*Pages 1--84 from Microsoft Word - 4073.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D. C. In the Matter of ) ) The Development of Operational, ) Technical and Spectrum Requirements ) For Meeting Federal, State and Local ) WT Docket No. 96- 86 Public Safety Agency Communication ) Requirements Through the Year 2010 ) ) Establishment of Rules and Requirements ) For Priority Access Service ) THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND THIRD REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: September 18, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS PARAGRAPH NO. I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 4 III. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 10 IV. THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ................................................................ 16 A. Band Plan ..................................................................................................................... 16 1. General Use Channels....................................................................................... 18 2. Interoperability Channels.................................................................................. 26 3. Location of Reserve Spectrum.......................................................................... 33 B. Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On- scene Communications ............................ 35 V. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER............................................................................................... 40 A. Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the Third Notice................................. 40 1. State License .................................................................................................... 48 2. 700 MHz Band Reserve.................................................................................... 68 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 2 B. Protection of the GNSS from Second Harmonic Interference......................................... 70 1. Base/ mobile Pairing (“ Band Flipping”)............................................................. 71 2. Emission Limits................................................................................................ 75 C. Interoperability Below 512 MHz................................................................................... 82 1. Interoperability Channels in the 150- 174 & 450- 512 MHz (Existing Public Safety Bands). ....................................................................................... 85 2. Interoperability Channels in the 138- 144 MHz Band (NTIA/ DOD Reallocation) .................................................................................................... 91 3. Interoperability in 156- 162 MHz Band (VHF Maritime Band) .......................... 92 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ..................................................................................................... 96 VII. ORDERING CLAUSES.......................................................................................................... 101 APPENDIX A.............................................. Third Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Third Memorandum Opinion and Order APPENDIX B....................................... Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Third Report and Order APPENDIX C.................................................. List of Parties for Third Memorandum Opinion and Order APPENDIX D.................................................................. List of Commenters for Third Report and Order APPENDIX E...................................................................... Summary of Y2K Comments to Third Notice APPENDIX F .......................................................................................................................... Final Rules APPENDIX G.................................................. 700 MHz Band –– Segmentation & Channelization Tables APPENDIX H.................................................................. Interoperability Frequencies in the Inland VPCs 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Twenty- four megahertz of spectrum is allocated for public safety services at 764- 776 MHz and 794- 806 MHz (hereinafter "the 700 MHz band"). 1 On August 6, 1998, we adopted a First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making that established a band plan and service rules for this spectrum. 2 Seventeen parties filed petitions for reconsideration and/ or clarification (" Petition( s)") of decisions contained in the First Report and Order. 3 We addressed two of these Petitions in May 1999. 4 On July 21, 2000, we adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order that addressed petitions for reconsideration of the First Report and Order concerning: (1) digital modulation requirement; (2) certain technical requirements— namely, transmitter power and antenna height, automatic power control, emission limits, frequency stability, wideband channel efficiency standards, and receiver standards; (3) protection criteria established between television and land mobile operations; (4) eligibility for licensing and alliances under Section 2.103( b) of our Rules, 5 and (5) administrative issues regarding regional planning, national planning, and frequency coordination. 6 In the Second MO& O, 7 we also deferred resolution of the reconsideration requests concerning digital standards in the 700 MHz band to the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the captioned proceeding. 8 2. The instant Third Memorandum Opinion and Order (" Third MO& O") addresses the remaining issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the First Report and Order; by presenting 1 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60- 69, the 746- 806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97- 157, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1997) (Reallocation Report and Order). 2 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, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152 (1998) (recon. pending) (referred to herein as "First Report and Order" or "Third Notice" as applicable). 3 Fourteen parties filed oppositions to specific petitions and replies to the oppositions. A list of parties, with their acronyms, that filed Petitions, Oppositions, and Replies is contained in Appendix C. 4 In May 1999 we addressed the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the American National Standards Institute (" ANSI") and the Telecommunications Industry Association (" TIA") in this proceeding. 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, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 8059 (1999) (" First MO& O"). 5 47 C. F. R. § 2.103( b). 6 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, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00– 264 (rel. August 1, 2000) referred to herein as "Second MO& O”). 7 See Second MO& O at ¶ 1 citing Public Safety National Coordination Committee, 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 Recommendations). We recognized that the NCC Recommendations pertained to matters that are the subject of some of the Petitions and stated that we anticipated seeking public comment on the substance of the NCC Recommendations. Id. 8 See The 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, Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 00- 271 (rel. August 2, 2000). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 4 our decisions in response to those various portions of the petitions that address the: (1) band plan for the 700 MHz band, 9 and (2) low power narrowband devices for on- scene communication. 10 3. In the Third Report and Order portion of this combined item, we address designation and licensing issues for the spectrum that we reserved in the First Report and Order to be “subject to the Third Notice.” 11 In addition, we adopt technical criteria for 700 MHz band operations to protect satellite-based global navigation systems from harmful interference. We also establish measures to promote interoperability on public safety channels below 512 MHz. Our actions today are additional steps toward the development of a flexible regulatory framework to meet vital current and future public safety communications needs. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4. Band Plan We revise the band plan adopted in the First Report and Order to reposition the location of the narrowband and wideband channel groups for the general use, interoperability, and reserve spectrum. Upon review of the reconsideration requests, this new plan represents an improved layout and will promote better assignment and operational possibilities for the public safety community. We also authorize 48 narrowband channels for low power use for on- scene communication. 5. State License Rather than adopting 8.8 MHz for state planning and approval, we adopt a modified version of our proposal and will grant a single, geographic license directly to the states for up to a total of 2. 4 megahertz for their needs. 12 We believe a state license complements the regional planning committees (RPCs), 13 streamlines administrative procedures, 14 and enhances spectrum efficiency. 15 Under this decision, each state (including U. S. territories, districts, and possessions) has the option to receive a statewide authorization to use this radio spectrum statewide for public safety services. This geographic license gives states a new tool for managing and planning the radio communication needs of state agencies. 16 The Governor of each state or his/ her designee will have until December 31, 2001 (over one year from the effective date of this Third Report and Order) to apply for a state license. We believe that 9 First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 164- 177 ¶¶ 17- 46. See Petitions of APCO, NPSTC, Motorola, and AASHTO et al. 10 See STI Petition. 11 Twenty– four comments, fifteen reply comments, and numerous ex parte presentations were received in response to the Third Notice. A list of parties, with their acronyms, that filed comments or reply comments is contained in Appendix D. 12 By comparison, we decline to adopt a “State Licensing” approach that most commenters oppose under which states – rather than regional planning committees (RPCs) – would manage state, local, and Federal use of all or most of the 8. 8 megahertz of spectrum reserved subject to the Third Notice. 13 State systems and local city/ county systems could work in tandem, possibly on joint systems, rather than competing for the same spectrum resources. 14 States would apply for one geographic based license directly to the Commission by which they could initiate planning and deployment of their systems. Site- based licenses for wide- area networks are administratively burdensome due to the license modifications needed during build- out. 15 State agencies would give each state greater latitude to develop shared networks employing more efficient technologies, such as, trunked systems. 16 Although permitted to do so, we do not require states to share this spectrum with non- state agencies. We do not require states to manage or plan spectrum use by non- state agencies (e. g., local political subdivisions, Federal). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 5 providing states this amount of time to apply for this spectrum allows every state at least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the funds necessary to plan, prepare, and implement the use of the spectrum. What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered by the RPCs. As with other geographical- area based licenses, e. g., PCS, no further FCC authorization will be required to construct and operate transmitter sites within the state (unless the site raises specific environmental, aviation safety, “quiet zone,” or international issues). 6. Reserve First, we reserve 128 narrowband channels pending the resolution of the Fourth Notice in this proceeding. 17 Next, we relocate the remaining 5.4 megahertz of the 700 MHz band (108 wideband channels) between narrowband and wideband segments and reserve this spectrum for future developments in broadband technologies. 18 7. In sum, as a the result of our actions today, we designate the 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band as follows: 700 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY BAND— SPECTRUM & CHANNELS DESIGNATED PURPOSE AMOUNT OF SPECTRUM NARROWBAND (6. 25 kHZ) WIDEBAND (50 kHZ) GENERAL USE 12.5 MHz (52.1 %) 7.7 MHz (1232 channels) 19 4.8 MHz (96 channels) INTEROPERABILITY 2.6 MHz (10.8 %) 0.8 MHz (128 channels) 1.8 MHz (36 channels) 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 6.2 MHz (25.8 %) 0.8 MHz (128 channels) 5.4 MHz ( 108 channels) T O T A L 24 MHz (100 %) 12 MHz (1920 channels) 12 MHz (240 channels) 8. GNSS Protection Criteria We adopt technical solutions to protect certain global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), particularly the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite Systems (GLONASS) and Global Positioning System (GPS). 20 These limits are in accordance with international requirements. 9. Interoperability Below 512 MHz We adopt our proposal to designate channels in existing public safety bands for mutual aid purposes (five channels in the 150- 174 MHz band and four channel 17 See note 8, supra. 18 A table setting forth the segments and channels is contained in Appendix G. 19 In the new composite band plan adopted herein, we redesignate 16 of the original 1248 general use channels for low power. 