In the Matter of AMENDMENT OF PART
89 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES RELATING TO THE RADIO CALL BOX OPERATIONS IN THE PUBLIC
SAFETY RADIO SERVICES
Docket No. 18627
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
25 F.C.C.2d 654
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-963
September
11, 1970 Released
Adopted September 9, 1970
JUDGES:
BY THE
COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER ROBERT E. LEE CONCURRING AND
ISSUING A STATEMENT IN WHICH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON JOINS; COMMISSIONER H.
REX LEE ABSENT.
OPINION:
[*654]
1. On August 8, 1969, a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 69-853) was released in the above-entitled matter
proposing to adopt specific rule standards for licensing radio call box systems
in the Public Safety Radio Services in the 72-76 MHz band. The Notice solicited comments by September
15, 1969, and replies by September 25, 1969.
By subsequent Order (Mimeo No. 41085), released November 10, 1969, we
extended the comment and reply comment periods until December 5 and December
20, 1969, respectively.
2. Briefly, the 72-76 MHz band is between
television Channels 4 and 5. Radio call
box systems, as well as other radio users, have been licensed in this band upon
a prescribed special showing intended to prevent harmful interference to
television reception on those channels.
However, the Commission had concluded tentatively in its Notice that a
number of factors existed which required special rules to govern the operation
of radio call box systems in that band.
Thus, we proposed to authorize radio call boxes in the 72-76 MHz band on
a regular basis under the following proposed standards: The maximum radiated
power would be limited to one watt; the maximum height of the antenna propose
would be 20 feet above ground, antenna gain would be limited to unity and only
vertical polarization would be permitted; call boxes would transmit only
one-way tone signals of short duration (two seconds maximum) and the signal
from any one transmitter could be repeated only after one minute interval; and,
finally, applicants for call boxes would be required to select a frequency with
the greatest possible frequency separation from channels 4 or 5. With the standards and, more importantly,
because of the extremely low duty cycle of call box systems as well as the
complete absence of any complaints of interference from existing call box systems,
we expected that the interference potential to television reception would be
inconsequential. Therefore, we did not
propose to impose specifically [*655] a
responsibility on call box system licensees to eliminate interference to
television reception, should any occur.
3. Comments were submitted by the Academy of
Model Aeronautics, Inc. (AMA); Associated Public-Safety Communication Officers,
Inc. (APCO); California Public Safety Radio Association, Inc. (CPSRA);
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; the Electronics Industries Association (EIA);
Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc.; National Broadcasting Company,
Inc. (NBC); Northern California Chapter of the Associated Public Safety
Communication Officers, Inc. (NCAPCO); RCA Corporation, Solid State Technology;
Chronicle Broadcasting Co. (Chronicle); The Association of Maximum Service
Telecasters, Inc. (MST), WJXT of Jacksonville, Florida (WJXT) and WLAC-TV,
Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee (WLAC-TV).
4. MST, Chronicle, WJXT and WLAC opposed our
proposal. All of the other parties who
filed comments supported it some with reservations, n1 while other suggested a number of modifications
which are discussed and are disposed of below.
Those who opposed our proposal argued mainly that widespread use of
radio call boxes in the 72-76 MHz band could result insignificant interference
to television reception on Channels 4 and 5.
MST and others argued, for example, that the interference potential of a
radio call box is greater than we had indicated in the Notice; that our
proposal would be "a fundamental change in the allocation principle
governing the use of frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band, that of
non-interference to television reception...", and urged that... "the
Commission should continue to require an adequate technical showing of the
likelihood of non-interference before deleting even the engineering criteria of
Section 89.101 c), (4), and (5)." Finally, MST and others urged that, if
the Commission decides to permit radio call boxes in the 72-76 MHz band, it
should continue to require licensees to "satisfy interference
complaints."
n1 Motorola Inc., for example,
argued that call box systems, to be fully effective, should be capable of
two-way communications and suggested that our proposal to permit radio call
boxes in the 72-76 MHz band would not meet fully the requirements of public
safety officials. It urged that the
Commission act favorably on the petition (RM-1509) filed jointly by the States
of Rhode Island and Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts asking
the Commission to authorize radio call boxes for two-way voice communication on
highways on the four pairs of frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band which have
been reserved for possible future use in connection with a highway safety
communications system.
