tft./O; y%o-a^ NBS Special Publication 480-2 LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972, Volume II Equipment and Supplies Law Enforcement Equipment Technology U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards ^<°:x •%r ES o* •* nbs Special LEAA Police Publication Equipment 480-2 td Survey of 1972, Volume II Equipment and Supplies by S. Mumford, P. Klaus, E. Bunten, R. Cunitz Institute for Applied Technology National Bureau of Standards Washington, D. C. 20234 prepared by Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory Center for Consumer Product Technology National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC. 20234 prepared for National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 u "*».„ ^ »* v £sued June 1977 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary •3 Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary (§• Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory. LEA A police equipment survey of 1972. (NBS special publication ; 480-1—480-7) "CODEN: XNBSAV." CONTENTS: v. 1. Ku, R., Bunten, E., Klaus, P. The need for standards, priorities for police equipment. — v. 2. Mumford, S. et al. Communications equipment and supplies. — v. 3. Klaus, P. and Bunten, E. Sirens and emergency warning lights, [etc.] 1. Police — Equipment and supplies — Collected works. I. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. II. Title. III. Series: United States. National Bureau of Standards. Special publica- tion ; 480-1^80-7. QC100.U57 no. 480-1—480-7 [HV7936.E7] 602'. Is [363.2'028] 74-28442 I National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 480-2 Nat Bur. Stand (U.S.), Spec Publ. 480-2 ,127pages CODENXNBSAV U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.10:480-2). Stock No. 003-003-01723-0 Price $2.75 (Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the 428 police departments throughout the United States who contributed their time and knowledge to make this report possible. Special thanks go to the police departments whose officers and administrators helped the survey team during the developmental and testing phases of the work. In addition, we thank Marshall J. Treado, Communications Systems Program Manager, Jacob J. Diamond, Chief of the NBS Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, and Lester Shubin, NILECJ Standards Program Manager, for their support and assistance. We thank the many members of the Technical Analysis Division who provided support: William L. O'Neal for his help in computerizing the sample selection and for helping design and program the interactive recordkeeping system; Jenny L. Eldreth and P. Clare Peiser for maintaining the computerized recordkeeping system; June R. Cornog for her advice, support, and help with initial interviews; Diane R. Beall for the many typings of the various versions of the questionnaires; Suellen Halpin, Mary L. Friend, and Susan E. Bergsman for making follow-up telephone calls; Lorraine S. Freeman for her administrative support; Karen Jackson for her help with questionnaire coding and recordkeeping; Cassandra Hawkins for typing the report. Michael R. Vogt receives special thanks for his help in carrying out the computerized edit and tabulation of the data. Special thanks also go to Dwight F. Doxey for coding this questionnaire and contributing to the preliminary data analysis. ill Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/leaapoliceequipOOIawe CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments in List of Tables v: Foreword xi Executive Summary Xlll 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Project Background 1 1.2. Sample Design 2 1.3. Questionnaire Administration 4 1.4. Development and Design of the Communications DQ 5 1.5. Characteristics of Subsample Groups 5 2. Question by Question Discussion 7 2.1. Advice to the Reader 7 2.2. Discussion 9 2.2.1. Characteristics of Respondents 9 2.2.2. Number of Officers and Characteristics of Jurisdiction 10 2.2.3. Mobile Radios 12 2.2.3.1. Number of Mobile Radios 12 2.2.3.2. Spectrum Utilization: Mobile Radios 13 2.2.3.3. Characteristics of Mobile Radios 17 2.2.4. Portable Radios 21 2.2.4.1. Number of Portable Radios 22 2.2.4.2. Spectrum Utilization: Portable Radios 23 2.2.4.3. Characteristics of Portable Radios 26 2.2.5. Special Systems 33 2.2.5.1. Mobile Repeaters 33 2.2.5.2. Fixed Repeaters 35 2.2.5.3. Portamobile Radios with Voting Systems 37 2.2.5.4. Scrambler Systems 39 2.2.5.5. Communications Helmet 43 2.2.6. General Information 44 2.2.6.1. Need for Standards and Expected Gains from Standards 44 2.2.6.2. Communications Needs 47 2.2.6.3. Problems with and Failures of Communications Equipment 48 2.2.7. Comments 50 Appendix A. Communications Questionnaire Appendix B. Raw Data Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 1.2-1. Table 1.2-2. Table 1.2-3. Table 1.3-1. Table 1.5-1. Table 1.5-2. Table 