at the source. We continue to believe that the encouragement of competition among coordinators promotes cost- based pricing of coordination services and provides incentives for enhancing service quality. Therefore, we will continue to allow any of the certified public safety coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band. Recognizing the budgetary constraints that public safety entities face as a matter of course, we have adopted rules that encourage broad- based efforts, such as projects on the state and regional level, to coordinate and consolidate operations that are critical to meeting the needs of public safety with cost effective, spectrally- efficient radio systems. For example, we have adopted permissive trunking on certain public safety channels in the 700 MHz band. Trunked systems provide service to many governmental entities in a specific geographic area and offer a higher degree of efficiency than some smaller, non- trunked systems. A difficulty in establishing these types of shared systems is that they require individual agencies to 35 See Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 83- 737, Report and Order, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986). 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 6 surrender some autonomy in return for the efficiencies and better coverage of a larger system. In addition, the funding required to develop the infrastructure necessary to support some of the newer technologies is often too great to permit small public safety agencies to participate in new, sophisticated, spectrum efficient, wireless radio systems. These same agencies, however, might be able to participate in a county- wide or state- wide system. For these, and other, reasons, we encourage the use of shared systems in the public safety community. 36 Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, including this SFRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, see 5 U. S. C. § 801( a)( 1)( A). In addition, the commission will send a copy of the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order and SFRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U. S. C. § 604( b). 36 Area- wide licenses often encourage the rapid development and deployment of innovative services and facilitate Interoperability and operational standards, while allowing economies of scale that encourage the development of low cost equipment. See, e. g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service, GN Docket No. 96- 228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814 (1997). 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTIES Petitions for Reconsideration and/ or Clarification were filed by: Motorola North America TETRA Forum Sergeant John S. Powell Public Safety Wireless Network Oppositions and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration were filed by: Association of Public- Safety Communications Officials, International Com- Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. Marconi Wireless Nokia Inc. Simoco Digital Systems Petition for Declaratory Ruling was filed by: Com- Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 APPENDIX C FINAL RULES Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follow: 1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Sections 4( i), 11, 303( g), 303( r), and 332( c)( 7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. 154( i), 161, 303( g), 303( r), 332( c)( 7). 2. Section 90. 