5. We have considered all of the comments
carefully and we have concluded that the public interest would be served by
permitting the operation of radio call box systems in the 72-76 MHz band
essentially under the standards proposed but with some modifications, discussed
below, which appear desirable in light of the comments. The reasons for our decisions are
essentially the same as those recited in the notice and nothing offered in the
comments persuades us to depart from the basic proposition.
6. We agree, at least in part, with those who
argued that a signal from a radio call box operating under the proposed
standards potentially could interfere with the reception of television signals
on Channels 4 or 5 at distances greater than the 200 feet we indicated in the
Notice, depending on a number of factors including the distance from the
television transmitter. Generally, the
radius of interference potential will increase as the distance from the
television transmitter increases.
[*656] Nevertheless, the
potential for harmful interference to the reception of television from call fox
systems operating under the proposed standards would be minimal at worst,
certainly not enough to require barring radio call boxes from the 72-76 MHz
band. We reach this conclusion because,
in our view, the extremely low duty cycle of call box systems, the brevity of
each transmission together with the technical limitations we have adopted would
insure against any significant interference to television reception. Eagle-Picher, a manufacturer of radio call
box equipment, for example, stated that its experience with street fire alarms
indicate that a system of 75 to 100 boxes can be expected to transmit "...
6 to 10 messages per month, or roughly 20 to 30 seconds of air time."
Further, each message is to last no longer than two seconds so that, even
assuming that every signal interferes with television reception, the
interference would not be more disruptive than that caused by passing
airplanes, ignition noise, and other such sources of interference.
7. Experience with existing call box systems
supports these conclusions. A survey of
licensees conducted in the summer of 1969 showed that call boxes installed even
on busy highways for use by motorists had a low duty cycle. For example, call box activation in a system
operated on the Maryland portion of the Capital Beltway, the largest call box
system authorized, has been slightly more than once a day per mile. There are four boxes in approximately one
mile of the highway. Generally, fire
alarms systems are used less frequently.
Of equal, or perhaps greater, significance, is the complete absence of
any interference to television reception from existing radio call box
operations. None of the existing call
box licensees we surveyed reported any complaints of interference. Also NBC, which operates television stations
on Channel 4 in Washington, D.C. and in Los Angeles, California, where radio
call box systems have been authorized, reported in its comments that there has
been no interference with its operations.
We note that those who opposed our proposal offered no factual evidence
of any interference to television reception from existing systems. Accordingly, requests that we impose a
non-interference condition on call box use are denied. However, call box licensees will be expected
to cooperate in alleviating interference problems.
8. In sum, our action here is not making a
"fundamental change in the allocation principle" for the use of the
frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band, as MST argued. We are promoting the fuller use of the frequencies in that band
in the public interest consistent with our desire to protect from harmful
interference television broadcasting on the adjacent Channels 4 and 5.
9. We recognize, however, that our experience
with radio call box systems in the 72-76 MHz band is limited and, therefore, we
believe that the better course to follow is to proceed cautiously particularly
in urban areas. Thus, we think that,
for the time being, it is desirable to limit the size of the system we will
authorize until we get more experience not only with respect to the
interference potential of call box systems but also with respect to the utility
and the demand for large scale use of such systems. Accordingly, we will not authorize systems of more than 250 units
in any call box system. This should
accommodate [*657] substantially the needs indicated so far,
primarily in suburban and other relatively small communities and to a more
limited extent on parts of densely traveled highways.
10. We now turn to the comments directed more
specifically to the proposed technical standards. It was urged that we permit higher power and antenna height in
order to increase the reliability of call box systems. However, it has not been shown that more
power and higher antennas are necessary.
Call box transmitters now available are about 2.5 watts input or one
watt output and systems conform generally with the proposed standards. The available evidence indicates that the
power and antenna height limits are adequate.
There is no indication, either in the comments or in the responses to
our survey of existing licenses, that these call boxes have been unreliable
because of these aspects. In fact,
except for the City of Los Angeles which is converting its radio call box
system to telephones for reasons unrelated to power and antenna limitation,
licensees report that call box systems are highly dependable. Additionally, reliability is likely to be
augmented since adoption of rules for licensing radio call boxes on a regular
basis should encourage equipment manufacturers to develop even more efficient
and reliable systems than are being marketed today. For all of these reasons, we find that the basic proposed power
and antenna height limitations should be maintained, but we are including a
provision for transmitters of 2.5 watts plate input power.