1.5-3. Table i. Table ii. Table iii. Table 5A-1. Table 5A-2. Table 6. Table 2A-1. Table 2A-2. Table 1A-1. Table 1A-2. Table 1A-3. Table 1B-1. Table ID and E. Table ID and E and 5B. Table 1C-1. Table 1C-2. Table 1C-3. Table 3. Page Stratification categories 3 Number of police departments by region and type 3 Number in sample of departments selected to receive the Detailed Questionnaire: Communications— by region and department type 3 Number of sample of departments returning acceptable Detailed Questionnaires: Communications 4 Activities handled by at least one-third of that department by department type, and percent of total departments having each activity 6 Descriptive data by department type (means) 6 Descriptive data by LEAA region (means) 7 Rank of primary respondent for communications questionnaire, by department type 9 Years of experience in law enforcement of primary respondent 9 Average number of full-time officers, by department type 10 Average size of communications jurisdiction, by department type 10 Comparison between average number of officers in department and average size of jurisdiction 11 General character of jurisdiction, by LEAA region 11 Number of car radios, by department type 12 Estimated total population of police car radios in U.S., by department type 13 Distribution of transmitting frequencies among bands, by department type (406 departments responding) 14 Percent use of more than 1 frequency band for transmitting by the 65 departments reporting concurrent usage 14 Mean number of transmitting frequencies per department, by department type and band 15 Percent departments whose transmitting and receiving frequencies were not all the same (n=130) 15 Comparison of channels authorized with channels in use for mobile radios, by department type (department types listed from largest to smallest based on mean number of full-time officers) 16 Comparison of average number of channels authorized, in use, and in area for mobile radios, by department type 17 Frequency count of reported output power for all responding departments 18 Percentages of each department type which cited output power of 90-110 watts 18 Average output power, by department type, arranged by average size of jurisdiction 18 Cumulative percentages for period of time within which 428 departments bought most of their car radios, by department type 19 VI Table 4. Cumulative percentages for cost of the car radios most Page frequently used in a department (including base plate, control head, microphone, and speaker), by department type .' 20 Table 2B-1. Percentages of car radios in use in department made by various manufacturers, by department type 20 Table 2B-2. Proportions of different manufacturers represented within one department 21 Table 9. Use of portable radios, by department type 21 Table 11A-1. Number of portable radios, by department type 22 Table 11A-2. Comparison between mean number of officers per department type, mean number of car radios, and mean number of portable radios 22 Table 11A-3. Comparison of estimated number of police portable radios and car radios in the United States, by department type 23 Table 10A-1. Comparison of percentages of total transmitting frequencies, by band, for mobile and portable radios for all departments 23 Table 10A-2. Percentages of total mobile and portable frequencies, by band, for county and 50 largest city departments 24 Table 10A-3. Mean numbers of portable and mobile radio transmitting frequencies, by department type (department types ordered from largest to smallest by number of full-time officers) .... 24 Table 10B. Percentages of total portable radio frequencies used for both transmitting and receiving, by department type 24 Table 10D Comparison of channels authorized and in use for and E-l. portable radios, by department type 25 Table 10D Comparison of channels authorized and in use for portable and E-2. and mobile radios, by all department types 25 Table IOC. Mean output power in watts for portable radios, by department type— arranged from smallest to largest mean size of jurisdiction 26 Table 22. Priorities assigned to standards for power supplies for portable radios by 348 departments which used portable radios as compared to average number of portables available, by department type 27 Table 23. Comparison between batteries now in use and batteries and 24. preferred, by the 348 departments using portable radios 27 Table 25. Use of batteries which must be recharged, by 348 departments which used portable radios 28 Table 25A., B., Length of time to partially and completely recharge C, and D. batteries: length of time batteries can be used before needing recharging, and needing replacement, by departments which use rechargeable batteries in their portable radios .... 