[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65594-65600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25587]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[PS Docket No. 13-229; RM-11635; FCC 13-121]
Vehicular Repeaters
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission proposes an amendment to the Commission's rules to allow the
licensing and operation of vehicular repeater systems and other mobile
repeaters by public safety licensees on certain frequencies in the VHF
band.
DATES: Submit comments on or before December 31, 2013. Submit reply
comments January 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 13-229;
RM-11635, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
Hand or Messenger Delivery: 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments, additional
information on the rulemaking process, and where to find materials
available for inspection, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Eng, Policy and Licensing
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554,
at (202) 418-0019, TTY (202) 418-7233, or via email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of
[[Page 65595]]
Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 13-229; RM-11635; adopted and
released September 16, 2013. The complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., in person at 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-
5563, or via email at [email protected]. Alternative formats (computer
diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to
persons with disabilities or by sending an email to [email protected] or
calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530,
TTY (202) 418-0432. This document is also available on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
Comments
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Introduction
In this Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which we adopt in
response to an Amended Petition for Rulemaking filed by Pyramid
Communications, Inc. (Pyramid), we solicit comment on whether to amend
Part 90 of the Commission's rules to allow the licensing and operation
of vehicular repeater systems (VRS) and other mobile repeaters by
public safety licensees on certain frequencies in the VHF band. Mobile
repeaters are beneficial for public safety because they can provide
first responders with enhanced in-building radio coverage at emergency
sites, thereby enabling first responders to remain in radio contact
when they are inside a building. For example, a mobile repeater enables
firefighters to communicate on hand-held radios with their command
center when they enter a building, encounter an in-building fire, and
need to call for backup assistance on the spot. Without a repeater to
relay the communications, the firefighters inside the building might be
cut off from communicating with the command center.
Given the importance of mobile repeaters to public safety, the
purpose of this proceeding is to explore whether there is a need to
make additional spectrum available to support mobile repeater
capability. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Amended
Petition in part and initiate a rulemaking that proposes to allow VRS
operations on six remote control and telemetry channels at 173 MHz,
subject to coordination procedures. However, we deny the portion of the
Amended Petition that seeks to initiate a rulemaking to permit VRS
operations on nine Federal and forest firefighting channels in the 170-
172 MHz band.
Background
Portions of the VHF band are used by Private Land Mobile Radio
Service licensees, including public safety licensees, predominantly for
voice operations. The Commission's rules designate 488 frequencies,
totaling approximately 3.6 megahertz of spectrum in the VHF band, for
public safety use. Licensees may operate mobile repeater stations,
including vehicular repeaters, on certain VHF mobile frequencies under
Sec. 90.247 of the Commission's rules.
On June 27, 2011, Pyramid, a manufacturer of wireless data and
voice equipment, filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the
Commission amend its rules to expand the number of VHF band frequencies
available for VRS use by public safety licensees. On August 16, 2011,
Pyramid filed the Amended Petition to provide clarification and correct
typographical errors. We treat the Amended Petition as superseding the
Initial Petition, but we also consider four additional VHF frequencies
that were identified in the Initial Petition but not included in the
Amended Petition.
In the Amended Petition, Pyramid contends that VRS units are
essential to extend coverage of radio systems to the inside of
buildings so that first responders going into a building can maintain
communications. According to Pyramid, current filter technology
requires VRS units to operate on frequencies that are separated by 2-5
megahertz from the system's main licensed frequencies. Pyramid asserts
that there are insufficient existing VHF frequencies to support VRS
that are sufficiently distant from the 150-159 MHz public safety
frequencies and that are not already saturated with other existing
base/mobile operations. Pyramid therefore proposes that the Commission
designate additional VHF spectrum for VRS use.
Pyramid identifies two specific VHF allocations that it contends
would be suitable for communication between portable radios and VRS
units. First, Pyramid identifies nine frequencies in the 170-172 MHz
band that are allocated for Federal use on a primary basis but are also
available for assignment to non-Federal licensees engaged in forest
firefighting and forest conservation activities. Pyramid proposes to
lift this limitation so that these channels could be used by VRS units
for purposes other than fighting forest fires, e.g., for fighting in-
building fires. Pyramid also states that to address potential concerns
that VRS use by police might cause interference to firefighters,
Pyramid ``would not oppose'' limiting VRS use of these frequencies to
firefighters.