20 GLONASS utilizes the Radionavigation- Satellite Service (space- to- Earth) band of 1598– 1605 MHz. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 6 pairs in the 450- 512 MHz band). We also terminate the Third Notice inquiry as to the FCC’s future licensing of spectrum in the 138– 144 MHz band for interoperability purposes. The inquiry is now moot because Congress reclaimed this spectrum for exclusive federal use in the “National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000.” 21 We also adopt our proposal to designate two channel pairs in the VHF 156- 162 MHz band for interoperability communication in thirty- three Economic Areas (EAs), where these channels are allocated for public safety entities. 22 III. BACKGROUND 10. In 1993, Congress directed the Commission to develop a framework to ensure that public safety communications needs are met through the year 2010. 23 Pursuant to that directive, the Commission issued a report to Congress identifying a need to gather additional information on the present and future communications requirements of public safety agencies. 24 In 1995, the Commission, together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 25 to provide advice and recommendations regarding the communications needs of public safety agencies through the year 2010. Shortly thereafter, the Commission commenced this rulemaking proceeding to evaluate and plan for present and future public safety communications requirements. 26 11. On August 14, 1996, the Commission acknowledged that a portion of the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60- 69 when digital television (DTV) is fully deployed "could be used to meet public safety needs." 27 In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would initiate a separate proceeding to address the issue of allocating TV channels 60- 69, and would give serious consideration to allocating 24 megahertz of that spectrum for public safety use. 28 In September 1996, the PSWAC Final Report was submitted to the Commission as part of the record in this proceeding. The PSWAC Final Report found that the spectrum then allocated to public safety was insufficient to support the current and projected voice and data needs of the public safety community, did not provide adequate capacity for obtaining interoperability, and was inadequate to meet future needs, based on projected population growth and demographic changes. The PSWAC Final Report concluded that in order to meet 21 See Pub. L. No. 106- 65, § 1062, 113 Stat. 767 (1999). 22 The channel pairs were formerly allocated in 47 C. F. R. § 80.371 for VHF Public Coast Stations as public correspondence channels and were also shared under 47 C. F. R. § 90.283. 23 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 10)( B)( iv), as added by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103- 66, Title VI, § 6002, 107 Stat. 312 (1993). 24 1995 FCC Public Safety Report, 10 FCC Rcd 5207 (1995). 25 Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U. S. C., App. 2 (1988). 26 The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 12,460 (1996). 27 Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 10, 968, 10,980 (1996) (DTV Sixth Notice). 28 Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,588, 14,626 (1997) (DTV Sixth Report & Order). 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 7 these needs, 25 megahertz of new public safety spectrum allocations would be needed within five years. 29 The PSWAC Final Report further stated that data communication and wireless video needs were also expected to grow rapidly, and additional spectrum was required to support new capabilities and technologies, including high speed data and video. 30 12. Subsequently, in the 1997 Budget Act, Congress directed the Commission to reallocate 24 megahertz of the spectrum recovered from TV channels 60- 69 as a result of DTV implementation for public safety services. 31 Shortly thereafter, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in ET Docket No. 97- 157 which led to the adoption of a Report and Order reallocating 24 megahertz of spectrum located in the 700 MHz band for public safety services. 32 13. This new allocation is the largest ever made for public safety communications and constitutes a significant public benefit derived from the conversion of television broadcasting in the United States from analog technology to state- of- the- art digital technology. 33 In the Second Notice, the Commission sought comment on a wide variety of public safety communications issues, including, but not limited to, future public safety spectrum needs, projected operational and technological requirements for interoperability (between and among public safety entities on a local and regional basis), and technical parameters needed to ensure efficient and effective communications. 34 14. In the First Report and Order, we established a band plan and adopted service rules for the 700 MHz band. We designated 12.6 megahertz of the spectrum for general use to be managed by regional planning committees (RPCs). In addition, we designated 2. 6 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for interoperability purposes (the ability of different governmental agencies to communicate across jurisdictions and with each other). We also adopted technical specifications to enhance spectrum efficiency and minimize harmful interference in the 700 MHz band. The First Report and Order also designated 8.8 megahertz of 700 MHz band spectrum as reserved subject to the Third Notice. 35 15. In the Third Notice, we continued our inquiry into present and future public safety communications needs. We sought comment on a broad range of options to promote the efficient and 29 Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission, September 11, 1996, at 3 (PSWAC Final Report). 30 Id. at 19- 20. 31 See Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105– 33, § 3004, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) (1997 Budget Act), codified at 47 U. S. C. § 337. 32 Reallocation of Television Channels 60- 69, the 746- 806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97– 157, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 14,141 (1997); Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22,953 (1998). 33 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14,588. 34 The Second Notice, prompted by a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the National Communications System, sought comment on the establishment of Cellular Priority Access Service (CPAS) designed to meet the communications needs of public safety services in emergency and disaster situations. See 12 FCC Rcd at 17, 779- 800. We address CPAS issues by a separate action. See Second Report and Order, WT Docket No. 96- 86, FCC 00– 242 (rel. July 13, 2000). 35 Our decisions today, addressing petitions for reconsideration of the First Report and Order, effectively decrease the amount of spectrum in reserve from 8. 8 megahertz to 8. 6 megahertz. See, e. g, Third MO& O, paras. 37– 38, infra. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 8 effective use of the 700 MHz band spectrum that we reserved in the First Report and Order. We also asked how to license the 2.6 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that we designated for nationwide interoperability in the First Report and Order. Additionally, we discussed protection requirements for 700 MHz band operations in connection with Global Navigation Satellite Systems. 36 We also offered proposals to facilitate use of nationwide interoperability in public safety bands below 512 MHz. IV. THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. Band Plan 16. In the First Report and Order, we designated the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to be divided as shown below: 37 Frequency (MHz) 764 770 776 794 800 806 TV Channel 63 TV Channel 64 TV Channel 68 TV Channel 69 NB WB NB NB WB NB 3 MHz 6 MHz 3 MHz 3 MHz 6 MHz 3 MHz NB = narrowband channels WB = wideband channels First Report and Order (1998) –– 700 MHz Public Safety Band Spectrum & Channels Designated Purpose Amount of Spectrum Narrowband (6. 25 kHz) Wideband (50 kHz) General Use 12.6 MHz (52.5 %) 7.8 MHz (1248 channels) 4.8 MHz (96 channels) Nationwide Interoperability 2.6 MHz (10.8 %) 0.8 MHz (128 channels) 1.8 MHz (36 channels) Reserved 8.8 MHz (36.7 %) 3.4 MHz (544 channels) 5.4 MHz (108 channels) TOTAL 24 MHz (100 %) 12 MHz (1920 channels) 12 MHz (240 channels) 36 Global Positioning Service (GPS) is the civilian portion of the United States Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), made available for commercial use, which utilizes the Aeronautical Radionavigation- Satellite (space- to-earth) band of 1559- 1610 MHz on a primary basis and is maintained by the United States Department of Defense. Our discussion also includes a section on the protection requirements for the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS). 37 First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 166, 167 ¶¶ 24, 25. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 9 17. The band plan designates 764- 776 MHz (TV Channels 63 and 64) for base- to- mobile communications and 794- 806 MHz (TV Channels 68 and 69) for mobile- to- base communications. 38 The band plan also accommodates all of the traditional operational modes (voice, data, image/ HSD, and video) and is flexible enough to allow deployment of future technologies. We divided the band into separate segments for narrowband and wideband communications for both General Use and Nationwide Interoperability. To promote efficient spectrum usage, the band plan incorporates a channelization approach that is based on the smallest practical channel sizes for narrowband and wideband public safety communications). 39 To promote flexibility, we included a "building block" approach that allows licensees to combine narrowband or wideband channels to accommodate different technologies. Specifically, we permit the combination of up to four narrowband 6.25 kHz channels (up to 25 kHz) and up to three wideband 50 kHz channels (up to 150 kHz) to create larger bandwidths when needed to accommodate different technologies, such as 12. 5 kHz or 25 kHz voice and data channels, or communications requiring higher data speeds. 40 1. General Use Channels 18. Band segments (narrowband and wideband). APCO notes that we largely adopted the channel plan proposed by NPSTC (which APCO helped to develop). 41 APCO contends, however, that the adopted plan lacks necessary flexibility to meet the varying needs of each region for narrowband or wideband channels. 42 APCO requests, therefore, that we provide each RPC with additional flexibility to: (1) aggregate narrowband channels to create additional wideband channels and; (2) split wideband channels to produce additional narrowband channels. 43 APCO states that in either case, we should permit RPCs to modify the adopted band segments only as a last resort and that unassigned narrowband channels could not be aggregated unless and until all existing wideband channels were exhausted (and vice versa as to splitting unused wideband channels). 44 19. The adopted band plan reflects the best current evaluation of the relative spectrum requirements for narrowband and wideband operations 45 whereas APCO’s suggested rule change would permit each of the fifty- five RPCs to adopt irregular narrowband/ wideband segments. We continue to believe that it makes sense to separate narrowband segments from wideband segments to ensure the placement of compatible communications types together in band segments. Ensuring compatibility removes an element of uncertainty as to the potential for adjacent channel interference, leading to less complicated frequency coordination requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum. 46 Nonetheless, 38 Id. at 168, 169 ¶¶ 28, 29. 39 The minimum channel size (building block) is 6.25 kHz for narrowband, and 50 kHz for wide band channels. 40 First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 173- 75 ¶¶ 38, 41. 41 APCO Petition at 15, 16. 42 Id. 43 APCO Petition at 15, 16; see also NYSTEC Petition at 5, 6, 9, 10. 44 APCO Petition at 15, 16. APCO adds that, due to the need to maintain a common nationwide channel plan for interoperability purposes, the interoperability channels should not be subject to such modifications. Id.; see also NYSTEC Petition at 9, 10. 45 Accord APCO Petition at 15. 46 See id., 14 FCC Rcd at 169 ¶ 31, n. 76, citing Motorola Comments, Appendix at 4- 7, NPSTC Comments Appendix A, and Florida Comments at 2- 6. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 10 we appreciate APCO’s point that the need for narrowband or wideband channels will vary throughout the nation. We note in this connection that the existing waiver process 47 is available for individual applicants that demonstrate that all other alternatives have been thoroughly exhausted. 48 Moreover, as discussed below in Section A. 3. (Location of Reserve Spectrum), we are adopting NPSTC’s suggestion to relocate the reserve channels between the narrowband and wideband segments. 49 This action will provide future flexibility to adjust the dividing line between narrowband and wideband segments. 20. Aggregation of narrowband channels. Ericsson seeks reconsideration of our decision to limit the maximum aggregation of channels to four channels in the narrowband channel plan. Ericsson contends that limiting aggregation to four 6. 25 kHz channel “building blocks” restricts the efficient accommodation of emerging technologies that have operating bandwidths between 25 kHz and 50 kHz. Thus, Ericsson proposes that we modify the narrowband channel plan to permit the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz channels. 