Subject: [NEXTEL-1] FCC On FLEWUG's Request- Incident Command System", receiver standards, interoperability channels and more....

From: NEXTEL-1
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:47:46 -0400

FCC On FLEWUG's Request- “Incident Command System", receiver standards,
interoperability channels and more....

 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

June 28, 2004

In Reply Refer to:
RM-10432
DA-04-1904

James J. Flyzik

Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group
c/o Deputy Assistant Secretary and Chief Information Officer
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Mr. Flyzik:

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has before it a Petition for
Rulemaking (Petition)  filed by the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless
Users Group (FLEWUG) on December 7, 2001.   In the Petition, FLEWUG asks
the Commission to amend its rules to establish:  (1) an “Incident
Command System” (ICS) response protocol;  (2) a new streamlined system
to license non-Federal public safety agencies on designated Federal
interoperability spectrum;  (3) receiver standards;  and (4) a common
standard for interoperability channels.   By this letter, we deny
FLEWUG’s Petition.   However, as explained more fully below, while the
Petition contains proposals not appropriate, at this juncture, for
commencing a new rulemaking proceeding, there are a number of policy
initiatives wherein the Commission has addressed, or is currently
evaluating, the substance of FLEWUG’s request.

FLEWUG is composed of law enforcement and public safety officials from
numerous federal government agencies.   It was established in 1994 as a
joint initiative by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to provide the law enforcement community and
the public safety community with a land mobile radio/wireless
telecommunications system that serves their joint interests.

Incident Command System Protocol.  FLEWUG proposes that the Commission
require that public safety agencies use an ICS to control communications
at emergency scenes.   However, the Petition does not set forth the text
or substance of any proposed Commission rule change or amendment, as
required by the Commission’s rules governing petitions for rulemaking.

 Without concrete proposals regarding the definition and implementation
of an ICS, and based on the record before us, we believe it would be
imprudent to pursue this matter further at this time.  Moreover, based
on the reasons set forth below, we have concerns that a proceeding on
such a proposal would repeat efforts obligated to be undertaken by other
governmental agencies, and that it would involve issues already examined
by the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC).
First, we are concerned that a rulemaking proceeding on ICS protocol
would be repetitive of, and potentially counterproductive to, other
ongoing federal efforts, since both Congress and the President have
clearly indicated that responsibility for ICS protocol rests with the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Secretary).

Specifically, the Secretary bears the responsibility of building a
“comprehensive national incident management system with Federal, State,
and local government personnel.”   Additionally, we note that the
general subject matter of FLEWUG’s proposal, involving issues of health,
safety and welfare, in other contexts has been viewed historically as
within the domain of non-Federal regional authorities.  Consequently,
the resources and expertise to handle such issues has resided with such
authorities as, for example, fire, police and emergency medical service
agencies.

Second, we note that the NCC already examined the ICS concept,  and only
urged the Commission to “voice support” for ICS development by publicly
encouraging state and local agencies to develop ICS protocol.   The NCC
approach permits non-Federal regional public safety entities to modify
their approaches as needed.  Moreover, the voluntary nature of the
approach is similar to and consistent with the Commission’s treatment of
State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs):  each state has
been encouraged, but not required, to form a SIEC to administer 700 MHz
band spectrum designated for interoperability.   This NCC approach is
also consistent with the Commission’s determination, at least within the
context of the 700 MHz band, that states were poised to administer
interoperability channels effectively  without Commission
micromanagement of them.   In view of these factors, we believe that a
separate rulemaking proceeding on ICS rules is not warranted at this
time.

Licensing.  FLEWUG suggests that the Commission, in cooperation with the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
establish a streamlined system to license non-Federal agencies on
designated Federal interoperable spectrum.   The Commission’s rules
already allow non-Federal entities to use Federal spectrum in
circumstances where such use is required for coordination of Federal and
non-Federal activities.  To the extent that FLEWUG’s suggestion
contemplates such non-Federal entity use, we find the proposal
unnecessary.  Further, we note that the authority to determine whether
non-Federal entities can use Federal spectrum resides with the NTIA, not
the Commission.   Only after the NTIA determines that a non-Federal
operation of Federal frequencies conforms to conditions previously
agreed upon by the Commission and the NTIA, does the Commission release
the details of the authorized use via Public Notice.