531 is revised to read as follows: § 90.531 Band plan. * * * * * (b)( 1) * * * * * * * * (iii) Narrowband trunking Interoperability channels. The following Interoperability channel pairs may be combined with the appropriate adjacent secondary trunking channel pairs and used in trunked mode on a secondary basis to conventional interoperability operations: 23/ 983, 24/ 984, 103/ 1063, 104/ 1064, 183/ 1143, 184/ 1144, 263/ 1223, 264/ 1224, 657/ 1617, 658/ 1618, 737/ 1697, 738/ 1698, 817/ 1777, 818/ 1778, 897/ 1857, 898/ 1858. For every ten general use channels trunked at a station, entities may obtain a license to operate in the trunked mode on two of the above contiguous Interoperability channel pairs. The maximum number of Interoperability channel pairs that can be trunked at any one location is eight. * * * * * (b)( 7) Secondary trunking channels. The following channel pairs are reserved for secondary trunking operations: 21/ 981, 22/ 982, 101/ 1061, 102/ 1062, 181/ 1141, 182/ 1142, 261/ 1221, 262/ 1222, 659/ 1619, 660/ 1620, 739/ 1699, 740/ 1700, 819/ 1779, 820/ 1780, 899/ 1859, and 900/ 1860. They may be used only in combination with the appropriate adjacent Interoperability channel pairs specified in (b)( 1)( iii) of this section in trunked systems. * * * * * (c)( 1) Wideband interoperability channels. The following wideband channels are designated for nationwide interoperability licensing and use, but are not available for licensing or use pending Commission adoption of a wideband interoperability standard: 28- 30, 37- 39, 46- 48, 73- 75, 82- 84, 91- 93, 148- 150, 157- 159, 166- 168, 193- 195, 202- 204, 211- 213. * * * * * (d) Combining channels. Except as noted in this section, at the discretion of the appropriate regional planning committee, contiguous channels may be used in combination in order to accommodate requirements for larger bandwidth emissions, in accordance with this paragraph. Interoperability 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 2 channels may not be combined with channels in another group except for channels for secondary trunking channels. (1) Narrowband. Two or four contiguous narrowband (6. 25 kHz) channels may be used in combination as 12.5 kHz or 25 kHz channels, respectively. The lower (in frequency) channel for two channel combinations must be an odd (i. e., 1, 3, 5 ...) numbered channel. The lowest (in frequency) channel for four channel combinations must be a channel whose number is equal to 1+( 4xn), where n = any integer between 0 and 479, inclusive (e. g., channel number 1, 5, ... 1917). Channel combinations are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a hyphen, e. g., "1- 2" for a two channel combination and "1- 4" for a four channel combination. (2) Wideband. Two or three contiguous wideband (50 kHz) channels may be used in combination as 100 kHz or 150 kHz channels, respectively. The lower (in frequency) channel for two channel combinations must be a channel whose number is equal to 1+( 3xn) or 2+( 3xn), where n = any integer between 0 and 79, inclusive (e. g., channel number 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, ... 238, 239). The lowest (in frequency) channel for three channel combinations must be a channel whose number is equal to 1+( 3xn), where n = any integer between 0 and 79, inclusive (e. g., channel number 1, 4, 7, 10, ... 238). Channel combinations are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a hyphen, e. g., "1- 2" for a two channel combination and "1- 3" for a three channel combination. * * * * * 3. Section 90.531( b)( 2) is amended by removing the following channels: 659, 660, 739, 740, 819, 820, 899, 900, 1619, 1620, 1699, 1700, 1779, 1780, 1859, and 1860; and adding the following channels: 37, 38, 61, 62, 77, 78, 141, 142, 221, 222, 277, 278, 301, 302, 317, 318, 997, 998, 1021, 1022,1037, 1038, 1101, 1102, 1181, 1182, 1237, 1238, 1261, 1262, 1277, and 1278. 