Region 43 Washington

1

• Region 43 (Washington)
• 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz
• Regional Planning Committee
• March 4, 2004 - 1000 a.m. to 200 p.m.
• Spokane Center
• Conference Line 253-512-7310
• www.region43.org
• Please get signed up on the attendee roster

2
Agenda for Todays Meeting

• Roll Call and Introductions
• Agenda Modifications
• Approval of Minutes
• Treasurers Report
• Information Updates
• DRAFT Plan Review and Editing
• 4.9 GHz Regional Planning
• Other Items/Good of the Order
• Meeting Schedules
• Adjourn

3
Introductions

• Name
• Agency
• If this is your first meeting, or if you have new
  information than reported at previous meetings
• What are your expectations for your agencys use
  of the 700 MHz band in 2004 and 2005 (in general
  terms)?
• How about other agencies around you?
• What are your expectations for your agencys use
  of the 4.9 GHz band in 2004 and 2005 (in general
  terms)?
• How about other agencies around you?
• Please make sure your contact information is
  correct on the sign-in sheet.

4
Minutes and Treasurers Report

• Approval of the January 28, 2004 Minutes
• Election of Secretary
• Nominations
• Hand count vote of voting membership
• Cammie Enslow was elected to fill the role
• Treasurers Report - Spencer Bahner
• Beginning Balance 2500.00
• Expense Claims Payment (Hai) (1099.48)
• Expense Claims Payment (APCO meeting room fee) (
  115.00)
• Ending Balance 1,285.52

5
Information Updates

• SIEC Activities - Dennis Hausman
• Actions in Other RPCs - Kevin Kearns
• NPSTC Meeting March 9th and 10th - Kevin Kearns
• LPTV research - Cammie Enslow, Dean Heinen
• Outreach Workgroup - Kit Eldredge
• Other issues?

6
SIEC Activities

• Statewide survey instrument is nearing
  completion, with likely circulation in April
• Next meeting will be on Tuesday, March 30th
• We need to get our proposed edits to the
  Interoperability section resolved today so we can
  submit them in time for consideration on that
  agenda
• Interim Plan is in near-final version and will be
  to the legislature by the end of March

7
Actions in Other RPCs

• Both Missouri or Southern California plans are
  still on Comment
• Region 35s (Oregon) next meeting will be on
  March 10th in Hood River. This will also be
  their convening meeting for the 4.9 GHz band
• Region 12 (Idaho) is getting their initial draft
  developed
• Got an update on Wyoming activities at the
  meeting

8
To see any filed plans for the 700 MHz band, use
the ECFS search page at http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/p
rod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and search on Proceeding
02-378
9
Formation of an RPC Association

• There seems to be wide support for this in the
  Regions
• This will be discussed further with NPSTC at the
  March 10th Board of Governors meeting in D.C.

10
LPTV Research

• The Workgroup has developed a spreadsheet that
  tracks all current licensees in the Region (this
  will be posted on the web site)
• The Draft Letter has been developed and will be
  mailed out by the Chair in March

11
Other Information Updates

• Outreach Workgroup Activities - Kit Eldredge
• Any other issues?

12
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Timeline for Plan Completion
• March 4th meeting in Spokane to do detailed
  review and edits, and address any comments
  received to date. Also finalize transmittal to
  SIEC of any proposed changes for the
  Interoperability section.
• March 31st meeting in Olympia to take further
  comments and edits which will result in the
  formal final draft plan.
• Distribute Final Draft to Region 43 list, post on
  web site, distribute links to via outreach
  channels, and send to Region 12 and 35 for formal
  coordination final-comment phase by April 15th is
  possible
• April 28th meeting in Yakima to review any
  comments to date and get ready for final adoption
  meeting on May 26th (Snohomish County Public
  Utility or June 30th (Yakima Probation Services)

13
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Specific sections still needing work
• Section 3.2 Existing Interoperability
• Need a paragraph for LERN - Clark Palmer
• Need a paragraph for NLECS - Clark Palmer
• Section 3.3 - Impacts - Any additional issues to
  include?
• Comments from past meetings still needs final
  wordsmithing
• will add needed interop capacity
• will add data interop potential that doesnt
  exist today
• will add complexity,
• through inter-system patches will allow interop
  with legacy 800 MHz and lower band
  infrastructures,
• will potentially add confusion for field units
  which can be addressed through training and
  exercises,
• some of the existing interop channels are simplex
  or conventional repeater only environments so
  field-based RF gateways will need to be used for
  tactical on-scene interoperability