Second, Pyramid identifies six frequencies in the 173 MHz band
currently designated for fixed remote control and telemetry operations.
These six frequencies are shared between the Public Safety and
Industrial/Business (I/B) Pools, have a 6 kilohertz
[[Page 65596]]
bandwidth limitation, and do not permit voice operation due to the
telemetry designation. Pyramid states that the Land Mobile
Communications Council (LMCC) ``has developed frequency coordination
standards by which radio systems can be coordinated on adjacent
frequencies where bandwidths overlap.'' Pyramid contends that
utilization of these standards will ensure that VRS use of the six
frequencies identified in the Amended Petition will not cause adjacent
channel interference. On this basis, Pyramid proposes that the
Commission lift the restriction on voice operation and allow low power
VRS operation on the six 173 MHz frequencies.
On October 14, 2011, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
(Bureau) released a public notice seeking comment on the Amended
Petition. The Bureau sought comment on Pyramid's proposals regarding
the 170-172 MHz forest firefighting frequencies and the 173 MHz
telemetry frequencies. The Bureau asked whether the Commission should
remove the limitation in Sec. 90.20(d)(33), which imposes a bandwidth
limit of 6 kilohertz on the six telemetry channels, since voice
communications typically occupy a bandwidth of 11.25 kilohertz. The
Bureau also noted that the Initial Petition, but not the Amended
Petition, had proposed to allow VRS use of four additional frequencies
immediately adjacent to the six telemetry channels. Accordingly, the
Bureau asked whether the Commission should consider all ten 173 MHz
frequencies for VRS operation. Finally, the Bureau sought comment on
``the potential costs and benefits of Pyramid's proposal, including:
(1) How and in what ways the remote control and telemetry channels are
used today; (2) the compatibility of the proposed VRS voice operations
with incumbent remote control and telemetry operations; and (3)
adjacent channel interference as a result of modifying or removing
bandwidth limitations on frequencies in the 173 MHz band.'' The comment
period closed on November 18, 2011.
Comments
The Commission received 31 responsive comments and reply comments,
with supporting commenters outnumbering opposing commenters. Full
supporters include various public safety agencies, equipment dealers,
and individuals. Two certified frequency coordinators offer more
reserved support for VRS use of the 173 MHz channels. Four certified
frequency coordinators and a county water management agency oppose the
petition.
Comments Supporting Pyramid Proposals
Nineteen commenters support all of Pyramid's proposals. Some of
these commenters argue that in-building portable radio coverage can be
challenging or non-existent due to the use of modern construction
materials that attenuate radio signals, and that vehicular repeaters
are an important link between portable and base communications. Several
parties support this proceeding for the safety of first responders.
Mark Schaff (Schaff) argues that the VHF plan makes it difficult to
achieve 3-5 megahertz separation between the mobile transmit
frequencies and the vehicle repeater frequency. Therefore, Schaff
states that making frequencies at 170 MHz available for VRS would make
it easier to set up in-band repeaters. Wisconsin State Patrol
(Wisconsin) urges the Commission to consider all ten frequencies at 173
MHz (including the four identified in the Initial Petition), as well as
the 170-172 MHz frequencies, for VRS operation.
Other commenters support specific elements of Pyramid's proposal
but take no position on others. The Commonwealth of Virginia,
Department of State Police (Commonwealth) supports VRS use of the six
173 MHz telemetry frequencies and also supports allowing VRS use of
170-172 MHz frequencies, but for forestry purposes only. The
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO), a certified frequency coordinator, states that it ``is not
prepared to take a position on all of Pyramid's specific
recommendations at this time'' but that it ``strongly support[s] the
initiation of a rulemaking proceeding to explore ways to improve VRS
capability.'' The Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA), another certified
coordinator, takes no position on VRS use of 170-172 MHz frequencies,
but supports consideration of designating some 173 MHz frequencies for
VRS voice operations ``subject, of course, to appropriate frequency
coordination procedures.'' EWA cautions that VRS use of these
frequencies must be carefully coordinated to ensure continued
availability of the telemetry channels for use by EWA and Utilities
Telecommunications Council (UTC) members, ``who have made productive
use of these frequencies to support a variety of essential business
enterprise and critical infrastructure non-voice applications.'' EWA
opposes rule changes ``that might compromise these operations,'' but
posits that ``[g]iven the highly localized nature of VRS usage, [the
telemetry] frequencies should be able to be reused in adjacent
communities without interference.'' APCO, Pyramid, and Wisconsin also
state that frequency coordination can minimize potential VRS
interference to remote control and telemetry operations.