4. Section 90. 547 is revised to read as follows: § 90.547 Narrowband interoperability channel capability requirement. (a) Except as noted below, mobile and portable transmitters operating on narrowband channels in the 764- 776 MHz and 794- 806 MHz frequency bands must be capable of operating on all of the designated nationwide narrowband Interoperability channels pursuant to the standards specified in this part. (1) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only on the Low Power Channels specified in Sections 90.531 (b)( 3) and (4) are exempt from this Interoperability channel requirement. (2) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only in the data mode must be capable of operation on the data Interoperability channels specified in Section 90.531( b)( 1)( i); but need not be capable of voice operation on other Interoperability channels. (3) Mobile and portable transmitters that are designed to operate only in the voice mode do not have to operate on the data Interoperability channels specified in Section 90.531( b)( 1)( i). (b) Mobile and portable transmitters designed for data are not required to be voice capable, and vice versa. 5. Section 90. 548 is added to read as follows: 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 3 § 90.548 Interoperability Technical Standards (a) Transmitters required (See 90.547) to be capable of operating on narrowband Interoperability channels in the 764- 776 and 794- 806 MHz band (See 90.531) shall conform such operations to the following technical standards: (1) Transmitters designed for voice operation shall include a 12.5 kHz bandwidth mode of operation conforming to the following standards: ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BAAA- 1 (common air interface) for operation in the 12. 5 kHz FDM mode; ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BABA (vocoder). (2) Transmitters designed for data transmission shall include a 12.5 kHz bandwidth mode of operation conforming to the following standards: ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BAEA (data overview); ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BAEB (packet data specification); ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BAEA (radio control protocol); ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. BAAA- 1 (common air interface) for operation in the 12.5 kHz FDM mode. (b) Copies of the standards listed in this Section that are incorporated by reference can be purchased from the American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC Headquarters, 1819 L Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. (c) Copies of the standards listed in this Section that are incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington D. C. 6. Section 90.553 is revised to read as follows: § 90.553 Encryption (a) Encryption is permitted on all but the two nationwide Interoperability calling channels. Radios employing encryption must have a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible control that permits the radio user to disable encryption. (b) If Encryption is employed then the following encryption protocol must be used: ANSI/ TIA/ EIA 102. AAAA- A- 2001. (c) Copies of the standards listed in this Section that are incorporated by reference can be purchased from TIA/ EIA, 2500 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, 