14
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Specific sections still needing work
• Section 3.4.2 - State agencies need to
  collaborate on a paragraph about the State 2.4
  MHz of spectrum - Clark Palmer
• Section 3.4.6 - Need a section describing tribal
  component - any volunteers? - Cammie
• Section 3.4.7 - Need a paragraph to describe the
  E-911 and PSAP environment - Alan Josue
• Section 4 - Will continue to grow through Plan
  adoption/transmittal
• Section 5 - Regional Plan Summary - will be
  written after next round of editing, basically
  will summarize the following points

15
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Interoperability Requirements
• Current Text - 6.3 Requirement for
  Infrastructure to Support Interoperability
  Channels
• All agencies requesting more than four channels
  from the 700 MHz channel pool for normal
  operations will be required to implement at least
  one of the CALL channels in a repeater mode. This
  implementation shall normally provide mobile area
  coverage over essentially the same service area
  as the primary communications channel
  assignments. The SIEC may authorize reduced
  coverage where such a reduction is required due
  to good engineering standards, interference
  mitigation or other specialized requirements.
  This infrastructure may be configured to operate
  in a half duplex mode to minimize intra-system
  interference under routine conditions, provided
  however that a wireline equivalent connection
  delivers received audio to an dispatch point
  where 24 x 7 monitoring will take place. Approval
  of such operation also requires the ability for
  the dispatch point to re-enable normal repeater
  operation when so requested.

16
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Interoperability Requirements
• Current Text - 6.3 Requirement for
  Infrastructure to Support Interoperability
  Channels
• Agencies requesting nine to fourteen channels are
  required to establish similar infrastructure for
  at least one additional law enforcement and one
  additional fire/EMS interoperability channel.
  Systems requesting more than fifteen channels
  will require implementation of a CALL channel,
  one law enforcement channel, one fire channel,
  and one EMS channel.

17
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Interoperability Requirements
• We need to send a message to the SIEC advising
  that in our consideration of their draft language
  we note that there is confusion on which channels
  would be counted when determining the interop
  channel count obligation.
• We found three questions that need resolution
• what is a channel,
• if an entity did wideband only would they be
  obligated to implement voice I/O, and
• if they did mixed WB and NB how is the counting
  done.
• We recommend that in the context of the Interop
  sections that only narrowband voice channels are
  used for the counting of channels to determine
  how many Interop channels they need to implement,
  and that a channel refers to a 12.5 kHz
  narrowband channel. We should send our
  recommended language change in strike and edit
  mode so it is clear what we are seeking.

18
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Interoperability Requirements
• We further refined this issue at our June 25,
  2003 meeting and agreed that indeed the I/O
  requirements should only be applied on the basis
  of total bandwidth consumed in the narrowband
  voice channels. Further, we developed the
  following table to propose be used to make it
  simpler to understand what bandwidth consumption
  would trigger what I/O responsibility.

19
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Interoperability Requirements
• Questions that still need debate
• Should we also consider recommending guidelines
  for deferred or reduced implementation thresholds
  or timelines for early adopters so they can wait
  until neighboring systems develop and more
  effective I/O strategies can be developed?
  (reflect on the 800 MHz experiences)
• If the licensee is a non-traditional eligible,
  like Metro Transit, and no other traditional
  public safety agencies have implemented 700 MHz
  systems in the area, is there guidance we want to
  suggest on reduced or deferred implementation?
• Other questions/issues?
• We will need to resolve any I/O recommendations
  in our March 4th meeting so they can be
  transmitted for consideration/action by the SIEC
  at their mid-March meeting.

20
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Other Interoperability Section
  Issues
• Include in our letter to the SIEC the interest of
  the RPC to perform the technical evaluation and
  frequency coordination work on the actual
  placement of I/O channels and incorporate it into
  our overall efforts to review applications and
  maintain the CAPRAD database. The SIEC would
  still be the policy body, but the RPC would be
  the body doing the technical work.