11. Other comments questioned the proposal to
limit each transmission to two seconds and to permit reactivation of each
transmitter only after a minimum of one minute intervals. Eagle-Picher and RCA urged that we permit
repetition of the signal three or four times within about 30 seconds. They note that Standard No. 73 of the
National Fire Protection Association, which is followed for municipal fire
alarm systems, states that "Boxes transmitting a coded indication shall
send three or four rounds of the box number." We find that provisions for
a series of automatic repetitions of radio call box transmissions is warranted
to help assure that the message is received.
Two additional two-second transmissions spaced within the 30 seconds
following the initial signal should be sufficient and will be permitted. However, as proposed, a one minute interval
for reactivation of the signal cycle will be retained. In addition, in order to prevent
interference caused by malfunctioning equipment, we will require that each call
box provide automatic means to de-activate the transmitter in the event the
carrier remains on for a period in excess of three minutes.
12. The 68 frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band
which would be available for call box operations include five frequencies which
may be aso assigned in the Citizens Radio Service for model aircraft control. n2
The AMA requests that these frequencies be assigned for call boxes only only
after it is shown "that none of the remaining frequencies was available in
the area, and that the use of one or more of these five frequencies would be
less likely to result in mutual harmful interference than would the use of a
frequency otherwise available." However, this request must be denied as
inconsistent with Section 95.41(c)(2)
[*658] (ii) of the Commission's
Rules which provides that protection will not be afforded for model aircraft
control from interference due to the operation of fixed stations in other
services on the same frequencies.
Nevertheless, it can be expected that applicants will give consideration
to this possibility of mutual interference in their own interest as well as
with regard to the model aircraft control problem when they make their
frequency selection.
n2 By a Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, released on June 12, 1970, in Docket 18733 (FCC 70-603), it is
proposed to allocate two additional frequencies in this band, 72.16 and 72.32
MHz, for model control in the Citizens Radio Service.
13. Comments suggesting that the tone system
used in a particular call box installation be required to be specified in the
application and be shown on the authorization or included within the Commission's
data base have been considered. We are
aware that some problems have been caused due to the use of tone controlled
squelch systems in land mobile installations.
In the call box case, however, the signaling systems employ digital
methods and it appears extremely unlikely that the system of one manufacturer
would falsely activate the readout device employed by another. We are currently reviewing the uses of tone
coding devices and we may propose standards for these devices. We would, at that time, conform our
licensing of call boxes to whatever data elements prove to be required to
alleviate unwanted unlocking of receivers.
14. Finally, the question was raised as to
whether the proposed standards should apply to radio call box systems to be
operated at substantial distances from television stations on Channels 4 or
5. We believe this would be
desirable. First, as we have stated,
the power and antenna limits we have adopted are adequate for satisfactory
service. Secondly, in the absence of a
compelling need for varying standards, it is desirable to apply the same
standards across the board for ease in administration and to promote equipment
standardization. Accordingly, the same
rules will apply to all call box systems authorized in the 72-76 MHz band.
15. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that
the public interest would be served by adopting the rules set forth in the
attached Appendix. Authority for our
action is contained in Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended.
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That effective
October 19, 1970, Part 89 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as shown in the
attached Appendix. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE,
Secretary.
CONCUR:
[*660]
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT E. LEE IN WHICH COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON JOINS
I concur in the
adoption of the rules in this proceeding, largely because of the infrequent and
short duration of any likely interference to television reception.
However, I
cannot give weight to a failure to have received complaints of interference to
television receivers in this, or any similar, situation.
The public is
accustomed to interference to TV reception, has no way in which to ascertain
its source, and does not know where to lodge a complaint were it to be
sufficiently impelled to do so. In
short, interference complaints to television service is a pretty poor allocation
criterion.
APPENDIX:
APPENDIX I
Part 89 of the Commission's Rules is amended as
follows:
1. Section 89.101(c) is amended to read as
follows:
§ 89.101
Frequencies.
* * *
(c) Except as
provided in Section 89.102, the following frequencies in the band 72-76 MHz may
be authorized and used only in accordance with the criteria set forth in
subparagraphs (1) to (6) of this paragraph.