22201; Global Engineering Documents, 155 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112; or the American National Standards Institute, 1819 L Street, N. W., 6 th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 APPENDIX D Public Safety 700 MHz Band – Spectrum Designations The instant Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order does not change the amount of spectrum designated for each use. By way of reference, the twenty- four megahertz of spectrum allocated for public safety services in the 700 MHz band is designated, as a the result of the Commission’s actions in the Fourth Report and Order, as follows: 700 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY BAND— SPECTRUM DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATED PURPOSE AMOUNT OF SPECTRUM NARROWBAND (6.25 kHZ) WIDEBAND (50 kHZ) GENERAL USE 12.5 MHz (52.1 %) 7.7 MHz (1232 channels) 4.8 MHz (96 channels) INTEROPERABILITY (“ IO”) 2.6 MHz (10.8 %) 0.8 MHz (128 channels) non- IO secondary trunking • 32 of these 128 channels, which equates to eight 12. 5 kHz channel pairs, may be added to non- IO trunked systems • non- IO trunking is secondary to IO 1.8 MHz (36 channels) SECONDARY TRUNKING 0.2 MHz ( 0.8 %) 0.2 MHz (32 channels) non- IO trunked 25 kHz systems • 32 non- IO channels (eight 12. 5 kHz pairs adjacent to the eight 12. 5 kHz IO channels above) that may be added to non- IO trunked systems • available only to licensees of the eight 12.5 kHz IO channels (above) that use non- IO trunked 25 kHz systems • secondary to IO - 0 - STATE LICENSE 2.4 MHz (10.0 %) 2.4 MHz (384 channels) - 0 - LOW POWER 0.3 MHz (1.3 %) 0.3 MHz (48 channels) - 0 - RESERVE 6.0 MHz (25.0 %) 0.6 MHz (96 channels) 5.4 MHz ( 108 channels) T O T A L 24 MHz (100 %) 12 MHz (1920 channels) 12 MHz (240 channels) 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 APPENDIX E Public Safety 700 MHz Band – Segmentation and Channelization Table 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 2 764 MHz 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 3 5 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 3 8 1 3 9 1 4 0 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 4 5 1 4 6 1 4 7 1 4 8 1 4 9 1 5 0 1 5 1 1 5 2 1 5 3 1 5 4 1 5 5 1 5 6 1 5 7 1 5 8 1 5 9 1 6 0 1 6 1 1 6 2 1 6 3 1 6 4 1 6 5 1 6 6 1 6 7 1 6 8 1 6 9 1 7 0 1 7 1 1 7 2 1 7 3 1 7 4 1 7 5 1 7 6 1 7 7 1 7 8 1 7 9 1 8 0 1 8 1 1 8 2 1 8 3 1 8 4 1 8 5 1 8 6 1 8 7 1 8 8 1 8 9 1 9 0 1 9 1 1 9 2 1 9 3 1 9 4 1 9 5 1 9 6 1 9 7 1 9 8 1 9 9 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 4 2 0 5 2 0 6 2 0 7 2 0 8 2 0 9 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 5 2 1 6 2 1 7 2 1 8 2 1 9 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 2 6 2 2 7 2 2 8 2 2 9 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 5 2 3 6 2 3 7 2 3 8 2 3 9 2 4 0 2 4 1 2 4 2 2 4 3 2 4 4 2 4 5 2 4 6 2 4 7 2 4 8 2 4 9 2 5 0 2 5 1 2 5 2 2 5 3 2 5 4 2 5 5 2 5 6 2 5 7 2 5 8 2 5 9 2 6 0 2 6 1 2 6 2 2 6 3 2 6 4 2 6 5 2 6 6 2 6 7 2 6 8 2 6 9 2 7 0 2 7 1 2 7 2 2 7 3 2 7 4 2 7 5 2 7 6 2 7 7 2 7 8 2 7 9 2 8 0 2 8 1 2 8 2 2 8 3 2 8 4 2 8 5 2 8 6 2 8 7 2 8 8 2 8 9 2 9 0 2 9 1 2 9 2 2 9 3 2 9 4 2 9 5 2 9 6 2 9 7 2 9 8 2 9 9 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 3 3 0 4 3 0 5 3 0 6 3 0 7 3 0 8 3 0 9 3 1 0 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 3 1 6 3 1 7 3 1 8 3 1 9 3 2 0 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 6 3 2 7 3 2 8 3 2 9 3 3 0 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 6 3 3 7 3 3 8 3 3 9 3 4 0 3 4 1 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 