Comments Opposing VRS on 170-172 MHz
Two other certified frequency coordinators, the Forestry
Conservation Communications Association (FCCA) and the International
Municipal Signal Association/International Association of Fire Chiefs
(IMSA/IAFC), oppose VRS use of the 170-172 MHz frequencies. While these
parties do not oppose the concept of VRS, they assert that because the
170-172 MHz band frequencies are assigned on a primary basis to the
federal government, the Commission lacks authority to allow VRS use
absent concurrence from federal users and/or the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). IMSA/IAFC
also express concern that VRS use could interfere with use of these
channels for forest firefighting operations. FCCA notes that the
locations of forest fires cannot be predicted, so ``[o]nce a fire
starts, it is critical to be able to move into an area quickly and
establish communications.'' IMSA/IAFC state that ``[t]here is often no
clear distinction between forested and non-forested areas, and
buildings, shopping malls and arenas are increasingly located at the
perimeters of forested areas.'' Both commenters also cite as precedent
a 2003 determination by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau that
forest firefighting channels are not routinely available for low power
police surveillance operations.
Comments Opposing VRS on 173 MHz Telemetry Channels
The Yuba County Water Agency, California (Yuba) and certified
frequency coordinators UTC and the American Petroleum Institute (API)
express concerns that VRS could interfere with incumbent telemetry
operations in the 173 MHz band. UTC states that allowing voice
operations on these frequencies ``would threaten interference to
[telemetry] operations, thereby jeopardizing the underlying services
that they support and the general public that relies on those
services.'' UTC also contends that existing frequency coordination
procedures will not mitigate the risk of interference because they are
designed
[[Page 65597]]
to address interference between adjacent voice systems rather than
interference between voice-based VRS and data-based telemetry/remote
control operations. Yuba contends that ``[t]here is a high likelihood
that police and fire use of [VRS] would interfere with the Agency
telemetry system.'' API argues that ``Pyramid does not describe how its
proposal will not result in the very interference to others that it
seeks to avoid (both from and to Public Safety VRS operations) for
itself.''
UTC and API also argue that Pyramid has failed to document the need
for additional spectrum to support VRS. UTC asserts that there is
``very little if any technical justification in the petition for the
relief that Pyramid seeks, and there is almost no discussion of
possible alternatives and/or interference mitigation strategies.'' API
argues that Pyramid has not demonstrated why VRS could not be
accommodated on existing frequencies through improved filter technology
or regional, state and local planning. API suggests that it is
premature to conclude that the VHF band is saturated with existing
base/mobile operations because narrowbanding could make additional VHF
spectrum available after the January 1, 2013 deadline. API also
contends that critical infrastructure industry entities have greater
need than VRS for additional spectrum.
In reply, the Commonwealth argues that VRS use of telemetry
frequencies ``to help fill a critical gap in public safety coverage for
first responders'' should take priority over ``the risk of minor delays
in utility monitoring.'' The Commonwealth also contends that the risk
of VRS causing interference to utility telemetry is low because VRS use
will be highly sporadic. Indeed, given that VRS units are intended for
temporary use at indeterminate locations, the Commonwealth argues that
VRS use should not be subject to frequency coordination.
Order
As evidenced by Sec. 90.247 of the rules, the Commission has long
recognized the public interest benefit of vehicular repeaters (mobile
repeater stations), which provide in-building coverage and extended
communications range for hand-held units used by police, fire, and
rescue personnel in the field. As we noted above, mobile repeaters can
improve the safety of first responders by enabling them to stay in
radio contact with their command centers in difficult coverage
environments where they might otherwise be cut off from communicating.