Thus, to the extent FLEWUG’s suggestion contemplates a use not already
permissible under the Commission rules, further discussion between the
Commission and the NTIA, rather than a rulemaking proceeding, would be
the appropriate action to take at this point in time.  We agree that the
ability of public safety entities to communicate with each other on the
same channel would provide certain benefits to those entities.
Therefore, we intend to discuss FLEWUG’s proposal in greater detail with
the NTIA during our interagency meetings held pursuant to a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the Commission and the NTIA.

Receiver Standards.  FLEWUG also requests that the Commission adopt
stringent receiver performance standards for sensitivity, selectivity,
dynamic range and durability characteristics for receiver equipment
operation on spectrum below 512 MHz.   However, FLEWUG does not set
forth the text or substance of any proposed rule change or amendment.
Moreover, an inquiry already is underway to examine the overall spectrum
policy that includes the matters of interference avoidance measures and
receiver performance requirements.

We learned from the 700 MHz public safety proceeding  that, although
receiver standards may be possible when a particular technology is
mandated -- for example the TIA-102 “Project 25” technology required for
the 700 MHz narrowband voice interoperability channels -- it yet remains
undetermined  whether a meaningful “universal” technology-independent
receiver standard could be developed that would apply to conventional
analog FM receivers and receivers operating on systems that employ
differing digital technologies, for example, Frequency Division Multiple
Access (FDMA), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), and Code Division
Multiple Access (CDMA).

Moreover, in the 800 MHz NPRM,   the Commission asked whether receiver
standards are necessary to avoid interference to public safety
communications in the 800 MHz band.  The issue of receiver standards for
the 800 MHz band will be addressed in the final action in the 800 MHz
Proceeding, as the Commission examines whether receivers are one of the
factors contributing to public safety interference.    We therefore
believe an additional rulemaking proceeding addressing this matter would
be redundant and is neither warranted nor in the public interest under
these circumstances.

Interoperability Standard.  FLEWUG recommends that the Commission adopt
a baseline interoperability standard for public safety spectrum below
512 MHz.   With the exception of the Project 25 standard for a portion
of the 700 MHz band (namely the narrowband interoperability channels),
Project 25 has been a voluntary standard that state and local agencies
may, but are not required to, use for their equipment procurements.
Moreover, to date, the Commission has designated only eleven channels
for interoperability spectrum below 512 MHz.

If FLEWUG’s proposal contemplates that a larger number of frequencies
below 512 MHz should be designated for interoperability, it is not clear
how spectrum for such purpose could be obtained, particularly given that
this portion of the spectrum is already severely congested.
Furthermore, even if there were a significant number of available
channels in the bands below 512 MHz, it is not clear whether it would be
feasible or desirable for an interoperability standard to be the driving
principle governing public safety operations in these bands given that
the spectrum is heavily occupied by embedded systems.
The NCC examined interoperability issues through its Interoperability
Subcommittee, which completed study of this matter and made
recommendations.     The recommendations include, among others,
requiring all digital systems operating on VHF and UHF channels to
conform to Project 25; and requiring all VHF and UHF radios to employ a
standard CTCSS tone when operating on interoperability channels.  The
Commission currently intends to review these suggestions in a rulemaking
proceeding, when it evaluates the NCC’s wideband interoperability data
standard.  In view of this  future undertaking, we do not believe it
would be in the public interest to initiate a separate rulemaking
proceeding on FLEWUG’s interoperability proposal.

For the reasons discussed above, we therefore deny FLEWUG’s Petition.
FLEWUG’s proposals either do not describe rule changes or amendments to
the Commission’s rules, are not sufficiently justified under the
circumstances presented, or otherwise do not demonstrate that they would
be in the public interest.  However, we assure interested parties that
the Commission has a continuing commitment to the development of rules
and policies that will aid the non-Federal public safety entities in
meeting their requirements for spectrum, promoting efficient use of the
spectrum, and achieving interoperability and seamless communications
between and among cooperating organizations.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section
1.407 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.407, the Petition for
Rulemaking filed by the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group on
December 7, 2001 IS DENIED.

This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Cathy Seidel
Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1904A1.doc