50 21. We do not find this recommendation persuasive. The composite plan that we adopted in the First Report and Order, provides a careful balance of general use, interoperability, wideband, and narrowband channels based on all of the band plans submitted in response to the Second Notice. 51 We also adopted corresponding rules regarding channel pairing, the segments of the band to be used for narrowband and wideband applications, minimum and maximum channel sizes, and spectrum usage efficiency standards. Ericsson’s proposal would allow data applications to use more than the 25 kHz of bandwidth for narrowband channels. We believe this to be unwise because permitting the aggregation of up to eight 6.25 kHz channels, the equivalent of a wide band channel (50 kHz), could prematurely deplete the availability of channels needed for narrowband voice and data operations. 52 Moreover, allowing wideband channels within a narrowband segment 53 creates the same interference potential discussed above. 54 22. Most importantly, Ericsson’s proposal also raises concerns related to spectrum efficiency because it could essentially defeat the efficiency safeguards of the adopted band plan. 55 As noted in the First Report and Order, public safety entities are generally insulated from market forces in regard to the 47 See, e. g., 47 C. F. R. § 1. 925 (Waivers). We note as an administrative matter that a rule waiver request is the most appropriate process for determining, e. g., whether all narrowband channels are exhausted in a given geographic area and that a specific proposal to use a portion of a wideband channel is truly a “last resort.” 48 Accord NYSTEC Petition at 9, 10 (Commission should allow for some flexibility in the channel plan but only after all other alternatives have been thoroughly exhausted). 49 NPSTC Petition at 4. We acknowledge that NPSTC’s original plan (which APCO helped to develop) called for this approach. 50 Ericsson Petition at 6. 51 See, e. g., First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 175, 176 ¶¶ 42– 43. 52 Id., 14 FCC Rcd at 173 ¶ 38. 53 The adopted band plan reflects the best current evaluation of the relative spectrum requirements for narrowband and wideband operations. See para. 18, supra. 54 See para. 19, supra. 55 See, e. g., para. 17, supra. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 11 acquisition of licenses for radio spectrum and the provision of public safety communications. 56 Instead, each jurisdiction typically provides public safety communications to better protect the safety of life and property –– with spectrum utilization based more on budgetary limitations than on considerations of the most efficient and effective technologies. 57 Thus, the technical structure of standard channelization is appropriate to ensure that the 700 MHz public safety band spectrum is used efficiently in the absence of the market forces that discipline other services. Moreover, from a regional and national perspective, the record reflects that not enough spectrum is available to meet the long- term needs of the public safety community. 58 Thus, the adopted band plan incorporates a channelization approach that is based on the smallest practical channel sizes for narrowband and wideband public safety communications along with the "building block" approach to provide significant flexibility. Ericsson’s proposal, however, would disturb this careful balance between efficiency and flexibility by allowing voice and data operations within the narrowband segment to use bandwidths of up to 50 kHz (i. e., wideband). 23. Ericsson’s proposal would also result in irregular channelization (intra- and inter- regional) whereas, as noted in the First Report and Order, standardizing channelization on a national basis provides for reasonably rapid development of a cost- based equipment market for the 700 MHz band. Standardizing channelization on a national basis also removes a major element of uncertainty as to the potential for interference due to irregular, overlapping channels (intra- or inter- region), leading to less complicated frequency coordination requirements and more efficient use of the spectrum. 59 Specifically, allowing nonstandard channels would create difficulties when overlapping channels are assigned to different types of users in nearby service areas. Interference and compatibility difficulties are currently issues in the refarmed bands below 512 MHz, where new channels were established in between existing channels. 60 Similar difficulties would arise in the 700 MHz band, e. g., government and NGO users assigned on overlapping channels, if we allowed each RPC to assign nonstandard, overlapping channels. Moreover, the 700 MHz public safety band is newly allocated so, unlike the refarmed bands, we have an exceptional opportunity to adopt a channelization plan that promotes efficient use, balanced with significant flexibility and a minimum of overlapping channel assignments. We believe the adopted band plan, with some minor modifications adopted today, provides the appropriate balance based on the broad range of commenters. Finally, we note that the existing waiver process is available for truly unique and unusual circumstances. 61 24. Set- aside for wideband HSD channels In his Petition, Powell requests that before allowing the RPCs to begin their planning process, we meet with members of the manufacturing, system integration and public safety communities to discuss a wideband channel plan that would permit development of a national public safety high speed data (HSD) network and still allow the RPCs 56 See, e. g., First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 172 ¶ 37. 57 Id. 58 See, e. g., PSWAC Final Report at 21. “By the year 2010, as much as an additional 70 MHz may be needed for [voice and data] applications, including image and video requirements.” Id. (Key Recommendation 2. 2.1). 59 See id., 14 FCC Rcd at 169 ¶ 31, n. 76, citing Motorola Comments, Appendix at 4- 7, NPSTC Comments Appendix A, and Florida Comments at 2- 6. 60 See generally Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92– 235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 10,076 (1995) (Refarming First R& O). 61 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.925( b)( 3); see also note 47, supra. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 12 maximum flexibility to implement regional channel plans. 62 Powell states that the wideband plan and channel bandwidths action adopted in the First Report and Order will "severely hinder" any effort to establish a nationwide interoperability data network. Powell states that the need for an integrated wireless HSD network cannot be overstated and there is insufficient public safety spectrum, even including this new 24 MHz, to allow law enforcement agencies, much less other public safety users, to implement HSD systems. 63 Powell requests reconsideration of the wideband channel plan where nearly half of the available HSD spectrum is designated for wideband “General Use.” 64 25. We have considered Powell's request and concern regarding the public safety community's needs for HSD systems. As Powell indicates in his Petition, 65 in response to the Second Notice, the Commission received several suggestions for wideband channel plans. These proposals were discussed in the First Report and Order along with the rationale for our decision, based upon the record at that time, to designate the 12 megahertz of wideband spectrum as follows–– 4.8 MHz to General Use, 1.8 MHz for Interoperability, and retain 5. 4 MHz in Reserve. 66 We concur with Powell’s expectation that HSD will be a highly desired product by the public safety community at large. After consideration of Powell’s request, however, we affirm our original wideband general use decision which provided a balance between the wide range of competing wideband needs. Accordingly, we will retain 4.8 MHz for General Use. We believe the planning process of the RPCs will be sufficient to address Powell’s concerns. We believe that any modification of the plan at this time could be premature depending upon the technical progress made in the not- too- distant future. Therefore, while we decline to modify our wideband plan at this time, we leave this issue open for further analysis and recommendations by the public safety community, RPCs, and the NCC as the technology progresses. In this connection, we note our decision in today’s Third Report and Order reserving 5. 4 megahertz of spectrum for future needs such as the Law Enforcement HSD network. 67 2. Interoperability Channels 26. We established narrowband and wideband channels in the First Report and Order and set the standard channel bandwidth for narrowband channels at 6. 25 kHz. We designated all of these channels as for general use, nationwide interoperability, or reserved subject to the Third Notice 68 and, specifically, we designated 2.6 MHz of spectrum for interoperability purposes. 69 This 2.6 MHz of spectrum included 128 narrowband channels for a total of 0.8 MHz of spectrum. We located thirty- two of the 128 channels in each of the four TV channels: two contiguous interoperability channels, skip two channels, two contiguous interoperability channels, skip six channels, two contiguous interoperability channels, skip sixty- six channels. This pattern is repeated five times. After the fifth repeat, eighty- four channels are skipped before arriving at the final two interoperability channels, for a total of thirty- two channels. 70 62 Powell Petition at 7. 63 Id. at 5. 64 Id at 6. 65 Id. at 4. 66 First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 175– 177 ¶¶ 42– 46 (Amount of Spectrum). 67 See Third Report and Order, para. 68, infra. 68 See, e. g., id. 69 Id. 70 Id. at 176– 77 ¶¶ 45, 46. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 13 Additionally, we paired the 128 channels (four times thirty- two) to make sixty- four channel pairs. We received requests from APCO and NPSTC to reconsider our decisions regarding the narrowband interoperability channeling plan. 27. Narrowband interoperability channel size APCO reiterates its initial proposal for a 12. 5 kHz channeling plan based on the Project 25 Phase I (12. 5 kHz) standards. APCO again requests that we revise the band plan to change the channelization for the narrowband interoperability channels from 6.25 kHz to 12. 5 kHz. It states that a band plan with 12. 5 kHz channelization would accommodate a wider range of equipment options and enhance competition and interoperability. 71 APCO further states that operation on 6. 25 kHz channels, as opposed to 12. 5 kHz, requires linear amplifiers and frequency stability techniques that are years from being widely available in the marketplace. 28. We have reviewed APCO’s request and, while making no decision regarding Project 25 Phase I standards at this time, we decline to adopt a 12. 5 kHz channeling plan. 72 We find no benefit to adopting a 12.5 kHz channeling plan because the 6.25 kHz channeling plan can accommodate the Project 25 Phase I (12.5 kHz) digital standard for interoperability, as recommended by the NCC, 73 by combining 6.25 kHz channel pairs. Thus, we find no advantage in amending the narrowband interoperability channel plan to 12.5 kHz channel spacing, particularly given that such action could require a return to a 6. 25 kHz spacing plan at a later date depending on our decisions related to the interoperability digital standards. 74 We will make those decisions based on the record developed in response to our Fourth Notice. 75 However, regardless of the outcome of the Fourth Notice, we continue to believe that a 6. 25 kHz channeling plan for the 700 MHz band provides the most flexibility for future technologies and a consistency of channel widths between the general use and the interoperability channels. Therefore, we are retaining the 6. 25 kHz narrowband channel plan as adopted in the First Report and Order. 29. Location of narrowband interoperability channels NPSTC asks that we reconsider the narrowband interoperability plan to the extent that we change the spacing between interoperability channels. NPSTC asks that they be spaced 250 kHz apart. 76 NPSTC recommends that the interoperability channels should be in a sequence such as: Channel 19/ 20, 59/ 60, 99/ 100, 139/ 140, 179/ 180, 219/ 220, etc. NPSTC requests this reconsideration of the band plan to permit system operation 71 APCO Petition at 11. 72 Refer pending in Fourth Notice. . . . . 73 See Public Safety National Coordination Committee 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 the Development of Final Rules, dated February 25, 2000 (NCC Report) at 21, 22 ¶¶ 68, 69. 74 In the First Report and Order, we expected that in the next few years it would be both technically and economically feasible to use 6. 25 kHz channels individually for operational modes such as digital voice and data. See generally Refarming First R& O, 10 FCC Rcd at 10, 099 ¶ 38 (it is reasonable to expect manufacturers to produce 6. 25 kHz equipment in the Refarming bands within ten years since 5 kHz systems are currently allowed in the 150– 170 MHz band and 5 kHz systems are proliferating in the 220– 222 MHz band). We note that the Project 25 Phase II standards have, in fact, been developed and incorporated into an ANSI standard and that these standards are expected eventually to be incorporated into commercially available equipment. 75 See Fourth Notice, note 8 supra. 76 NPSTC Petition at 3. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 14 through a common antenna system where 250 kHz spacing represents the closest efficient use of transmitter combiners. 