21
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Section 8 - Two concepts have been
  proposed for running filing windows after initial
  plan adoption
• Option 1
• Six months after FCC approval of the Plan
  (presumably mid 2004), the first filing window
  would close.
• Seven successive filing windows would be run at
  6-month increments (presumably then the final
  filing window would close at the end of 2007).
• During these first four years of the plan, the
  RPC would only consider channel assignments
  within the county-by-county allocations in the
  CAPRAD database as defined in the adopted Plan.
• Following the close of the eighth filing window,
  any valid request for channels would be granted
  regardless of whether the assignment existed in
  the pre-coordination database. Basically it
  would be open season after four years and
  assignments would be made as long as co-channel
  and adjacent-channel interference criteria can be
  met.

22
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Discussion of Section 8 - Two concepts have been
  proposed for running filing windows after initial
  plan adoption
• Option 2
• For two years following FCC approval of the Plan,
  the RPC will receive and process any applications
  that are made within the individual
  county-by-county allocations or as otherwise
  called out in the approved Plan.
• Beginning with the third year, the RPC will
  receive and process any applications that can
  meet co-channel and adjacent-channel interference
  criteria.
• In addition to the above options, it has been
  suggested that instead of Plan Adoption being the
  event that triggers the clock we should make it
  when Canadian TV stations have cleared the band
  , or we have certainty no Canadian TV use will
  occur, to allow the channels to be used. This
  would make the timing different in different
  parts of the Region, but would be fairer if a
  portion of the Region wasnt able to use the
  spectrum for some time due to incumbent TV
  stations. For areas where no TV stations exist,
  the clock would start with Plan adoption.

23
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Section 9 - Scoring of competitive apps
• There was a suggestion that we also add an item,
  or add weighting to an existing item, to
  encourage shared systems. This need further
  discussion.
• Section 10 - How needs of eligibles were
  considered
• Include in this section a description of the
  counties that lie within the Canadian protection
  area and the extent to which this was considered
  in the initial CAPRAD packing.

24
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Section 11 - Adjacent Region Coordination
• This section will be written following
  coordination with neighboring Regions
• Section 12 - Explanation of how spectrum was put
  to best use
• This section still needs to be written -
  basically the issue is that the initial
  allocation is based primarily on population,
  which is one of the strongest drivers of need for
  PS spectrum
• Section 13 - Future Planning Process

25
Draft Plan Review Editing

• Do we really need/want Appendix C - Recommended
  Incident Command System any more?
• MEMORANDUM FOR Cabinet Secretaries, Agency
  Directors, Members of Congress, Governors,
  Mayors, County, Township, and Parish Officials,
  State Homeland Security Advisors, Homeland
  Security Advisory Council, State, Territorial,
  Local, and Tribal First Responders
• FROM Tom Ridge
• SUBJECT National Incident Management System
• In Homeland Security Presidential Directive
  (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, the
  President directed me to develop, submit for
  review to the Homeland Security Council, and
  administer a National Incident Management System
  (NIMS). This system will provide a consistent
  nationwide approach for Federal, State, local,
  and tribal governments to work effectively and
  efficiently together to prepare for, prevent,
  respond to, and recover from domestic incidents,
  regardless of cause, size, or complexity.
• The NIMS has undergone extensive vetting and
  coordination within the Federal family. The
  development process has also included extensive
  outreach to State, local, and tribal officials
  to the emergency response community and to the
  private sector. As a result, the NIMS
  incorporates the best-practices currently in use
  by incident managers at all levels. In addition,
  effective incident management in the homeland
  security environment we now face involves new
  concepts, processes, and protocols that will
  require further development and refinement over
  time. The collective input and guidance from all
  of our homeland security partners has been, and
  will continue to be, vital to the further
  development of an effective and comprehensive
  NIMS.
• HSPD-5 requires all Federal departments and
  agencies to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their
  individual domestic incident management and
  emergency prevention, preparedness, response,
  recovery, and mitigation programs and activities,
  as well as in support of those actions taken to
  assist State, local, or tribal entities. The
  directive also requires Federal departments and
  agencies to make adoption of the NIMS by State
  and local organizations a condition for Federal
  preparedness assistance beginning in FY 2005.
  Compliance with certain aspects of the NIMS will
  be possible in the short-term, such as adopting
  the basic tenets of the Incident Command System
  identified in this document. Other aspects of the
  NIMS, however, will require further development
  and refinement to enable compliance at a future
  date.
• I ask for your continued cooperation and
  assistance as we further develop and implement
  the NIMS and the associated National Response
  Plan (NRP). I look forward to working with you as
  we continue our collective efforts to better
  secure the homeland and protect our citizens from
  both natural disasters and acts of terrorism.