* * *
2. New Section 89.102 is added to read as
follows:
§ 89.102
Radio Call Box operations in the 72-76 MHz band.
(a) The
frequencies listed in Section 80.101(c) of this chapter may be assigned in the
Local Government Radio Service for operation of radio call boxes to be used by
the public to request fire, police, ambulance, road service and other emergency
assistance subject to the following conditions and limitations.
(1) Maximum
transmitter power either 2.5 watts plate input to the final stage or one watt
output.
(2) Antenna gain
may not exceed zero dBd [referred to a half-wave dipole] in any direction.
(3) Only
vertical polarization of antennas may be permitted.
(4) The antenna
and its supporting structure must not exceed 20 feet in height above the
ground.
(5) A1, A2, F1,
or F2 emission only may be authorized.
(6) Transmitter
frequency tolerance shall be 0.005 percent.
(7) Except for
test purposes, each transmission must be limited to a maximum of two seconds
and may be automatically repeated not more than two times at spaced intervals
within the following 30 seconds; thereafter, the authorized cycle may not be
reactivated for one minute.
(8) All transmitters
installed after December 10, 1970, shall be furnished with automatic means to
deactivate the transmitter in the event the carrier remains on for a period in
excess of three minutes. The automatic
cut-off system must be so designed that the transmitter cannot be re-activated
until manually reset.
(9) Frequency
selection must be made with due regard to reception of television stations on
channels 4 (66-72 MHz) and 5 (76-82 MHz) and should maintain the greatest
possible frequency separation from either or both of these channels if they are
assigned in the area.
(10) Until
further order of the Commission, the maximum number of radio call boxes that
may be authorized in any call box system is 250.
(b) Radio call
box systems authorized before December 10, 1970 may continue to be authorized
subject to the provisions of Section 89.101(c) of this chapter.
APPENDIX II
CALL BOX
TRANSMITTERS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS
The following
call box transmitters have not been shown to be capable of compliance with the
timing requirements of §
89.102(a). In addition, those
noted by asterisk (*) have rated power in excess of the limitations of § 80.102(a)(1). These transmitter types will not be acceptable for new
installations on or after December 10, 1970, and will be so noted in the
Commission's Radio Equipment List. Any
manufacturer or licensee wishing to provide a showing of compliance by his
equipment with these requirements may file appropriate data for consideration
by the Commission as to whether the particular transmitter type should be
reconsidered for its acceptability for use in any such new installation.
EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES INC: EP-M1; EP-M1A.
GAMEWELL DIV OF GULF & WESTERN: M110.
HOFFMAN ELECTRONICS CORP: *EC-T-267-A; EC-T-267-A2; EC-T-267-A3;
EC-T-267-A4; *EC-T-267-B; EC-T-267-B3; EC-T-267-B4; *EC-T-267-C; EC-T-267-C3;
EC-T-267-C4; *EC-T-267-D; EC-T-267-D3; EC-T-267-D4.
PACIFIC WORLD INDUSTRIES: MA-T-1; MA-T-1M; MA-T-2;
MA-T-2M; MA-T-3; MA-T-3M; MA-T-4; MA-T-4M.
RCA CORP: VTC-C-102-A; VTC-C-102-B; VTC-C-102-C;
VTC-C-102-D; VTC-C-103-A; VTC-C-103-B; VTC-C-103-C; VTC-C-103-D; VTC-C-103-E;
VTC-C-104-A; VTC-C-104-B; VTC-C-104-C; VTC-C-104-D; VTC-C-104-E; VTS-C-101-A;
VTS-C-101-B; VTS-C-101-C; VTS-C-101-D.
SPENCER-KENNEDY LABS: PA-T-0-1; PA-T-0-2; PA-T-0-3;
PA-T-0-4; PA-T-1; PA-T-1-1; PA-T-1-10; PA-T-1-11; PA-T-1-12; PA-T-1-2;
PA-T-1-3; PA-T-1-4; PA-T-2; PA-T-2-1; PA-T-2-2; PA-T-2-3; PA-T-2-4; PA-T-3;
PA-T-3-1; PA-T-3-2; PA-T-3-3; PA-T-3-4; PA-T-4; PA-T-4-1; PA-T-4-2; PA-4-3;
PA-T-4-4.