77 30. We have considered the NPSTC request to change the spacing between the interoperability channels. We agree with NPSTC that this modification will permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas and lower costs for public safety entities. Accordingly, we will relocate the narrowband interoperability channel sets in a more efficient pattern based on 250 kHz separations. 78 NPSTC's suggested pattern, however, would reduce the number of narrowband interoperability channels from 64 to 48 (6. 25 kHz) channel pairs. Therefore, we will modify the narrowband interoperability plan giving consideration of 250 kHz separations but maintaining the equivalent number of channels (64 pairs) for narrowband interoperability. 31. Location of wideband interoperability channels NPSTC states that the wideband plan generally spaces the wideband interoperability channel groups apart from each other — thereby facilitating common antenna systems. However, two of the 150 kHz wideband interoperability groups in each wideband segment are immediately adjacent to each other. 79 NPSTC recommends changing this channel spacing plan for wideband channels to permit base stations to operate on a common antenna system. 80 32. The wideband interoperability channel groups were generally spaced between 1200- 1350 kHz apart, except for the two adjacent blocks noted by NPSTC. 81 Similar to the narrowband interoperability channels situation, we are also persuaded that modifying the wideband interoperability channeling plan will permit the use of efficient transmitter combiners for common antennas and lower costs for public safety entities using wideband technologies. Upon reconsideration, we amend the wideband interoperability plan to form the two groups of 150 kHz wideband channel groups, in a regular pattern spaced 450 kHz apart, based on efficient wideband combiner technology. 3. Location of Reserve Spectrum 33. NPSTC requests modification of the band plan to place the reserve spectrum between the narrowband and wideband channel segments as originally suggested in both their band plan proposal and Motorola’s proposed band plan filed in response to the Second Notice. 82 NPSTC states that both plans recommended that we locate the reserve spectrum (channels not initially assigned) between the narrowband and the wideband channel segments so that the dividing line between those band segments could be adjusted to meet local and regional needs. 83 NPSTC notes that we located the reserve spectrum at mid- band locations distributed throughout the narrowband and wideband segments. NPSTC contends 77 Id. 78 Unlike the previous suggestions discussed above (see paras. 19 and 22), a rearrangement of channels continues to preserve the balance of wideband versus narrowband channels. 79 The adjacent wideband interoperability groups are Channels 58- 60, 61- 63, 178- 180, and 181- 183. See First Report and Order, Appendix H- 6 and H- 7. 80 NPSTC Petition at 3. 81 Id. 82 NPSTC Petition at 4. 83 Id. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 15 that in some metropolitan areas there will be a greater need for wideband channels than is allocated in our wideband plan. 84 34. After consideration of NPSTC’s request for reconsideration, we conclude that grouping the reserve spectrum into four segments of 1.35 MHz each located between the narrowband and wideband segments offers improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time. We, therefore, concur with NPSTC’s petition and amend the placement of the wideband reserve spectrum. B. Low Power Narrowband Frequencies for On- scene Communications 35. STI requests that we amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to modify the narrowband general use channel plan to designate twelve 6.25 kHz pairs specifically for nationwide use in a low power, analog modulation, person- to- person communications and personnel accountability reporting (PAR) system for on- scene, firefighting use. 85 STI notes that firefighters, and other public safety personnel working in environmentally hazardous settings, wear protective gear and self– contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that makes ordinary voice communications extremely difficult, even at close range. 86 To overcome this problem, on- scene/ PAR systems such as STI’s 87 have SCBA masks with low power radios that provide hands- free, voice activated, firefighter- to- firefighter communication. Furthermore, STI notes that existing personnel alert safety systems (PASS) are ineffective when firefighters do not attach the separate PASS device to their gear and remember to activate it upon entry onto the fireground. 88 By comparison, STI avers that its multifunction system provides for improved communications and personnel alert safety and accountability reporting systems, 89 which STI believes should prevent some firefighter deaths and injuries. 90 STI claims that its on- scene/ PAR system could be available for use within one year if we amend Section 90.531 of our Rules to designate (a) twelve channel pairs specifically for this use without going through the RPC process, and (b) Section 90.535 of our Rules to permit the use of only analog modulation in the on- scene/ PAR system. STI contends that digital modulation is inferior to analog for use in the on- scene/ PAR system for three reasons: (1) the SCBA mask radio would not operate as well with marginal signal strength (as signal strength goes down, digital 84 Id. 85 STI Petition at ii. 86 STI Petition at 4. 87 The on- scene/ PAR system in development by STI is known as the MaskCom® Communications System. STI Petition at 2. 88 STI notes that according to industry literature, an informal survey of nearly 1000 firefighters revealed that more than sixty percent did not activate their PASS devices at every fire, and a substantial number of firefighters similarly may not assure that they are carrying their PASS devices. STI Petition at 4– 5 citing Firefighter Fatalities, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Journal, July/ Aug. 1998 at 50, 56. 89 STI Petition at 6. These personnel system functions include recording time and status on– scene, automatic monitoring of air supply, man- down alarming signals, evacuation signals, and homing signals to locate firefighters trapped or lost in buildings. STI notes that the homing signal feature will assist firefighters in locating downed, trapped or lost comrades in dangerous fires and with reduced risk to the rescuers. Id. 90 STI Petition at 5. STI notes that 94 firefighters lost their lives in 1997, half while operating at the fireground or at other emergencies, and that firefighter injuries at the fireground numbered from 40, 000 to more than 60, 000 annually during 1988- 1997. Id. citing Firefighter Fatalities, NFPA Journal, July/ Aug. 1998 at 49- 50. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 16 reception drops altogether whereas analog continues to work with degraded performance); (2) digital equipment is more sensitive to ambient heat; and (3) digital radios tend to weigh more. 91 36. APCO and AASHTO responded to STI’s Petition and both support it. APCO also asks us to set aside a larger amount of spectrum than STI requested to accommodate additional low power public safety operations such as: police surveillance and tactical operations, urban search and rescue, and remote control of robotic devices. 92 37. We conclude that there is merit to providing for low power public safety communication systems such as the on- scene/ PAR system. 93 We are not convinced, however, that we should allocate 700 MHz spectrum exclusively for this one particular public safety low power application as requested by STI. We agree with APCO that there may be other low power applications that could operate in the 700 MHz band. 94 In instances where there is the potential for multiple low power applications, absent a compelling showing, we favor a sharing approach rather than making exclusive assignments for each specific application. In general, we believe low power operations can co- exist on the same frequencies with minimal potential for interference because of the low power restriction. 95 For these reasons, we will allocate twenty- four (6. 25 kHz) channel pairs for low power mobile operations only. 96 The maximum effective radiated power (ERP) on these channels is limited to 2 watts. 38. As noted above, we believe that a low power sharing approach is appropriate here. However, to minimize further the potential for interference we are adopting some additional restrictions. We are designating the twenty- four pairs as low power channels nationwide. Further, since we believe most low power operations will operate in- region the vast majority of the time, we will require applicants for eighteen of the pairs (Channels 1- 8 and 949- 958) 97 to go through the regional planning process. The RPCs will be responsible for determining the most appropriate low power application( s) on these channels and the frequency coordinators will be responsible for providing appropriate interference protection. 98 We have not specified all twenty- four pairs for RPC oversight because we believe there may be public safety organizations who have low power needs and cross regional borders routinely, such as search and rescue organizations. Therefore, we will license the remaining six low power pairs (Channels 91 STI Petition at 12- 14. 92 APCO Response to Petitions at 10; AASHTO et al. Reply at 9. 93 In general, low power system operations have been beneficial to the private land mobile radio services. See, e. g., Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92– 235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 10,076, 10, 110 ¶ 66 (1995) (Refarming First R& O). 94 For example, the police may need low power frequencies in connection with physical surveillance, stakeouts, raids and other such activities. 95 See, e. g., Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Low Power Radio and Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Operations in the 216- 217 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 95- 56, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18, 517, 18, 532 ¶ 34 (1996). 96 The twenty- four 6. 25 kHz channels (twelve 12.5 kHz channels) provides for the six 12. 5 kHz low power channels STI says it needs and an additional six 12. 5 kHz channels to satisfy other potential low power needs. 97 Only one side of the pair is listed. 98 For example, the RPCs would determine whether to allow the channel pairs to be used in a duplex operation or split the pairs to allow separate low power operations on each side of the pair. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 17 9- 12 and 959- 960) on a nationwide, itinerant basis. 99 These six channels should provide for the communications needs of entities that routinely need to travel to different parts of the country and, because they are nationwide, we are exempting applications for the low power itinerant channels from the frequency coordination requirement. Finally, we clarify that a Commission license will be required for operation on any of the low power channels. 39. STI asks that we permit the use of analog modulation as the primary mode of modulation on its on- scene/ PAR system and that the interoperability channel operating requirement not apply. In the First Report and Order, we adopted rules requiring all portable and mobile units to be capable of operating on all the narrowband interoperability channels and that when such equipment is operating on the interoperability channels, it be designed to use digital modulation as the primary mode. 100 The purpose of the digital modulation requirement was to make more efficient use of the spectrum. The reason for the interoperability requirement was to ensure that public safety entities could talk to one another. These requirements were cornerstones of the rules governing the public safety 700 MHz band. Thus, we are concerned about the potential negative impact of granting the exemption requested by STI. In this case, however, we believe a limited exemption of these two requirements may be in order but only for equipment that operates only on the designated low power channels. Low power systems by design make efficient use of the spectrum because they increase frequency reuse. 101 Further, low power systems such as the on- scene/ PAR system are usually not designed to communicate with public safety entities outside “the system.” Finally, granting a limited exemption will provide additional flexibility to design specialized, self- contained communications systems intended to enhance safety. Therefore, we will exempt equipment that is designed to operate only on the 700 MHz low power channels (capable of transmitting only on these designated low power channels) from the requirement of having to be capable of operating on all interoperability channels 102 and the primary digital modulation requirement. 103 For these same reasons, we will also exempt such low power equipment from the trunking requirement. 104 Finally, we caution that 700 MHz band radios without these capabilities are inappropriate for meeting the multitude of daily public safety communication requirements. Nonetheless, so long as these operational limitations/ circumstances are understood, we agree that there is merit to providing for low power public safety communication systems. 99 See § 90. 7 for a definition of itinerant operations. 100 Mobile and portable units can have analog modulation capability, but only as a secondary mode in addition to the primary digital mode. See First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 211 ¶ 128, n. 322. 