INTEROPERABILITY CHANNEL LICENSING ISSUE

Presentation to CalSIEC 22 JUNE 2009

CLEMARS

    Plan developed under OES, Law Enforcement Division CLEMARS Executive Committee provides policy guidance All licenses held by State Technical restrictions – Antenna Height – Power output

CLEMARS FREQUENCIES

        CLEMARS 1 CLEMARS 2 NALEMARS CLEMARS 4/5 CLEMARS 6/7 CLEMARS 8/9 CLEMARS 20/21* CLEMARS 22** *Northern California Only ** Los Angeles Only 154.920 MHz 154.935 MHz 155.475 MHz 460/465.025 MHz 39.46/45.86 MHz 823/868.5125 MHz 821/866.2000 MHz 484.2375 MHz

CLERS

     Plan developed under OES Intended as point-to-point network Mountain-top repeaters licensed by State Control stations licensed by individual agencies 12 frequencies combinations in VHF and UHF bands

FIRE WHITE

   Plan developed under OES, Fire and Rescue Branch Licenses held by individual agencies Technical restrictions – Power output – Primarily mobile operations

FIRE WHITE FREQUENCIES

   White 1 White 2 White 3 154.280 MHz 154.265 MHz 154.295 MHz

CESRS/CALCORD

    Plan developed by OES Licenses held by State Technical Restrictions – CALCORD is mobile only Frequencies – CESRS – CALCORD 153.755/154.980 MHz 156.075 MHz

HEARS

   Plan developed under Emergency Medical Services Authority Licenses held by individual agency Frequency – 155.340 MHz

NPSPAC MUTUAL AID

    Plans developed by Region 5 (Southern California) and Region 6 (Northern California) Regional Planning Committees Committee review/approve all applications All licenses held by State Technical Restrictions

NPSPAC FREQUENCIES

     ICALL ITAC 1 ITAC 2 ITAC 3 ITAC 4 821/866.0125 MHz 821/866.5125 MHz 822/867.0125 MHz 822/867.5125 MHz 823/868.0125 MHz

700 MHz INTEROP CHANNELS

 Plan to be developed by CalSIEC – Channel names defined – Not yet defined  Who will license stations  Technical limitations  Operational requirements

NEW CHANNELS

  Unknown if any entity has “assumed” responsibility for these Not yet defined – Who will license stations – Technical limitations – Operational requirements

“NEW” Frequencies

         VCALL VTAC 1 VTAC 2 VTAC 3 VTAC 4 UCALL UTAC 1 UTAC 2 UTAC 3 155.7525 MHz 151.1375 MHz 154.4525 MHz 158.7375 MHz 159.4725 MHz 453/458.2125 MHz 453/458.4625 MHz 453/458.7125 MHz 453/458.8625 MHz

LICENSING PROBLEMS

  Licenses intended to be held by differing entities – Some state-held/Some individual agency-held – Difficult to change due to “legacy” processes “Plan” developed by different groups – OES (now Cal EMA) on older frequencies – 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (2) – Cal SIEC – Recommend consolidation under Cal SIEC

LICENSING PROBLEMS

 Existing plans need to be reviewed and updated – Recommend Cal SIEC establish a series of “working groups” to accomplish this task – Cal SIEC Executive should then review the individual “plans” for consistency

LICENSING PROBLEMS

  Existing process for licenses held by State is not functioning properly Current Process – “Requesting agency” prepares a state-generated form – Submits form together with fee to OES for review for compliance with plan – OES forwards form to DGS-TD for preparation of license application to FCC – License forwarded to “requesting agency”

RECOMMENDATION

  Establish a working group to define a new process – Requests complying with defined criteria should be “fast-tracked” (i.e. staff are authorized to process) – Requests not complying with defined criteria should be diverted through an “Exception Process” that requires review/approval by one or more higher level policy committees   Requests that affect other users, all of whom are within a Regional Planning Area, might require review/approval by the Regional Planning Area Executive Committee Requests having greater effect might require review/approval by the Cal SIEC Executive Committee The new process must clearly define “who” is responsible for completing each step and forwarding to next stage

LICENSING PROBLEMS

   State-generated form does not collect all of the required information – Recommend using FCC Form 600 as alternative “Requesting agency” does not provide all of the required information – Recommend using FCC Form 600. If incomplete, return to “requesting agency” Requests “disappear into Black Hole” – Provide feedback to “requesting agency” throughout process

DESIRED OUTCOMES

   Decision – Is “responsibility” for all interop channels going to be consolidated within Cal SIEC or continue to be separated?

Creation of “working groups” to review and update (in some cases “create”) plans – Plan updates should define criteria for a “routine” application Creation of a “working group” to update licensing process – Includes decision as to “who” will license each channel – Should include both a “routine” and an “exception” process – Clearly defines “who” performs each step

“LETTER LICENSES”

   Agency “A” authorizes Agency “B” to operate under the license held by Agency “A” Permitted under Section 90.421 of the FCC Rules – Agency “A” assumes responsibility for how Agency “B” operates Applies to mobile stations only – Fixed stations must be properly licensed – Question---does Agency “A” license in its own name, or does it allow Agency “B” to obtain a license on the frequency

RECOMMENDATION

   Standardize a process Information needs to be exchanged – Frequencies authorized – Power and ERP permitted – CTCSS tones, system ID codes, etc.

– Area of operation permitted – Callsign under which stations are to operate Recommend periodic renewal