6 3 4 7 3 4 8 3 4 9 3 5 0 3 5 1 3 5 2 3 5 3 3 5 4 3 5 5 3 5 6 3 5 7 3 5 8 3 5 9 3 6 0 3 6 1 3 6 2 3 6 3 3 6 4 3 6 5 3 6 6 3 6 7 3 6 8 3 6 9 3 7 0 3 7 1 3 7 2 3 7 3 3 7 4 3 7 5 3 7 6 3 7 7 3 7 8 3 7 9 3 8 0 3 8 1 3 8 2 3 8 3 3 8 4 3 8 5 3 8 6 3 8 7 3 8 8 3 8 9 3 9 0 3 9 1 3 9 2 3 9 3 3 9 4 3 9 5 3 9 6 3 9 7 3 9 8 3 9 9 4 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4 0 5 4 0 6 4 0 7 4 0 8 4 0 9 4 1 0 4 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 5 4 1 6 4 1 7 4 1 8 4 1 9 4 2 0 4 2 1 4 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 5 4 2 6 4 2 7 4 2 8 4 2 9 4 3 0 4 3 1 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 3 8 4 3 9 4 4 0 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 6 4 4 7 4 4 8 4 4 9 4 5 0 4 5 1 4 5 2 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 6 4 5 7 4 5 8 4 5 9 4 6 0 4 6 1 4 6 2 4 6 3 4 6 4 4 6 5 4 6 6 4 6 7 4 6 8 4 6 9 4 7 0 4 7 1 4 7 2 4 7 3 4 7 4 4 7 5 4 7 6 4 7 7 4 7 8 4 7 9 4 8 0 767 MHz 767 MHz 773 MHz 773 MHz 4 8 1 4 8 2 4 8 3 4 8 4 4 8 5 4 8 6 4 8 7 4 8 8 4 8 9 4 9 0 4 9 1 4 9 2 4 9 3 4 9 4 4 9 5 4 9 6 4 9 7 4 9 8 4 9 9 5 0 0 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 3 5 0 4 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 0 7 5 0 8 5 0 9 5 1 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 7 5 1 8 5 1 9 5 2 0 5 2 1 5 2 2 5 2 3 5 2 4 5 2 5 5 2 6 5 2 7 5 2 8 5 2 9 5 3 0 5 3 1 5 3 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 6 5 3 7 5 3 8 5 3 9 5 4 0 5 4 1 5 4 2 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 6 5 4 7 5 4 8 5 4 9 5 5 0 5 5 1 5 5 2 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 7 5 5 8 5 5 9 5 6 0 5 6 1 5 6 2 5 6 3 5 6 4 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 7 5 6 8 5 6 9 5 7 0 5 7 1 5 7 2 5 7 3 5 7 4 5 7 5 5 7 6 5 7 7 5 7 8 5 7 9 5 8 0 5 8 1 5 8 2 5 8 3 5 8 4 5 8 5 5 8 6 5 8 7 5 8 8 5 8 9 5 9 0 5 9 1 5 9 2 5 9 3 5 9 4 5 9 5 5 9 6 5 9 7 5 9 8 5 9 9 6 0 0 6 0 1 6 0 2 6 0 3 6 0 4 6 0 5 6 0 6 6 0 7 6 0 8 6 0 9 6 1 0 6 1 1 6 1 2 6 1 3 6 1 4 6 1 5 6 1 6 6 1 7 6 1 8 6 1 9 6 2 0 6 2 1 6 2 2 6 2 3 6 2 4 6 2 5 6 2 6 6 2 7 6 2 8 6 2 9 6 3 0 6 3 1 6 3 2 6 3 3 6 3 4 6 3 5 6 3 6 6 3 7 6 3 8 6 3 9 6 4 0 6 4 1 6 4 2 6 4 3 6 4 4 6 4 5 6 4 6 6 4 7 6 4 8 6 4 9 6 5 0 6 5 1 6 5 2 6 5 3 6 5 4 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 5 7 6 5 8 6 5 9 6 6 0 6 6 1 6 6 2 6 6 3 6 6 4 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 8 6 6 9 6 7 0 6 7 1 6 7 2 6 7 3 6 7 4 6 7 5 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 8 6 7 9 6 8 0 6 8 1 6 8 2 6 8 3 6 8 4 6 8 5 6 8 6 6 8 7 6 8 8 6 8 9 6 9 0 6 9 1 6 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 4 6 9 5 6 9 6 6 9 7 6 9 8 6 9 9 7 0 0 7 0 1 7 0 2 7 0 3 7 0 4 7 0 5 7 0 6 7 0 7 7 0 8 7 0 9 7 1 0 7 1 1 7 1 2 7 1 3 7 1 4 7 1 5 7 1 6 7 1 7 7 1 8 7 1 9 7 2 0 7 2 1 7 2 2 7 2 3 7 2 4 7 2 5 7 2 6 7 2 7 7 2 8 7 2 9 7 3 0 7 3 1 7 3 2 7 3 3 7 3 4 7 3 5 7 3 6 7 3 7 7 3 8 7 3 9 7 4 0 7 4 1 7 4 2 7 4 3 7 4 4 7 4 5 7 4 6 7 4 7 7 4 8 7 4 9 7 5 0 7 5 1 7 5 2 7 5 3 7 5 4 7 5 5 7 5 6 7 5 7 7 5 8 7 5 9 7 6 0 7 6 1 7 6 2 7 6 3 7 6 4 7 6 5 7 6 6 7 6 7 7 6 8 7 6 9 7 7 0 7 7 1 7 7 2 7 7 3 7 7 4 7 7 5 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 9 7 8 0 7 8 1 7 8 2 7 8 3 7 8 4 7 8 5 7 8 6 7 8 7 7 8 8 7 8 9 7 9 0 7 9 1 7 9 2 7 9 3 7 9 4 7 9 5 7 9 6 7 9 7 7 9 8 7 9 9 8 0 0 8 0 1 8 0 2 8 0 3 8 0 4 8 0 5 8 0 6 8 0 7 8 0 8 8 0 9 8 1 0 8 1 1 8 1 2 8 1 3 8 1 4 8 1 5 8 1 6 8 1 7 8 1 8 8 1 9 8 2 0 8 2 1 8 2 2 8 2 3 8 2 4 8 2 5 8 2 6 8 2 7 8 2 8 8 2 9 8 3 0 8 3 1 8 3 2 8 3 3 8 3 4 8 3 5 8 3 6 8 3 7 8 3 8 8 3 9 8 4 0 8 4 1 8 4 2 8 4 3 8 4 4 8 4 5 8 