101 We have exempted low power equipment in the past from certain requirements because of the spectral efficiency attained through frequency reuse. See, e. g., Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, PR Docket No. 92– 235, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17676, 17, 686– 87 ¶¶ 20– 22 (1996). 102 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 547. We are also revising Section 90. 547, on our own motion, to more clearly reflect the interoperability channel capability requirement that we adopted in the First Report and Order. See First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 213 ¶ 135. “We are adopting [new Section 90. 547] to require that all narrowband mobile and portable 700 MHz band public safety radios be capable of operating on all of the narrowband nationwide interoperability channels.” Id. 103 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 535. Equipment that employs analog modulation as the primary mode of modulation must meet the emission mask and frequency stability requirements associated with PLMR 12. 5 kHz channels at 900 MHz. See 47 C. F. R. §§ 90. 210( d), 90. 213. 104 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 537. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 18 V. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER A. Use and Licensing of the Spectrum Reserved for the Third Notice 40. In the First Report and Order, we designated 12.6 megahertz of spectrum for general use, to be managed by regional planning committees (RPCs), 105 and 2. 6 megahertz of spectrum for interoperability. We reserved the remaining 8. 8 megahertz of spectrum “subject to the Third Notice.” 106 In the Third MO& O, we decided to designate 0.3 megahertz of spectrum for low power operations. 107 Of this 0.3 megahertz of spectrum, we allotted 0.2 megahertz from the reserve spectrum and 0.1 megahertz from the general use spectrum. Additionally, 0.8 megahertz (128 narrowband channels) was set- aside pending the resolution of the interoperability guard band issue discussed in the Fourth Notice in this proceeding. 108 Consequently the amount of the spectrum currently under consideration “subject to the Third Notice” is 7. 8 megahertz – 2. 4 megahertz for narrowband operations (voice and data) and 5. 4 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/ HSD and slow motion video). 109 41. In the Third Notice, we sought comment on three alternatives to govern the use and licensing of the reserve spectrum. 110 First, we sought comment on whether we should allow RPCs to administer the reserve spectrum, in addition to administering the 12.6 megahertz, we designated for General Use in the First Report and Order. 111 We also invited commenters to suggest modifications or refinements to the RPC process to improve the management of the reserve spectrum. 112 42. Second, we sought comment on whether we should grant a single license to each state for the entire reserve spectrum and require the states – rather than RPCs – to manage all use of this spectrum by state, local, and Federal public safety providers. 113 We specifically invited states to comment on this 105 We concluded that the RPC approach has been a reasonably successful method of ensuring that the public safety spectrum in the 800 MHz band was assigned fairly and efficiently and put to its most appropriate and efficient use. Nonetheless, we modified the 700 MHz RPC process after considering comments and experiences with the 800 MHz RPC process. First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 191 ¶ 78. 106 First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 175- 176 ¶ 43. 107 See para. 37, supra. 108 See note 8, supra. 109 See, e. g., First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 170, ¶ 33. We noted that this reserve designation may be short term, based on the comments to the Third Notice. Id. Alternatively, we asked whether some or all of reserve spectrum should remain in reserve pending future developments. Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 228, 233 ¶¶ 169, 181. 110 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 228- 233 ¶¶ 169– 181. 111 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 230 ¶ 173. 112 Id. 113 We noted that some commenters to the Second Notice argued that local politics, inadequate diversity of representation, lack of funding and training, and the inability to coordinate statewide channel assignments have hampered the 800 MHz RPC process. Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 230 ¶ 172. We also noted that a number of states have developed statewide systems as a cost- effective way of sharing advanced technologies and that the RPC process may not lend itself as easily to these types of systems as a state- run process might. Id. at 230 ¶ 172. On the other hand, we also noted concerns that states administering statewide- shared system might be less responsive to the local needs and requirements of rural areas and more responsive to the needs of major metropolitan areas. Id. at 232 ¶ 178. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 19 issue. 114 We requested comments on whether states should have to adhere to the same planning process as the RPCs. 115 Additionally, we asked whether state licensing would facilitate the construction of regional or statewide systems 116 and whether to permit states to use and share the spectrum with local political subdivisions, as well as Federal and other public safety providers. 117 We also sought comment on the appropriate amount of spectrum to assign to states. 118 43. Finally, we also invited commenters to suggest other flexible licensing approaches to promote the development of a comprehensively planned public- safety communication system in the 700 MHz band as well as alternative uses of the 8.8 Megahertz that would promote innovative ways to serve the public safety community. 119 We specifically asked commenters to address the Commission’s legal authority to adopt alternative licensing approaches. 120 We also sought comment on whether to continue reserving all or part of the reserve spectrum for future technological advances. 121 44. Commenters generally focused on two issues: (1) state planning “versus” regional planning; and (2) whether states should receive some spectrum for their statewide use. As to the first issue, commenters generally favor using the RPC method for administration of the reserve spectrum. 122 APCO and other commenters assert that state administered spectrum would be an unfunded Federal mandate requiring states to establish a “sub- licensing” program. 123 A few commenters claim that a block of spectrum that is state- administered would not effectively, efficiently or responsively meet the radio communication needs of local public safety service providers. 124 While opposing state administered spectrum, APCO and others recommend that we require RPCs to set- aside a portion of the spectrum for statewide systems. 125 California and Florida recommend that RPCs manage the reserve spectrum but they further recommend that we require RPCs to set- aside a portion of the spectrum for statewide and multi- 114 Third Notice 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178. 115 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178. 116 Third Notice 14 FCC Rcd 232- 233 ¶ 178, 179. We asked whether regional or statewide systems would provide the economies of scale and scope that would increase incentives for other public safety providers to participate in the regional or statewide system. Id. at 231 ¶ 175. 117 Id. at 232- 233 ¶ 179. We noted that, should we decide to license individual states, we would need to revise 47 C. F. R. § 90. 179 (Shared use of radio stations) to allow each state licensee to authorize appropriate public safety agencies within the state to use the spectrum pursuant to the state licensee’s authorization. Id. at 234 ¶ 183. We also proposed to amend 47 C. F. R. § 90. 1 to reflect that the scope of Part 90 does not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States. See Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 234 ¶ 183 citing 47 U. S. C. § 305( a). 118 Third Notice 14 FCC Rcd 232 ¶ 178. 119 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 233 ¶ 181. 120 Id. at 234, ¶ 184. 121 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 233 ¶ 181. 122 See e. g., APCO Comments at 3- 4; IACP Comments at 7; Cities Comments at 4. 123 Arizona Reply Comments at 8; APCO Comments at 3. 124 Cities Comments at 15; UTC Comments at 7. 125 APCO Comments at 3; California Comments at 2; IACP Comments at 3. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 20 jurisdictional radio systems. 126 Arizona objects to a state planning, instead of regional planning, approach to spectrum management, and it prefers that the RPC manage the spectrum planning, but it has no objection to the licensing of spectrum directly to the state as a blanket license for its internal use. 127 45. As to the second issue, many commenters support licensing some spectrum directly to the states. 128 Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al., representing various public safety groups, 129 support licensing each state to administer the 8. 8 megahertz of reserve spectrum as delineated in the Third Notice. 130 Of the comments received by the states, only California opposes giving states a direct license of at least a portion on the reserve spectrum. 131 Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona, support direct licensing to the state of at least a portion of the reserve spectrum and see no advantage to management of such state spectrum by the RPCs. 132 New York (i. e., NYSTEC) suggests allocating a portion of the reserve spectrum for statewide use. 133 Pennsylvania strongly urges assigning at least some portion of the reserved spectrum directly to the states. Virginia supports state licensing rather than using RPCs, and it supports state administration of the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum. 134 46. One commenter, FLEWUG, opposes both RPCs and state- based licensing, and contends that neither process is appropriate or sufficient for licensing the reserve spectrum. 135 It suggests that an expanded NCC becomes the controlling authority for administering and licensing the 8. 8 megahertz of reserve spectrum. 136 FLEWUG avers that it is premature to make any further determination as to the use of the reserve spectrum and suggests we defer any decision regarding this spectrum at this time. 137 It 126 California Comments at 2. 127 Arizona Reply Comments at 8. 128 See e. g., NPSTC Comments at 6; Los Angeles Comments at 2; UTC Comments at 2; PSWN Comments at 10. 129 See Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 1 (the joint commenters are American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Forestry Conservation Communications Association (FCCA), International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. (IAFC), International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA), and National Association of State Foresters (NASF)). 130 Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 3- 4. 131 Tennessee DOT and Wisconsin submitted comments in response to the Third Notice but neither addressed the licensing of the 8. 8 MHz of reserve spectrum. 132 Florida Comments at 3; Pennsylvania Comments at 5; Reply Comments at 3, Virginia Comments at 1; Arizona Reply Comments at 8 (Arizona does not object to a state license for its internal use). 133 NYSTEC Comments at 7. (NYSTEC provides technical assistance to New York State in defining and procuring a next- generation, statewide wireless communications system. NYSTEC Comments at 3.) 134 Virginia Comments at 1. 135 FLEWUG Comments at 4. 136 Id. 137 Id at 6. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 21 recommends we refer this matter, i. e., the use of the reserve spectrum, to the NCC for further examination. 138 47. Upon review of the extensive record in this proceeding and based on the Commission’s considerable experience in licensing public safety entities, we believe a two- fold approach is best for the 7.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum. 139 We conclude that the 700 MHz plan should be augmented by designating the narrowband segment (2. 4 megahertz, or ten percent of the spectrum) as an optional geographic state license, while holding the wideband segment (5. 4 megahertz, or twenty- two percent of the spectrum) in reserve for future expansion. 140 We believe this decision complements the current 700 MHz plan, whereby RPCs administer 12.5 megahertz, or fifty- two percent of the spectrum – 7.7 megahertz for narrowband operations (voice and data) and 4.8 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/ HSD and slow motion video). This decision responds to the majority view that a certain portion of the spectrum needs to be set- aside for statewide systems, either licensed directly to the states or administered through the RPCs. 141 We further believe, for the public safety radio service where market incentives do not apply, that it is prudent to hold some spectrum in reserve to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time. This decision is in line with those parties, which filed either Petitions for Reconsideration to the First Report and Order or comments to the Third Notice, that suggest that our 700 MHz plan either lacks flexibility or needs further study. 142 1. State License 48. As discussed above, we conclude that each state should have an option to receive a statewide license for up to 2. 