26
Break

• We will take a 5 Minute break and then begin the
  4.9 GHz portion of the meeting

27
4.9 GHz Regional Planning

• This is our formal convening meeting for the 4.9
  GHz planning process
• What we need to do
• Formalize the decision to engage in a planning
  process
• Establish the 4.9 Working Group and Chair
• Establish a general set of concepts we want to
  achieve in our planning process
• Establish a general timeline

28
4.9 GHz Regional Planning
Source Motorolas December 16, 2003 Filing
Note Bandwidths not to scale, UNII allocations
are significantly bigger than they appear on the
chart
29
4.9 GHz Regional Planning

• Formalize the decision to engage in a planning
  process
• Motion/Second/Discussion/Vote
• Establish the 4.9 Working Group and Chair
• Identified Workgroup members to date Jon (Wiz)
  Wiswell, Dean Heinen, Cammie Enslow, Doug Kerr,
  Clark Palmer, Dennis Hausman, Terry Miller, Bob
  Wentworth, Guy Cranor, Valerie Eveland, Jon
  Beck, Mark Bailey, Dave Brush, Ray Yocom, Bob
  Lincoln
• Workgroup Chair - Chair proposes that the Vice
  Chair head up this effort - Done
• Establish a general set of concepts we want to
  achieve in our planning process
• Establish a general timeline

30
4.9 GHz Regional Planning

• Establish a general set of concepts we want to
  achieve in our planning process
• Maximize local flexibility in spectrum deployment
• Pre-awareness of deployment plans by overalapping
  and adjoining licensees
• Need to establish some guidelines on the
  precedence of usage in overlapping and competing
  situations, kind of like the priority of usage in
  the I/O channels (incidents, training, gen use,
  etc.)
• Conduct a survey of what people want to use the
  spectrum for
• Provide opportunities for increased use spectrum
  sharing plans/agreements
• Provide opportunities for increased awareness of
  infrastructure sharing opportunities
• Advise on possible roles for the RPC in
  interference prevention and mitigation

31
4.9 GHz Regional Planning

• Establish a General Proposed timeline for the 4.9
  GHz Planning Process
• March 4th Convening Meeting
• Assemble the formal Workgroup to specifically
  work this issue
• Track developments in the NPSTC standards and
  guidelines process
• Collect thoughts and ideas from neighboring
  regions
• Familiarize themselves with the industry and
  trends
• Develop a straw-man plan framework
• Target June 30th meeting for delivery of the
  straw-man plan framework to the RPC
• Continue debate, editing and/or adoption
  consistent with actions in NPSTC and neighboring
  regions.

32
2004 Meeting Dates

• March 4th - Spokane _at_ Spokane Center
• March 31st - Olympia _at_ Washington DIS Boardroom
• April 28th - Yakima _at_ Yakima Probation Services
  Training Room
• May 26th - Everett _at_ Snohomish Public Utility
• June 30th - Eastside _at_ Yakima Probation Services
  Training Room
• July 28th - Westside _at_ TBD
• August 25th - Eastside _at_ TBD
• September 29th - Westside _at_ TBD
• October 27th - Eastside _at_ TBD
• November 24th - Holiday Impacts - Reschedule or
  drop
• December 29th - Holiday Impacts - Reschedule or
  drop

33
Other Items/Good of the Order

• Discussion of merging the 700/4.9 RPC with the
  800 RRC
• Anything else?

34
Next Meeting
March 31, 2004 State DIS Boardroom,
Olympia Conference Call Phone Number -
253-512-7310 Agenda and meeting material will be
posted on the web site www.region43.org