We point out that licensees may operate mobile repeater stations on
most frequencies in the VHF band without any rule change under Sec.
90.247. The predominant use of mobile repeater stations is for land
mobile voice operation, which is allowed on most VHF frequencies.
However, a rulemaking is necessary to consider allowing mobile
repeater stations on the particular VHF frequencies that Pyramid
identified because these frequencies have specific rules and
limitations that render the frequencies incompatible with mobile
repeater stations absent a rule change. For example, the six telemetry
and remote control channels are non-voice by definition, and thus, our
rules do not allow voice operation and therefore do not allow mobile
repeater station operations on telemetry and remote control channels.
Hence, Pyramid urges the Commission to ``remov[e] the thirty year old
restriction on voice operation.'' The Federal forest firefighting
channels have limitations on allocation and how the channels are used
that are also incompatible with Pyramid's proposed mobile repeater
stations use, absent rule changes.
In its Amended Petition, Pyramid states that public safety users in
the VHF band have a particular need for an in-band VRS solution because
there is virtually no allocation of public safety spectrum that can be
used for VRS that provides the required spectral separation from the
150-159 MHz operating frequencies and that is not already saturated
with existing base/mobile operations. The record persuades us that we
should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether additional
spectrum is needed to support VHF in-band mobile repeater stations.
Accordingly, by adopting the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
we grant the portion of Pyramid's Amended Petition that seeks to
initiate such a proceeding.
However, we deny the portion of Pyramid's Amended Petition that
seeks to initiate a proceeding regarding the nine Federal and forest
firefighting channels at 170-172 MHz. On April 3, 2013, NTIA filed a
letter recommending that the Commission deny the Pyramid Petition in
part with respect to these channels. NTIA noted that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service make extensive
use of these channels. NTIA states that because the Forest Service
supports critical public safety operations, NTIA needs to ensure an
interference-free environment. NTIA opposes even secondary status for
VRS users because VRS public safety services should not be placed at
risk by creating conflicts with primary Federal safety operations, and
neither group will want to face interference or other coordination
conflicts during an operation. Based on NTIA's recommendation, we
decline to include the nine Federal channels in our rulemaking
proceeding.
We also decline to include in our rulemaking proceeding the four
additional 173 MHz frequencies identified by Pyramid in the Initial
Petition. Because Pyramid did not list these frequencies in the Amended
Petition, it is not clear whether Pyramid intended to propose their
inclusion, but even if it did so intend, we believe they are not
suitable for VRS use. Two of the four frequencies (173.210 and 173.390
MHz) have a bandwidth limit of only 3 kilohertz, which is insufficient
bandwidth for satisfactory voice operation based on today's available
technology. We also agree with APCO that the four frequencies should
not be considered for VRS use because the 6.25 kilohertz separation
between the lower two and upper two frequencies ``results in
insufficient separation between the two frequencies for voice use, and
makes coordination difficult.''
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on rule
amendments to provide for the expanded use of mobile repeaters for
public safety. Although we do not seek to expand the authority for
mobile repeaters under Sec. 90.247, we propose to amend Sec. Sec.
90.20 (limitations 32, 33, and 34) and 90.175 of our rules to enable
mobile repeaters to operate on the telemetry channels discussed above.
We also seek comment on whether frequency coordination methods could
protect telemetry users from interference. Next, we seek comment on
issues raised in the comments to the public notice, including wide area
mobile repeater operations, bandwidth, and power. We also seek comment
on the costs and burdens of rule changes, and on whether current mobile
repeater filter technologies can support reduced frequency separation
requirements. Finally, we explore the mobile repeater environment in
other public safety bands besides VHF, and seek comment on Industrial/
Business licensees' usage of mobile repeaters.
Telemetry Channels
We seek comment on whether to permit public safety mobile repeater
station operations on the six remote control and telemetry channels at
173 MHz subject to coordination. The record suggests that there may be
a need to make additional VHF channels available for VRS use beyond
those that are
[[Page 65598]]
already available. We seek comment on whether this is the case. Are
frequencies in the 150-159 MHz band not suitable for VRS use, as
Pyramid contends, because of limited spectral separation and heavy use
by existing base mobile operations? Are there are other alternatives
that should be considered, as API and UTC suggest? For example, has
implementation of the Commission's narrowbanding mandate freed up VHF
spectrum that could be used for VRS? Should VRS spectral needs be given
priority over other potential uses, such as critical infrastructure
use?