4 megahertz of 700 MHz band public safety spectrum. The Commission has long encouraged public safety agencies to develop wide- area multi- agency trunked public safety radio systems and the 700 MHz band public safety allocation offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the development of these systems. 143 Under this approach, states will have limitless possibilities to apply their unique expertise and knowledge to best use the radio spectrum to meet the public safety needs of their citizens. Specifically, state licensees will have significant flexibility in terms of the technologies, programs/ systems to deploy –– so long as the spectrum is used for public safety services as required by Section 337 of the Communications Act. 138 Id. 139 As decided in the First Report and Order and modified by the Third MO& O, the composite band plan provides 7. 8 megahertz of reserve spectrum split as follows — 2. 4 megahertz for narrowband operations (voice and data) and 5.4 megahertz for wideband technologies (image/ HSD and slow motion video). 140 The 7. 8 megahertz of reserve spectrum subject to current consideration is split between narrowband and wideband segments – 2. 4 megahertz narrowband and 5. 4 megahertz wideband. 141 Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al., Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and NYSTEC supported either all or a portion of the reserve spectrum be designated for direct state licenses. While opposing the state licensing, APCO, IACP, NPSTC, and California recommended that RPCs be required to set- aside a portion of the reserve spectrum for statewide or wide- area systems. See, Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 1. Arizona Reply Comments at 8. Florida Comments at 3. Pennsylvania Comments at 5 and Reply Comments at 3. Virginia Comments at 1. NYSTEC Comments at 7. APCO Comments at 6. IACP Comments at 3. NPSTC Comments at 6. California Comments at 2. 142 APCO Petition at 15, 16. Powell Petition at 5. NPSTC Petition at 4. (discussed above in the Third MO& O at paragraphs 17, 23, and 32.) FLEWUG Comments at 6. 143 See, e. g., Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 230- 31 ¶¶ 174- 75. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 22 49. Licensing up to 2. 4 megahertz of the reserve spectrum to each state is consistent with a majority of the commenters –– those supporting state licensing for either all or a portion of the spectrum as well as those parties requesting that RPCs set aside spectrum for state- wide use. 144 The PSWAC Transition Subcommittee (TRSC) 145 also reported solid support for state wide and area wide system licensing and operation –– so long as such licenses are for state operations and based on state and local governments having joint planning, ownership, and operation of such systems. 146 TRSC described a sampling of these systems then under development by the States of Colorado, Michigan, Louisiana, and Iowa and surrounding states. 147 TRSC emphasized that “[ i] t is important not to confuse state licenses for [state agency] operations [with state licenses] for operations with other than state agencies on a shared basis.” 148 Specifically, TRSC contrasted the solid support for state wide and area wide system licensing with any block license approach that would create spectrum management roles for states. TRSC averred that the state planning approach would raise complex issues including: (1) whether states want to be spectrum managers; and (2) the extent to which such a role would affect the “balance of power” between the state and local governments within their boundaries. 149 Accordingly, we conclude that states with bold visions for expansive statewide/ regional coverage should have the option to receive a direct State License as a new tool for addressing their communication requirements. 50. State License complements the RPC process. The State License approach complements the RPC process by ensuring that each state receives a significant amount of spectrum for statewide use, because the RPC process, by definition, may not focus on the statewide needs of every state. 150 In this regard, we note that several commenters want the FCC to make significant changes to the process to correct alleged deficiencies (in the RPC process adopted in the First R& O), 151 or assume oversight of RPCs. 152 California notes that because wide- area systems reduce the availability of not only the channels assigned to the system but also the adjacent channels which might present interference situations, states are at a distinct disadvantage in arguing within the regional planning structure for spectrum. 153 PSWN notes that states, due to their status as the largest users of spectrum, may find it difficult to objectively 144 APCO Comments at 3- 6; APCO Reply Comments at 3; Florida Comments at 3; Pennsylvania Comments at 5; Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 5; Virginia Comments at 1; Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 1; NYSTEC Comments at 22- 23; Arizona Reply Comments at 8; California Comments at 5- 7. 145 The Transition Subcommittee examined and proposed procedures for public safety agencies to transition to new technologies and new spectrum in an efficient, cost effective manner that does not interfere with their critical operations. PSWAC Final Report at 726 (Transition Subcommittee Report § 1. 0). 146 PSWAC Final Report at 754 (Transition Subcommittee Report §§ 7. 2. 12- 13). “The Transition Subcommittee supports such planning and priority licensing for shared state or area systems.” Id. at 754 (§ 7.1. 13). 147 PSWAC Final Report at 751- 53 (Transition Subcommittee Report at § 7. 2. 8). TRSC observed that the state is the largest spectrum user in most instances. Id. at 755 (Transition Subcommittee Report § 7. 2. 14). TRSC noted that the system in Iowa, and surrounding states, is Racom’s commercial wireless, trunked digital system that offers law enforcement customers “ruthless preemption” over business customers. Id. 148 Id. at 754 (§ 7.1. 13.). 149 Id. at 755 (§ 7.2. 14). 150 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 231 ¶ 176. 151 PSWN Comments at 7- 8; Region 20 Comments at 4; Cities Comments at 10- 13. 152 PSWN Comments at 7- 8; API Comments at 7- 8. 153 California Comments at 5. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 23 weigh its spectrum needs against those of local governments, counties and cities. 154 PSWAC noted that while the regional planning for the 800 MHz band has been reasonably successful overall, the process may have frustrated state government’s inherent interest in planning public safety communication solutions on a statewide basis by fragmenting the management of the 800 MHz RPC spectrum. 155 51. Although some commenters favor an approach whereby the RPCs set- aside spectrum for statewide or regional systems, we believe it would be administratively burdensome, complicate coordination, and possibly increase the potential for interference. While favoring the RPC process, California asks us to require RPCs to assign channels for state use only pursuant to a specific channelization pattern. 156 Florida sees no advantages to RPC management of any portion of the spectrum that we might allocate for statewide use. 157 We agree with these views and find that a uniform channel plan facilitates the development of state systems whereas allowing each of the fifty- five RPCs to adopt irregular channel plans would complicate the inter- regional coordination and increase the potential for interference. We disagree with APCO’s assertion that RPCs should have the responsibility to designate which frequencies to set- aside in consultation with RPCs from neighboring regions to maximize re- use of the spectrum. 158 Co- channel and adjacent channel assignments need to be judiciously spaced (i. e., frequency re- use) to avoid interference regardless of whether the assignments are used by neighboring states or other public safety entities (e. g., city or county governments). In fact, we believe designating consistent frequencies to states would promote frequency re- use because each state would have a vested interest in designing optimal frequency plans for both parties. It also simplifies border- area coordination to a state- to- state discussion rather than multiple state- to- regional, i. e., numerous counties and other local jurisdictions, discussions. Consequently, we will designate certain spectrum for State Licenses rather than requiring RPCs to set- aside spectrum. 52. State License – 2.4 megahertz of spectrum. We conclude that designating 2.4 megahertz for state licensing is in line with the spectrum needs identified by those commenters who suggested designating specific amounts of spectrum for state use. While the commenters sought amounts ranging from APCO’s suggestion of 1.25- 2.0 megahertz as the minimum for the RPCs to set- aside 159 to Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. and Virginia’s request for all 8. 8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum, most commenters sought between 2.5 to 3.75 megahertz of spectrum. NYSTEC suggests at least 2.5 megahertz of spectrum should be designated for statewide systems. 160 California requests 2.8 megahertz 154 PSWN Comments at 10 citing PSWAC Final Report at 755 (Transition Subcommittee Report § 7. 2. 14). 155 PSWAC Final Report at 315. 156 California Comments at 5. “The State requests that the Commission assign [2] 00 [6. 25 kHz] channel pairs (2. 5 MHz of spectrum) for state use only. The State further requests that these . . . channel[ s] be spread across the entire band, grouped in into at least 20 sets of adjacent channels with at least 200 kHz separation between each set.” Id. California separately noted that the “failure of just one [RPC] to provide appropriate channel assignments can destroy the state’s ability to meet its communication need.” Id. at 4. 157 Florida Comments at 3. 158 APCO Comments at 6. 159 APCO initially suggested requiring RPCs to set aside a minimum of 1. 25 MHz for state- wide use, but later noted support for a minimum of 2 MHz for state- wide use. APCO Comments at 6. (Emphasis in original.) APCO Reply Comments at 3. 160 NYSTEC Comments at 23. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 24 of spectrum for state systems and another 3.1 for multi- jurisdictional radio systems. 161 Florida requests 3.75 megahertz of spectrum. 162 Arizona has no objection to licensing all 8. 8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum to the State, as a blanket license for its internal use. 163 Based on the comments, we believe 2.4 megahertz strikes the right balance between providing states sufficient spectrum to fully explore and implement state- wide public safety systems and providing states with an amount of spectrum that would either lie fallow or be used in an inefficient manner. 164 53. While we acknowledge that each state has varying communications requirements, our decision to designate 2.4 megahertz of spectrum is consistent with the record before us. Adopting the same amount of spectrum for all states, regardless of size, is reasonable because the needs of smaller states for frequencies to satisfy communications requirements of high- density population areas will be similar to needs of larger states to cover fewer urban centers spaced over expansive geographic areas. Moreover, as discussed above, designating consistent spectrum for state use offers distinct benefits such as improved coordination. Consequently, we will adopt the same 2. 4 megahertz of spectrum for all states. 165 As noted above, we are providing states the same 2.4 megahertz of spectrum nationwide to “open the door” for states to consider cooperative arrangements with their neighbors for new, reliable 700 MHz band radio networks to address interstate public safety concerns such as natural disasters, forest fires, search and rescue missions, and highway emergencies or maintenance. Designating the same 2. 4 megahertz of spectrum nationwide provides additional opportunity for the development of interoperability capabilities as well as the potential acceleration of the introduction of new equipment designed to take advantage of this spectrum. 166 Designating the same 2. 4 megahertz should also improve interstate frequency coordination, thereby decreasing the potential for interference at state borders. 54. State License is a geographical area license. For commercial mobile radio services, the Commission has concluded that licensing based on pre- defined service areas poses significant advantages, over site- based licensing, because of the greater operational flexibility it affords licensees, its inherent 161 California requests 2.5 MHz (200 pairs of 6.25 kHz channels) for narrowband operations and 0.3 MHz wideband for state systems. California Comments at 6. California also noted that 8. 8 MHz of spectrum is too large an amount for state internal use. California Comments at 3. 162 Florida requests 2. 5 MHz (200 pairs of 6.25 kHz channels) for narrowband operations and 1. 25 MHz for wideband. Florida Comments at 4. 163 Arizona Reply Comments at 8. Arizona adds “[ i] f the 8. 8 megahertz of spectrum is licensed to the State directly for their own use only, then there is no reason for them to share in the general pool of frequencies.” Id. 164 We acknowledge that by designating 2. 4 megahertz for state use, we are providing states with almost the same amount of spectrum that we allocated for nationwide interoperability. However, we believe this designation reflects the states need of spectrum for daily, routine use over a specific area, usually employing trunked infrastructure, while interoperability is almost exclusively used on a unit- to- unit, mutual aid basis in response to a concentrated, geographically- based incident. 