29 Table 12. Weight of portable radios, by 348 departments using and 13-1. portable radios 29 Table 12. Comparison between weight of most used portable radios and and 13-2. respondents' feeling about that weight 30 Table 12A. When departments bought most of their "most often used" brands of portable radios 31 Table 12B. Cumulative percentages for costs of "most commonly used" portable radios in 348 departments 31 VII Table 11B. Percentage of portable radios in use in departments made by Page various manufacturers, by department type 32 Table 12. Of the 348 departments using portable radios, percent listing each of two "most used" models, by department type 33 Table 13-1. Percent departments which need repeaters within their mobile systems, by department type, arranged according to average size of jurisdiction 33 Table 13-2. If "yes," why do you need mobile repeaters? 34 Table 13-3. If "no," why don't you need mobile repeaters? 34 Table 7A-1. Use of fixed repeaters by department type, as compared to average size of jurisdiction 35 Table 7B-1. Percentage of total repeaters in use, and mean number per department of those being repeaters, by department type 36 Table 7B-2. Average number of fixed repeaters, by LEAA region, compared to percentage of departments in region which use fixed repeaters 36 Table 8A. Preference for F1F1 or F1F2 repeaters, by department type .... 37 Table 14-1. Of the 348 departments with portable radios, percentages of responses about voting systems, by department type 38 Table 14-2. Reasons given for favoring a portamobile radio with a voting system, by 98 departments which favored this system 38 Table 14-3. Reasons given for not favoring a portamobile radio with a voting system, by 58 departments which do not favor this system 39 Table 17-1. Availability of scramblers, by department type 39 Table 17-2. Perceived need for scrambler system by 388 departments which currently do not have the system, by department type 40 Table 18. Purposes for which scramblers were (or would be) used, by all departments currently using scramblers and all departments saying scramblers were needed 41 Table 19. Use of scramblers with car radios, portable radios, and special vehicles, by all departments currently using scramblers and all departments saying scramblers were needed 41 Table 20. Amounts the 265 departments which used or said they needed scramblers would be willing to pay for a reliable scrambler system, by department type 42 Table 21-1. Need for built-in communications in helmets, by department type (all respondents, n=428) 43 Table 21-2. Reasons for needing built-in helmet communications, by 139 departments which said they needed this system 43 Table 21-3. Reasons for not needing built-in communications, by 286 departments which said they did not need this system 44 Table 15-1. Need for standards for communications equipment, by all respondents 45 Table 15-2. Items said to need standards by 40 percent or more of the departments within a department type. Ordered from highest to lowest frequency of response by all 428 departments 45 Table 16-1. Expected gains from standardization of communications equipment, by all respondents 46 Table 16-2. Expected gains from standardization of communications equipment, by department type 47 VIII Page Table 26-1. Most critical communications needs, by all departments 48 Table 26-2. Most critical communications needs indicated by 40 percent or more of the departments within each department type 48 Table 27. Most serious problems with communications equipment, by all respondents 49 Table 28. Most common equipment failures, by all respondents 49 Table 29. Additional comments/observations about communications equipment, by department type 50 IX FOREWORD The Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL) of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) furnishes technical support to the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) program to strengthen law enforcement and criminal justice in the United States. LESL's function is to conduct research that will assist law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in the selection and procurement of quality equipment. LESL is: (1) Subjecting existing equipment to laboratory testing and evaluation and (2) conducting research leading to the development of several series of documents, including national voluntary equipment standards, user guidelines, state-of-the-art surveys and other reports. This document is a law enforcement equipment report developed by LESL under the sponsorship of NILECJ. Additional reports as well as other documents are being issued under the LESL program in the areas of protective equipment, communications equipment, security systems, weapons, emergency equipment, investigative aids, vehicles and clothing. Technical comments and suggestions concerning the subject matter of this report are invited from all interested parties. Comments should be addressed to the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234. Jacob