To the extent that additional VHF spectrum may be needed for VRS
use, we seek comment on the appropriateness of making the six 173 MHz
remote control and telemetry channels available for this purpose. Do
commenters agree with EWA that neighboring VRS users should be able to
share use of the same frequency given the localized and limited time
nature of such operations, and that such sharing should minimize the
potential for harmful interference to incumbent telemetry users? We
note that some telemetry data operations are used for safety-related
purposes, such as monitoring and controlling water quality and volume
for public health and flood control. Would frequency coordination be
sufficient to mitigate the risk of interference between VRS and
telemetry uses? Should we consider modifying the current VHF band
coordination methodology, including the use of exclusion zones, to
reduce instances of interference? Since mobile repeater stations are
not fixed operations, we seek comment on whether a modified VHF
coordination practice could accommodate mobile repeater stations. We
also seek comment on alternative frequency coordination procedures that
could accommodate such usage.
Protection of Telemetry Users
We seek comment about the typical configuration and usage of
telemetry stations. Are telemetry systems generally point-to-point,
point-to-multipoint, or a mix? What are typical duty cycles and data
rates? What types of error correction and retransmit protocols do
telemetry operators use? In the context of telemetry station
configuration and usage, what is the best way to protect them from
mobile repeater stations through coordination? For example, is it
feasible to prohibit mobile repeater use inside the service area of a
co-channel incumbent station (i.e., an exclusion zone)? We invite
suggestions for other coordination procedures, depending on the
characteristics of the incumbent telemetry station. Would an exclusion
zone coordination methodology address UTC's concern about the lack of a
frequency coordination standard for voice and data operations? Would a
typical public safety mobile repeater station licensee be able to
instruct its first responders to avoid using a co-channel frequency for
mobile repeater stations in these exclusion zones with reasonable
accuracy?
We seek comment on whether frequency coordinators could add special
conditions to the mobile repeater applications, e.g., by listing
active, co-channel incumbent call signs and associated exclusion zones
that demarcate where mobile repeater operations would be specifically
prohibited from the authorization requested by the application. We seek
comment on possible exceptions to such an approach, such as when the
mobile repeater station user has obtained written concurrence from the
incumbent licensee, or the VRS user and incumbent user are the same
licensee. What should be the protocol if a mobile repeater station user
becomes licensed on a vacant frequency, but a telemetry user is later
licensed on that frequency in the mobile repeater station user's
operating area? Should a mobile repeater be allowed to cease protecting
the exclusion zone if the incumbent telemetry license were to expire,
cancel, or terminate and absent the filing of a petition for
reconsideration of the change in license status?
Wide Area Mobile Repeater Operations
If a wide area or statewide applicant cannot achieve complete
mobile repeater coverage on one telemetry frequency due to a conflict
with exclusion zones, could the applicant achieve greater coverage by
applying for multiple telemetry frequencies, thereby avoiding
interference in the prohibited exclusion zones? Would these measures
address the Commonwealth's argument that frequency coordination is
unnecessary in general and unworkable for statewide VRS use?
Frequency Bandwidth
Wisconsin supports the use of VRS on telemetry channels, stating
that ``[a]djacent channel interference issues will be diminished with
the imminent conversion of all operations to 11K or less operation.''
The six telemetry channels are interleaved with seven channels in the
I/B Pool. The spacing between channels is 12.5 kilohertz. Prior to the
narrowbanding deadline of January 1, 2013, the interstitial I/B
channels had a 20 kilohertz bandwidth limit, while the six telemetry
channels have a 6 kilohertz bandwidth limit to minimize mutual
bandwidth overlap. However, now that the narrowbanding deadline has
passed, the interstitial I/B channels have a bandwidth limit of 11.25
kilohertz, which would allow mobile repeater stations on the telemetry
channels to use greater than 6 kilohertz bandwidth and up to 11.25
kilohertz bandwidth without mutual bandwidth overlap. Consequently, we
propose to allow mobile repeater operations to use up to 11.25
kilohertz bandwidth on the six telemetry channels. We acknowledge that
PLMR stations that meet the efficiency standard of one voice channel
per 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth may still use up to 20 kilohertz
authorized bandwidth, but that most radios operate at 11.25 kilohertz
bandwidth or less.