4 6 8 4 7 8 4 8 8 4 9 8 5 0 8 5 1 8 5 2 8 5 3 8 5 4 8 5 5 8 5 6 8 5 7 8 5 8 8 5 9 8 6 0 8 6 1 8 6 2 8 6 3 8 6 4 8 6 5 8 6 6 8 6 7 8 6 8 8 6 9 8 7 0 8 7 1 8 7 2 8 7 3 8 7 4 8 7 5 8 7 6 8 7 7 8 7 8 8 7 9 8 8 0 8 8 1 8 8 2 8 8 3 8 8 4 8 8 5 8 8 6 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 0 8 9 1 8 9 2 8 9 3 8 9 4 8 9 5 8 9 6 8 9 7 8 9 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 9 0 1 9 0 2 9 0 3 9 0 4 9 0 5 9 0 6 9 0 7 9 0 8 9 0 9 9 1 0 9 1 1 9 1 2 9 1 3 9 1 4 9 1 5 9 1 6 9 1 7 9 1 8 9 1 9 9 2 0 9 2 1 9 2 2 9 2 3 9 2 4 9 2 5 9 2 6 9 2 7 9 2 8 9 2 9 9 3 0 9 3 1 9 3 2 9 3 3 9 3 4 9 3 5 9 3 6 9 3 7 9 3 8 9 3 9 9 4 0 9 4 1 9 4 2 9 4 3 9 4 4 9 4 5 9 4 6 9 4 7 9 4 8 9 4 9 9 5 0 9 5 1 9 5 2 9 5 3 9 5 4 9 5 5 9 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 9 5 9 9 6 0 776 MHz NARROWBAND CHANNELS: Two may be combined provided that the lower channel number is odd (e. g., 1, 3, 5) Four may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 4n, n = 0 to 479 (e. g., 1, 5,… 1917) Narrowband channels must maintain a data throughput efficiency of not less than 4.8 kbps for each 6. 25 kHz of bandwidth. WIDEBAND CHANNELS: Two may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 3n or 2 + 3n, n = 0 to 79 (e. g., 1, 2, 4, 5,… 238, 239) Three may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 3n, n = 0 to 79 (e. g., 1, 4,… 238) Wideband channels must maintain a data throughput efficiency of not less than 384 kbps for each 150 kHz of bandwidth. Channel numbers for combined channels are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a hyphen, e. g., "1- 2" and 1- 3". 480 NARROWBAND BASE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 2 (6.25 kHz each, aggregate to 25 kHz) 55 49 73 79 74 93 LOW POWER STATE LICENSE RESERVE 17 6 GENERAL USE INTEROPERABILITY 26 34 35 27 45 43 103 480 NARROWBAND BASE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 1 (6. 25 kHz each, aggregate to 25 kHz) 700 MHz BAND PLAN per Fourth MO& O in WT Dkt. 96- 86 (TV Chs. 63/ 64) 120 WIDEBAND BASE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 1 (50 kHz each, aggregate to 150 kHz) 1 7 8 9 2 3 111 92 38 110 4 5 13 14 44 62 21 33 42 48 22 58 31 <- TV63 60 81 80 54 61 TV64-> 71 52 53 72 63 68 89 84 67 70 69 85 75 87 88 90 113 116 115 97 99 117 108 98 77 65 19 25 57 50 59 51 20 32 28 11 29 24 10 23 12 15 46 47 94 37 83 91 82 76 118 119 40 101 100 64 102 109 39 56 18 114 78 30 36 66 95 41 86 16 I/ O Nationwide CALL I/ O Low Speed DATA 2ndary TRUNKING 120 96 112 104 105 107 106 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 67 3 794 MHz 96 1 96 2 96 3 96 4 96 5 96 6 96 7 96 8 96 9 97 0 97 1 97 2 97 3 97 4 97 5 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 98 0 98 1 98 2 98 3 98 4 98 5 98 6 98 7 98 8 98 9 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 5 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 797 MHz 797 MHz 803 MHz 803 MHz 14 41 14 42 14 43 14 44 14 45 14 46 14 47 14 48 14 49 14 50 14 51 14 52 14 53 14 54 14 55 14 56 14 57 14 58 14 59 14 60 14 61 14 62 14 63 14 64 14 65 14 66 14 67 14 68 14 69 14 70 14 71 14 72 14 73 14 74 14 75 14 76 14 77 14 78 14 79 14 80 14 81 14 82 14 83 14 84 14 85 14 86 14 87 14 88 14 89 14 90 14 91 14 92 14 93 14 94 14 95 14 96 14 97 14 98 14 99 15 00 15 01 15 02 15 03 15 04 15 05 15 06 15 07 15 08 15 09 15 10 15 11 15 12 15 13 15 14 15 15 15 16 15 17 15 18 15 19 15 20 15 21 15 22 15 23 15 24 15 25 15 26 15 27 15 28 15 29 15 30 15 31 15 32 15 33 15 34 15 35 15 36 15 37 15 38 15 39 15 40 15 41 15 42 15 43 15 44 15 45 15 46 15 47 15 48 15 49 15 50 15 51 15 52 15 53 15 54 