J. Diamond, Chief Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY A. Background ° Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL) was established in 1971 under the sponsorship of the NILECJ Advanced Technology Division (ATD). ° NILECJ asked the Behavioral Sciences Group of the National Bureau of Standards to develop and carry out a procedure to get information from the users of law enforcement equipment. ° "User" information would aid NILECJ in setting priorities for LESL programs and would provide some detailed information in support of the research to develop standards and guidelines. ° In addition, gathering information from the users would help to make police agencies aware of LESL and ATD. ° A nationwide mail sample survey was selected as the best procedure to collect user information. ° An Equipment Priorities Questionnaire (EPQ) and six Detailed Questionnaires (DQs) were developed and administered. A separate report was prepared for each of these seven questionnaires. B. Design of Questionnaires ° Questionnaires were developed in conjunction with NILECJ, LESL, and cooperating police departments. Questionnaires were pretested at various times with approximately 45 police departments. 3 The EPQ was designed to provide information about priority needs for standards for various types of equipment. ° In addition, the EPQ asked for data about numbers of full- and part-time officers, activities performed in the department, budget, size of jurisdiction, etc. ° The six DQs (Alarms, Security and Surveillance Equipment; Communications Equipment and Supplies; Handguns and Handgun Ammunition; Sirens and Emergency Warning Lights; Body Armor and Confiscated Weapons; and Patrol Cars) were each developed separately. ° The DQs asked about kinds and quantities of equipment in use, problems with existing equipment, suggestions for improving equipment, needs for standards related to the equipment, etc. Although entitled Detailed Questionnaires, these questionnaires were designed to give an overview of the use of specific items of equipment. C. Sample ° The population sampled was made up of all police departments listed in a computerized file and maintained by the LEAA Statistical Service. ° Courts, correctional institutions, forensic labs, special police agencies, etc., were excluded. ° The sample was stratified by LEAA geographic region (10 regions) and by department type (7 department types: state police; county police and sheriffs; city departments with 1-9 officers; city departments with 10-49 officers; city departments with 50 or more officers, excluding the 50 largest cities; the 50 largest U.S. cities by population; and township departments). XIII ° Overall, approximately 10 percent of the 12,836 departments in the population were selected as respondents (see table 1.2-2). 3 The Equipment Priorities Questionnaire was sent to every sample department (1,386). Each Detailed Questionnaire was sent to all states, to all of the 50 largest cities, and to a randomly selected subsample of the main sample (about 530 departments received each DQ). ' Thus, states and the 50 largest cities were asked to fill in all 7 questionnaires. Each of the remaining 1,286 departments was asked to fill in the EPQ and 2 of the DQs. 3 The sample for the Communications DQ consisted of 528 departments (see table 1.2-3). D. Questionnaire Administration ° Stringent control of administration was required. ° Introductory letters were sent to heads of departments asking cooperation. ° On June 1, 1972, questionnaire packages were mailed. ° In July 1972, follow-up by self-return post card was begun. ° In August 1972, follow-up by telephone was begun. Departments which had not returned questionnaires were called. Also, calls were made to clear up ambiguities in the returned questionnaires. About 1,300 calls were made. About 70 percent of the sample departments were called at least once. ° Each questionnaire was edited and coded by a specialized team to ensure consistency; it was then keypunched and tabulated. ° Completed questionnaires were accepted for tabulation through January 7, 1973. E. Rates of Return ° Eighty-three percent of the 1,386 departments returned usable EPQs. ° Eighty-one percent of the 528 departments returned usable Communications DQs. ° Between 81 and 85 percent of the other DQ subsamples returned usable questionnaires. ° Highest rates of return (over 90%) were from states, the 50 largest cities, and cities with 50 or more officers. ° Lowest rates of return were from counties and townships (less than 75%). F. Characteristics of Responding Departments ° The activities most commonly carried out by the respondents (to the EPQ) were serving traffic and criminal warrants (88%), traffic safety and traffic control (87%), and intradepartmental communications (87%). ° All of the responding 50 largest cities said they provided