165 We feel that 2. 4 MHz should be more than enough spectrum to ameliorate this potential problem in most states. We note that, in the event that 2. 4 MHz proves to be an insufficient amount of bandwidth, states can seek additional spectrum from RPCs or pursue joint ventures with local governments to implement state/ regional systems. 166 We anticipate these developments could provide economies of scale and other benefits to state agencies and other government public safety agencies within the state. These developments also provide opportunities for less affluent localities to take advantage of the latest public safety technology by designing their systems around the use of the state- wide spectrum. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 25 ability to simplify system expansion, and its easing of the administrative burden on the Commission. 167 While APCO states that statewide systems are not incompatible with regional planning and cites that numerous statewide systems have been approved within the 800 MHz band, we believe a geographic license offers some distinct advantages. 168 PSWAC noted that the implementation of wide- area systems by the public safety community has been hindered, in part, by the Commission’s site- by- site licensing process for public safety radio. 169 Frequency- by- frequency, site- by- site, planning is a costly and time-consuming process for states that are seeking to assemble spectrum building blocks at the local level and aggregate into a statewide structure. 55. We conclude that a geographical license for states is a logical outgrowth of the RPC process and we believe it would provide a valid approach to the varying communications needs of all sectors of the public safety community – federal, state, and local. 170 Generally, when spectrum is used for private internal services, including public safety, it is not necessary to develop geographic area licensing [to ensure that service is widely available to the general public]. 171 However, site- by- site licensing is designed primarily to license dispatch radio systems on a transmitter- by- transmitter basis in local areas [markets] and the Commission has recognized that this licensing process is very cumbersome for radio systems comprised of several hundred sites. 172 It also deprives licensees that need to cover a wide geographic area of flexibility to move transmitter sites throughout a defined service area without obtaining our prior approval. 173 167 See, e. g., Implementation of Sections 3( n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896- 901 MHz and 935- 940 MHz Band Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket Nos. 89- 553, 93- 144, GN Docket No. 93- 252, Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8044 (1994). 168 APCO Comments at 5. (APCO cites the statewide systems of Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Connecticut, California, and Michigan. Id.) 169 PSWAC Final Report at 315. PSWAC also noted a reticence of individual agencies to surrender some autonomy in return for the efficiencies and better coverage of the larger system. PSWAC Final Report at 317- 318. We note, however, that PSWAC contends that in many instances perceived losses in terms of independence of operation are more than offset by improvements in function and efficiency. PSWAC Final Report at 3. 170 On a related point regarding administration of interoperability spectrum, Florida, Pennsylvania, FLEWUG, and PSWN, indicate that state communication systems are the most appropriate “bridge” between local and Federal government agencies. See, Florida Comments at 5, Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 3; FLEWUG Comments at 17- 18; and PSWN Comments at 15. 171 We recently decided that a site- by- site licensing scheme with frequency coordination is the best approach to licensing the 928/ 952/ 956 MHz bands (Multiple Address Systems) because we reserved these bands for private internal use. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97- 81, Report and Order, FCC 99- 415 at ¶ 45 (rel. January 19, 2000). 172 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93- 144, Implementation of Sections 3( n) and 322 of the Communications Act – Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93- 252, Implementation of Section 309( j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93- 253, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19, 079 (1997). 173 Id. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 26 56. In determining what type of geographic area license is most appropriate for particular wireless services, we have considered such factors as the nature of the service (e. g., technological constraints), the presence of natural markets, cost of build- out, and the range of services that can be offered in the most rapid and efficient manner. This determination has led to the use of a variety of different license areas (e. g., Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Economic Areas). In this case, the geopolitical boundaries of each state form an appropriate and convenient geographical licensing area for public safety radio spectrum. Noting that spectrum propagation does not honor state boundaries, APCO cites the northeast where regions are organized around multi- state metropolitan areas as a drawback to state licensing. 174 We reject this argument, because, as Pennsylvania points out, radio signals do not respect the artificial boundaries of the RPCs. 175 Indeed, the northeast, where RPCs are metropolitan based rather than state- based, have provided some of our most complicated and vexing problems to be solved. Consequently, we conclude that an optional state- based geographic license is desirable and offers some distinct advantages over RPCs for managing spectrum designated for state operations. 57. State License promotes efficient spectrum use and allows economies of scale. Experience with geographic area licensing in the commercial wireless sector demonstrates that geographic area licenses often encourage the rapid development and deployment of innovative service, facilitate interoperability and operational standards while allowing economies of scale that encourage the development of low cost equipment. 176 APCO contends that, although a few large states may well have the capability to administer the reserve spectrum, most state governments are ill- equipped and unwilling to manage radio spectrum, nor are they able to fund such activities in most cases. 177 Pennsylvania disagrees and notes that the states have the technical and policy expertise to construct wide- area systems and to manage the use of spectrum licensed to the state. 178 We concur, and cite the many state systems currently being built or planned as evidence of the expertise and resources being expended by the states. 179 We believe that providing each state with up to 2.4 megahertz of spectrum will give each state greater latitude to implement spectrum saving technologies in public safety communications by allowing states to plan and develop shared, wide- area systems under a substantially streamlined FCC licensing process. 180 We further note that shared, wide- area systems, i. e., large trunked systems, can provide service to many governmental entities in a given geographical area, which provides greater spectrum efficiency than systems incorporating many smaller non- trunked systems or systems trunked on fewer channels. 181 174 APCO Comments at 4. 175 Pennsylvania Comments at 4. 176 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). 177 APCO Comments at 3. 178 Pennsylvania Reply Comments at 2. 179 E. g., California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Utah. See Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 232 ¶ 178; see also text accompanying note 147, supra. 180 One of the goals identified in the Second Notice was the promotion of efficient and effective use of the new spectrum, and, one of the keys to efficient spectrum use is accommodating local, state, and regional needs. Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,711 and 17,715. 181 PSWAC Final Report at 317- 318. Shared systems also offer a high level of built- in interoperability. Id. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 27 58. We also believe that our decision may give state public safety agencies greater access to cutting- edge technology that will not only allow them to achieve greater efficiencies in the performance of their duties, but also will reduce danger to public safety personnel. 182 As noted in the Third Notice, the development of state- wide systems that include state agencies of various sizes may allow states to more easily deploy state- of- the art systems, due to the economics of scale and scope. Pennsylvania further notes that these wide- area, state systems can provide economies of scale and other benefits to state agencies and local public- safety agencies within the state. 183 States deploying such systems decrease the cost that any one agency needs to bear for infrastructure and lowers the per- user cost for the whole system. 184 Thus, a statewide system could serve as the backbone for delivering new technologies in a cost- effective way to localities throughout the state. Rather than bypassing local communications needs, the statewide system is a way to ensure that jurisdictions in the state are not divided into communications "haves” and “have- nots." 59. The State License approach that we are adopting is also in line with PSWAC’s recommendations to (1) encourage more sharing and joint use of spectrum resources in light of the considerable success some states and regions are experiencing in pooling spectral resources, and (2) consider block allocations for public safety use and adopt flexible licensing policies that encourage the use of the most spectrally- efficient technology to meet user defined needs. 185 a. Licensing and Operational Requirements 60. Based on the channel plan and other decisions set forth above, we will allow any state 186 that chooses to take advantage of spectrum that we have designated for state use to file an application for up to 2.4 megahertz of this spectrum no later than December 31, 2001. 187 We believe that providing states this amount of time to apply for this spectrum allows every state at least one legislative cycle or fiscal year to allocate the funds necessary to plan, prepare, and implement the use of the spectrum. 188 What ever part of this 2.4 megahertz that a state has not applied for by December 31, 2001, will revert to General Use and be administered by the relevant RPC (or RPCs in the instances of states that encompass multiple RPCs). 61. Upon receipt and processing of a state’s application, we will issue a license directly to the governor of each state, or its designee. 189 The Communications Act imposes no time limit on licenses issued by the Commission, other than those for broadcast services, which are limited to an eight- year 182 See, e. g., PSWAC Final Report at 2. 183 Pennsylvania Comments at 5, see also NYSTEC Comments at 22- 23; PSWN Reply Comments at 8. 184 Third Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 231 ¶ 176. 185 See PSWAC Final Report at 2- 4, 19 (Key Finding 2.1.7), 22- 23 (Key Recommendation 2.2.3). 186 We are adopting a definition of “state” that includes United States territories and possessions. See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 7, as amended (Appendix F). 187 States will use FCC Form 601 for this application. 188 We also believe that by allowing each state to elect whether to take the designated spectrum, we address Arizona and APCO concerns and avoid imposing an unfunded mandate on those states that do not wish to utilize the spectrum. Similarly, we believe that allowing states to apply for less than the full 2. 4 megahertz of spectrum that will also avoid imposing an unfunded mandate and help to ensure the efficient utilization of this spectrum. 189 Accord, e. g., Florida Comments at 8 (Florida recommends that the Governor’s office of each state be responsible and accountable for development and construction of a state use plan); Virginia Comments at 1. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 28 license term. 190 Section 90.149 of our Rules 191 provides for ten– year license terms in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services. 192 In the context of 700 MHz band geographic– area licenses, we are concerned that the continued existence of incumbent broadcasters in the state license spectrum may retard a licensee’s development and use of the spectrum. 193 Thus, we are modifying the license term for the state license to accommodate licensees’ need for additional time to develop and use this spectrum, in light of its continued use by broadcasters until 2006 at the earliest. Subject to the conditions set forth below, the initial license term for these licenses will be fifteen years. 194 States can subsequently renew these licenses for additional ten- year periods. Renewal will not be automatic, but state licensees will have a renewal expectancy subject to the conditions set forth below. 62. Conditions of Grant We believe it is necessary to establish construction and operation requirements to ensure efficient use of the spectrum including the provision of service to rural, remote, and insular areas. We believe setting our initial construction/ operation benchmark at five years is consistent with our experience and Rules for public safety/ government entities. 