15 55 15 56 15 57 15 58 15 59 15 60 15 61 15 62 15 63 15 64 15 65 15 66 15 67 15 68 15 69 15 70 15 71 15 72 15 73 15 74 15 75 15 76 15 77 15 78 15 79 15 80 15 81 15 82 15 83 15 84 15 85 15 86 15 87 15 88 15 89 15 90 15 91 15 92 15 93 15 94 15 95 15 96 15 97 15 98 15 99 16 00 160 1 160 2 160 3 160 4 160 5 160 6 160 7 160 8 160 9 161 0 161 1 161 2 161 3 161 4 161 5 161 6 161 7 161 8 161 9 162 0 162 1 162 2 162 3 162 4 162 5 162 6 162 7 162 8 162 9 163 0 163 1 163 2 163 3 163 4 163 5 163 6 163 7 163 8 163 9 164 0 164 1 164 2 164 3 164 4 164 5 164 6 164 7 164 8 164 9 165 0 165 1 165 2 165 3 165 4 165 5 165 6 165 7 165 8 165 9 166 0 166 1 166 2 166 3 166 4 166 5 166 6 166 7 166 8 166 9 167 0 167 1 167 2 167 3 167 4 167 5 167 6 167 7 167 8 167 9 168 0 168 1 168 2 168 3 168 4 168 5 168 6 168 7 168 8 168 9 169 0 169 1 169 2 169 3 169 4 169 5 169 6 169 7 169 8 169 9 170 0 170 1 170 2 170 3 170 4 170 5 170 6 170 7 170 8 170 9 171 0 171 1 171 2 171 3 171 4 171 5 171 6 171 7 171 8 171 9 172 0 172 1 172 2 172 3 172 4 172 5 172 6 172 7 172 8 172 9 173 0 173 1 173 2 173 3 173 4 173 5 173 6 173 7 173 8 173 9 174 0 174 1 174 2 174 3 174 4 174 5 174 6 174 7 174 8 174 9 175 0 175 1 175 2 175 3 175 4 175 5 175 6 175 7 175 8 175 9 176 0 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 184 1 184 2 184 3 184 4 184 5 184 6 184 7 184 8 184 9 185 0 185 1 185 2 185 3 185 4 185 5 185 6 185 7 185 8 185 9 186 0 186 1 186 2 186 3 186 4 186 5 186 6 186 7 186 8 186 9 187 0 187 1 187 2 187 3 187 4 187 5 187 6 187 7 187 8 187 9 188 0 188 1 188 2 188 3 188 4 188 5 188 6 188 7 188 8 188 9 189 0 189 1 189 2 189 3 189 4 189 5 189 6 189 7 189 8 189 9 190 0 190 1 190 2 190 3 190 4 190 5 190 6 190 7 190 8 190 9 191 0 191 1 191 2 191 3 191 4 191 5 191 6 191 7 191 8 191 9 192 0 806 MHz NARROWBAND CHANNELS: Two may be combined provided that the lower channel number is odd (e. g., 1, 3, 5) Four may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 4n, n = 0 to 479 (e. g., 1, 5,… 1917) Narrowband channels must maintain a data throughput efficiency of not less than 4.8 kbps for each 6. 25 kHz of bandwidth. WIDEBAND CHANNELS: Two may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 3n or 2 + 3n, n = 0 to 79 (e. g., 1, 2, 4, 5,… 238, 239) Three may be combined provided that the lower channel number is 1 + 3n, n = 0 to 79 (e. g., 1, 4,… 238) Wideband channels must maintain a data throughput efficiency of not less than 384 kbps for each 150 kHz of bandwidth. Channel numbers for combined channels are designated by the lowest and highest channel numbers separated by a hyphen, e. g., "1- 2" and 1- 3". LOW POWER 181 TV69-> 152 170 <- TV68 180 173 197 199 183 189 700 MHz BAND PLAN per Fourth MO& O in WT Dkt. 96- 86 (TV Chs. 68/ 69) 168 219 218 480 NARROWBAND MOBILE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 3 (6.25 kHz each, aggregate to 25 kHz) 174 192 144 132 156 237 2ndary TRUNKING 234 228 208 235 217 I/ O Nationwide CALL I/ O Low Speed DATA 233 226 227 480 NARROWBAND MOBILE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 4 (6.25 kHz each, aggregate to 25 kHz) 238 239 236 231 225 224 138 150 151 164 160 161 136 147 141 153 166 167 222 240 221 203 184 202 193 185 194 207 205 195 206 204 196 148 131 149 140 139 130 124 154 125 155 142 137 126 146 145 143 165 187 177 159 188 186 201 171 179 210 190 191 200 209 198 182 213 215 216 229 211 230 220 223 212 214 232 157 163 175 169 172 162 158 176 178 120 WIDEBAND MOBILE CHANNELS - SEGMENT 2 (50 kHz each, aggregate to 150 kHz) 121 127 133 122 128 134 123 135 129 GENERAL USE INTEROPERABILITY RESERVE STATE LICENSE 31