We seek comment on what proportion of I/B users of the interstitial
channels could be affected by bandwidth overlap because they operate at
greater than 11.25 kilohertz bandwidth and choose to satisfy the
narrowbanding requirement by meeting the efficiency standard. Can
mobile repeater stations operate within the other technical limits of
Sec. 90.20(d)(33) of the Commission's rules, or should the Commission
not apply these limits to mobile repeater stations on the six telemetry
channels? We clarify that the provisions of Sec. 90.247 would apply to
VRS or mobile repeater operations on these telemetry channels or any
other spectrum that supports such use. We do not perceive a conflict
between the rules proposed herein and Sec. 90.247 of the Commission's
rules. We also seek comment on whether all operations on the six
telemetry channels should remain secondary to adjacent channel land
mobile operations now that the narrowband deadline has passed.
Power
The Commonwealth seeks a power limit increase on the telemetry
channels for VRS if the channels are made available for VRS use. The
current ERP limit for mobile stations is 2 watts; the Commonwealth
seeks 5 watts for both VRS and portable radios. The Commonwealth
contends public safety ``needs dedicated frequencies of equal
transmitter power to that of a VHF portable, to create a balanced
network.'' We seek comment on the Commonwealth's proposal, but only for
mobile repeater operation on the six telemetry channels. We do not
propose to increase the 2-watt power limit for the existing telemetry
and remote control use.
[[Page 65599]]
Costs and Burdens
We also seek comment on the costs and burdens associated with
allowing mobile repeater stations on the six telemetry channels. Would
incumbent licensees experience any increased costs if we allow mobile
repeater stations on the six telemetry channels? Approximately how many
more staff-hours would frequency coordinators spend on a mobile
repeater station coordination, relative to a non-mobile repeater
station coordination in the VHF band, if we impose the coordination
requirement that we discussed above? If there is a significant
difference, can frequency coordinators estimate the effect on
coordination fees? Does the supposed benefit that mobile repeater
stations provide justify an increased coordination cost? We seek
comment on any other costs that we have not considered.
Filters and Other Technical Solutions
We seek comment generally on whether improvements to mobile
repeater equipment and filter design could reduce the frequency
separation requirements for mobile repeaters. FCCA, UTC, and API argue
that Pyramid's frequency spread argument does not establish that the
frequencies proposed by Pyramid for VRS use are the only frequencies it
could use, or that filter improvements could not reduce the separation
requirement. UTC argues that ``[t]here is very little if any technical
justification in the petition for the relief that Pyramid seeks, and
there is almost no discussion of possible alternatives and/or
interference mitigation strategies.'' FCCA states, ``perhaps other
filter technologies, such as very small surface acoustic wave (`SAW')
filters, could be adapted for vehicular repeater use.'' EWA ``urges the
VRS vendor community to investigate technological advances that might
expand spectrum options in the future.'' Accordingly, we seek comment
on filter design in general to allow for smaller frequency separation.
We also seek comment on the feasibility of adapting SAW filters, or
other filter technology, for mobile repeater use. We particularly
invite other manufacturers of vehicular and mobile repeaters to comment
and provide information on frequency separation requirements for in-
band repeaters and filters that can minimize the frequency separation.
We also ask commenting parties to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of cross-band repeaters as an alternative to in-band
repeaters.
Other Public Safety Bands
Next, we seek comment on whether there are other spectrum bands or
frequencies that could be used for public safety mobile repeater
operations. Are there other alternatives in the VHF band? What is the
status of mobile repeaters in the 450-470 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz
public safety bands? To what extent do public safety licensees in these
bands experience challenges in locating suitable and available
frequencies that can be used for mobile repeater stations? Bearing in
mind that mobile repeater stations generally are allowed on any private
land mobile radio service frequency that the Commission's rules do not
designate for an incompatible purpose, what steps could the Commission
take to facilitate mobile repeater use in 450-470 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800
MHz bands? Are there adequate frequencies in these bands where land
mobile voice operations, and by extension mobile repeater stations, are
already permitted, or should the Commission consider changing rules to
allow land mobile voice operations and mobile repeater stations on
certain frequencies that the rules currently render incompatible with
such use? If so, which frequencies should the Commission consider?