195 Because incumbent broadcasters are not required to complete relocation to other portions of the spectrum until December 31, 2006, we will calculate the five– year benchmark using January 1, 2007 as the starting date. 196 63. Accordingly, each state license will be granted subject to the condition that the state certifies on or before each applicable benchmark date (see below) that it is: x providing or prepared to provide “substantial service” 197 to one- third of their population or territory 198 by January 1, 2012, i. e., within five years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum;” 190 See 47 C. F. R. § 73. 1020( a). 191 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 149( a) (2000). 192 See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- 47 C. F. R. Part 90 - Private Land Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 98- 182, Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land Mobile Services, PR Docket No. 92- 235, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00- 235 at ¶¶ 9- 10 (rel. July 12, 2000) (Part 90 Biennial R& O). 193 See Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket 99- 168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 504 ¶ 67 (2000) (Commercial 700 MHz R& O). 194 We adopted fourteen year license term for geographic area licensees in the commercial 700 MHz band. See id. As discussed immediately below, however, the “substantial service” deadline for state licensees will be January 1, 2017. We envision granting state licenses early in the year 2002, thus necessitating a fifteen year license term. 195 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 90. 155( b), 90. 629( b). 196 We may defer this date (and thus extend the deadlines) if the DTV transition period for a relevant market is extended as set forth in 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( B) (e. g., markets where 15% or more households do not have access to either DTV- equipped receivers or multi- channel video). In addition, given the large geographic licensing areas, each with a number of incumbent broadcasters, we are setting a definite license term, rather than one dependent on the date on which incumbent broadcasters complete their digital television transition. See Commercial 700 MHz R& O, 15 FCC Rcd at 504 ¶ 67. 197 The term “substantial service” – a term more commonly used in a commercial wireless context – is used for convenience herein to refer to the construction and operation of 700 MHz facilities by public safety entities providing “service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 29 x providing or prepared to provide “substantial service” to two- thirds of their population or territory by January 1, 2017, i. e., within ten years of the date that incumbent broadcasters are required to relocate to other portions of the spectrum. x We will deem a state “prepared to provide substantial service” if the licensee certifies that radio system has been approved and funded for implementation by the deadline date. x If a licensee fails to meet any condition of the grant the license is modified automatically to the frequencies and geographic areas where the state certifies that it is providing substantial service. x Any recovered spectrum will revert to General Use. 199 x We clarify, however, that spectrum licensed to a state under a state license remains unavailable for reassignment to other applicants until the Commission’s database reflects the parameters of the modified state license. 64. We conclude that these construction and operation requirements constitute effective safeguards and performance requirements for the efficient use of this spectrum. However, we reserve the right to review these requirements in the future if we determine that a reassessment is warranted to ensure that the radio spectrum is used efficiently. 65. Conforming Amendment to Section 90. 179 Under Section 90.179 200 of our Rules, a licensee may share its system with other entities that are eligible to hold a license for the same spectrum. 201 A station is shared when persons not licensed for the station control it for their own purposes pursuant to the licensee's permission. 202 In the Third Notice, we noted that if we decided to license individual states, we would need to revise Section 90.179 to allow state licensees to authorize appropriate public safety agencies within the state and its political subdivisions to use the spectrum for their own purposes pursuant to the state licensee's authorization. minimally warrant renewal.” See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (“ WCS”), GN Docket No. 96- 228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10843- 45 ¶¶ 111- 115 (Part 27 Report and Order). 198 We allow states to certify that they are providing substantial service to its population because we recognize that state public safety entities have a responsibility to protect the safety of life, health and property. We allow states to certify that they are providing substantial service to its territory because we recognize that state public safety entities have responsibilities statewide –– both densely populated areas and lesser populated rural areas. 199 Accord Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. Comments at 3- 4 (spectrum should be maintained for a period of five years following the full availability of the spectrum and then default to the RPCs). 200 47 C. F. R. § 90. 179. 201 We recently amended 47 C. F. R. § 90. 179 to allow on a non- profit, cost- shared basis: (1) Public Safety Pool licensees to share their facilities with Federal Government entities, and (2) Industrial/ Business Pool licensees to share their facilities with Public Safety Pool eligibles. See Part 90 Biennial R& O, 15 FCC Rcd __¶¶ 19- 21 (2000). 202 47 C. F. R. § 90. 179( a). 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 30 66. The state, as licensee, will be responsible for assuring that the authorized facility is used only by persons and for purposes consistent with Section 90.179. 203 For example, if the state, as licensee, shares a land station on a non- profit, cost sharing basis, it must do so pursuant to a written agreement between the state and each participant that is kept as part of the station records. 204 This amendment is necessary to provide state licensees with the same operational flexibility that Section 90.179 now provides all other PLMR licensees. By comparison, we decline to adopt a “State Licensing” approach under which states – rather than regional planning committees (RPCs) – would manage state, local, and Federal use of all or most of the 8.8 megahertz of reserve spectrum. b. Technical Requirements 67. State applicants and licensee will be subject to the general limits that govern geographic area licenses including antenna structures and air navigation, international coordination, environmental requirements, and quiet zones. 205 In addition, we will mirror our decision in the Commercial 700 MHz R& O and adopt a field strength 206 of 40 dBu/ m 207 to control harmful interference between state systems in the 746- 764 MHz and 776- 794 MHz bands. As we stated in that decision, we believe the field strength approach provides established, objective criteria for controlling in- band interference, and gives licensees the ability to construct and operate facilities in boundary areas so long as the limit is met. 208 We further believe that use of the field strength procedure will satisfy the requirement in Section 337( d)( 1) that the Commission establish “interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block and service area.” 209 Similarly to our decision in the Commercial 700 MHz R& O, we will permit adjoining states to agree to alternate field strengths at their common border. 210 2. 700 MHz Band Reserve 68. We are reserving the remaining 5. 4 megahertz of wideband spectrum for future (mid– term) needs and future developments in broadband technologies. We recognize that there was opposition to our retaining any of the public safety 700 MHz band as reserve spectrum. We believe, however, that whenever a large amount of spectrum 211 is made available in a new band for public safety, it is good 203 47 C. F. R. § 90. 179( b). As with current Section 90. 179, the shared use of the spectrum licensed to the individual states would be predicated on the authorized user and the state complying with all the provisions of Section 90. 179. 204 See 47 C. F. R. § 90.179( d). 205 See, e. g., Commercial 700 MHz R& O, 15 FCC Rcd at 514 ¶ 93. See also 47 C. F. R. §§ 27.51, 27. 54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27. 61, 27. 63; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848- 65 ¶¶ 123- 161. 206 The “field strength” approach requires a licensee to limit the field strength of its station transmissions to some prescribed level at the licensee’s geographic border. 207 The predicted 40 dBu/ v field strength shall be calculated using Figure 10 of Section 73. 699 of this chapter, with a correction factor for antenna height differential of –9 dB. 47 C. F. R. § 73.699, Fig. 10. 208 Commercial 700 MHz R& O, 15 FCC Rcd at 515 ¶ 96- 97. 209 47 U. S. C. § 337( d)( 1). 210 Commercial 700 MHz R& O, 15 FCC Rcd at 515 ¶ 97. 211 With 1920 narrowband channels available, we do not think public safety entities will be adversely impacted in the short term if the Commission retains some reserve spectrum. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 31 spectrum management policy to keep some spectrum in reserve for unforeseen needs. 212 In this case, public safety regional plans for the 700 MHz band have not been finalized and, in most cases, not even started. As discussed earlier, some parties asked for further study — NPSTC’s Petition for Reconsideration requested locating a “reserve band” between the narrowband and wideband channels to accommodate future needs; 213 Powell’s Petition for Reconsideration also requested that we defer the planning of the wideband channels until further discussions could commence on the development of a national HSD network; 214 and FLEWUG requests that all 8.8 megahertz be held in reserve pending further consideration by the NCC. 215 Thus, we conclude that holding some wideband spectrum in reserve is a prudent course of action at this time. Keeping a relatively small reserve (twenty- two percent of the 700 MHz band) gives the Commission flexibility to “fine tune” the band plan in the future with the benefit of experience that can only be gained after radio systems are deployed in this new band. 69. Specifically, in the Third MO& O, we regrouped the reserve spectrum into four (2 pair) segments of 1.35 megahertz each that are located between the narrowband and wideband segments. 216 This regrouping offers improved flexibility to accommodate future requirements that are unforeseen at this time because the 5.4 megahertz of reserve spectrum is located between narrowband and wideband segments so we can accommodate future needs for narrowband, wideband or broadband that may be identified through the planning process or by advances in technology without impacting existing plans or licensees. Keeping a reserve that is grouped in two pairs of 1.35 megahertz each also recognizes trends towards broadband technologies. For example, the 108 wideband channels that we are reserving could accommodate needs such as exclusive high speed data, 217 additional interoperability spectrum, 218 or hybrid commercial/ private mobile system. 219 Therefore, we will retain 5.4 megahertz of spectrum as a public safety reserve. Once the 700 MHz band planning process is complete, we will review the status of a spectrum reserve. Also, we would welcome any future suggestions the NCC may have regarding this issue. 212 For example, when deciding on how to allocate the 40 megahertz of 800 MHz PLMR spectrum, the Commission decided to make 30 megahertz available and keep 10 megahertz in reserve for unforeseen needs. See An Inquiry Relative to the Future Use of the Frequency Band 806- 960 MHz; Amendment of Parts 2, 18, 21, 73, 74, 89, 91, and 93 of the Rules Relative to Operations in the Land Mobile Service Between 806 and 960 MHz, Docket No. 18262, Second Report and Order, 46 FCC 2d 752, 759 ¶ 19 (1974). Later, when the Commission made the 10 megahertz of reserve spectrum available, the Commission changed the operating and licensing parameters due to changing needs. 213 See NPSTC Petition at 4; see also para. 33, supra. 214 See Powell Petition at 5; see also para. 24, supra. 215 See FLEWUG Comments at 4; see also para. 46, supra. 216 See paras. 33- 34, supra. 217 IACP Comments at 3. 218 API Comments at 8. 219 FLEWUG Reply Comments at 8. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00- 348 32 B. Protection of the GNSS 220 from Second Harmonic Interference 70. In the Third Notice, we proposed technical solutions to protect the GNSS global navigation satellite systems, particularly the GLONASS. 221 We were concerned that second harmonic emissions 222 from public safety mobiles operating in the 794- 806 MHz band (TV channels 68 and 69) may cause harmful interference to aeronautical users of GLONASS receivers. 223 To protect this system and to ensure that equipment operating in these bands would not cause radio interference to the GNSS, NTIA advocated applying out- of- band emission limits for GNSS to all spurious emissions, including second harmonic emissions, and being limited to: (1) wideband emissions, -70 dBW/ MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP); and (2) narrowband emissions, -80 dBW/ 700 Hz. We proposed to apply the emission limits requested by NTIA only to the second harmonics to the GLONASS band. However, we requested comment concerning the validity of the assumptions that underlie NTIA's requested standard, such as the assumed separa