Industrial/Business Licensees
While much of the discussion herein is focused on public safety
users, we also seek comment on the I/B community's interest in using
mobile repeater stations in the VHF band. What is the current state of
I/B mobile repeater usage? Do I/B licensees need more VHF spectrum for
mobile repeater stations that can be shared with existing applications,
such as telemetry? Should the Commission include I/B eligibles in this
rulemaking and consider amendments to Sec. 90.35 that are analogous to
the rule changes we propose supra to Sec. 90.20, so that I/B users in
addition to public safety users would be allowed to use the six
telemetry channels for VRS?
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Presentations
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C.
603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA
is set forth in Appendix B of the Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
comments filed in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set
forth herein, and they should have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will
send a copy of the Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
[[Page 65600]]
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public. Law. 104-13. In addition, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law. 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of this Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 4(i) and 303
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and
303, and Sec. 1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, this
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that pursuant to sections 4(i) and 303 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303, and
Sec. Sec. 1. 401(e) and 1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.401(e) and 1.407, the petition for rulemaking filed by Pyramid
Communications, Inc., on June 27, 2011, as amended on August 16, 2011,
is granted to the extent described herein and is otherwise denied.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set
forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before December 31, 2013, and interested
parties may file reply comments on or before January 30, 2014.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 90 as follows:
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
0
2. Section 90.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(32), (33), and
(34) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.20 Public Safety Pool.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(32) The maximum effective radiated power (ERP) may not exceed 20
watts for fixed stations, 2 watts for mobile stations, and 5 watts for
mobile repeater stations and hand-carried transmitters that communicate
directly with mobile repeater stations in the Public Safety Pool. The
height of the antenna system may not exceed 15.24 meters (50 ft.) above
ground. All such operation is on a secondary basis to adjacent channel
land mobile operations.
(33) For FM transmitters, the sum of the highest modulating
frequency in Hertz and the amount of the frequency deviation or swing
in Hertz may not exceed 2800 Hz and the maximum deviation may not
exceed 2.5 kHz. For AM transmitters, the highest modulation frequency
may not exceed 2000 Hz. The carrier frequency must be maintained within
.0005 percent of the center of the frequency band, and the authorized
bandwidth may not exceed 6 kHz, except for mobile repeater stations and
hand-carried transmitters that communicate directly with mobile
repeater stations in the Public Safety Pool, in which case the
authorized bandwidth may not exceed 11.25 kHz.
(34) This frequency is available on a shared basis with the
Industrial/Business Pool for remote control and telemetry operations.
In cases where Sec. 90.20(d)(32) applies to this frequency, licensees
who are eligible in the Public Safety Pool may also use this frequency
for mobile repeater stations and hand-carried transmitters that
communicate directly with mobile repeater stations subject to the
frequency coordination requirements of Sec. 90.175(b)(4). Mobile
repeater stations shall not operate within the service areas of active
co-channel incumbent remote control and telemetry stations as
determined by the applicable frequency coordinator and listed in a
special condition on the mobile repeater station operator's license. If
any listed incumbent license on the special condition becomes expired,
canceled, or terminated, then this requirement shall not apply to the
associated service area beginning 30 days after the change in license
status in the Commission's Universal Licensing System, absent the
filing of a petition for reconsideration of the change in license
status.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 90.175 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.175 Frequency coordinator requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) For any application for public safety mobile repeater station
operations on frequencies denoted by both Sec. Sec. 90.20(d)(32) and
90.20(d)(34), the frequency coordinator responsible for the application
must determine and disclose to the applicant the call signs and the
service areas of all active co-channel incumbent remote control and
telemetry stations inside the applicant's proposed area of operation by
adding a special condition to the application, except when the
applicant has obtained written concurrence from an affected incumbent
licensee, or when the applicant and the incumbent licensee are the same
entity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-25587 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P