inhouse training and criminal investigations. This compared to 68 percent and 86 percent, respectively, of all responding departments. ° Only 13 percent of all respondents had crime laboratories. Seventy-three percent of the 50 largest cities and 55 percent of the states had crime laboratories. ° About three-fifths of the departments in all department types were providing emergency aid and rescue, ranging from 60 percent of the cities with 50 or more officers to 67 percent of the counties. ° Overall, the reported equipment budgets represented somewhat over 10 percent of the total budgets reported. ° Among department types, there was a wide range of total equipment expenditures, from a mean of about $10,000 for cities with 1-9 officers to a mean of almost $2.7 million for the 50 largest cities. ° One of the 50 largest cities reported an equipment budget of $40 million. XIV ° Overall, the 50 largest cities reported a mean of 2,491 full-time sworn officers. However, 1 of the 50 largest cities had 27 percent of all the full-time officers reported by that department type and another had about 12 percent. G. Presentation of Data ° Data in this report are presented in two forms: text tables and full tables (app. B). Text tables do not always present a complete breakdown of the data. All tables (text and full) present the data in unweighted form (i.e., numbers and percentages of the responding departments from the sample for this questionnaire, not figures that have been weighted to expand the data to the total population of police departments in the U.S.). ° The sample selected for this questionnaire was not proportional to the total population of police departments. If decisions are to be made which require estimates of population figures, the appropriate extrapolation must be performed. (See app. B, p. B-l.) II. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A. Car Radios ° A total of 67,807 car radios were reported by the 428 respondents. ° About nine-tenths of the car radios reported were in state and 50 largest city departments. ° About two-thirds of the car radios were bought within the last 5 years. ° Three-fourths of the car radios reported cost less than $1,001. ° Almost 6 out of every 10 car radios were made by 1 manufacturer. B. Portable Radios ° A total of 22,660 portable radios were reported by the 347 respondents which were using portable radios. ° Almost three-fourths of the portable radios reported were in the 50 largest cities. ° More than four-fifths of these radios were bought within the last 5 years. ° Slightly more than three-fourths of the portable radios cost less than $901. ° About 7 out of every 10 were made by 1 manufacturer. ° About seven-tenths of them weighed between 1-1/4 and 2-1/2 pounds. ° Nickel-Cadmium batteries were used in about seven-tenths of them. ° Ninety percent of the departments used rechargeable batteries in their portables. C. Channels and Frequencies An average of 3.5 channels per department was authorized to responding departments. ° An average of 3.2 channels per department was currently in use. ° About one-half of the reported channels was being used by the 50 largest cities and state police. D. Fixed Repeaters About one-third of the departments used fixed repeaters. About nine-tenths of the departments with fixed repeaters were state or 50 largest cities departments. XV E. Scramblers ° Scramblers were currently being used by only 9 percent (n=40) of the respondents. Of departments which did not have a scrambler system, almost 60 percent felt they needed that system. Departments most commonly used (or would use) scramblers for undercover investigations and long term stakeouts. ° More than four-fifths of the departments which had or said they needed scramblers, said they would be willing to pay no more than $500 for a reliable scrambler. F. Need for Other Communications Equipment ° About one-third of the departments expressed a need for helmets with built-in communications. This need was most often expressed by state police and departments in the 50 largest cities. ° Slightly more than two-fifths of the respondents indicated a need for mobile repeaters. ° Twenty-eight percent of the departments favored the voting system; over half of the departments were unfamiliar with this system. G. Need for Standards for Communications Equipment ° The three items most commonly chosen as needing standards were mobile radios, portable radios, and batteries. ° State police and larger city departments chose more items as needing standards than did other department types. ° Gains expected from standardization were more often expected to come from interchangeability of equipment than from either savings in training costs or savings in equipment costs. H. Most Critical Communications Needs ° The four most critical communications needs of the respondents were for new equipment, more frequencies, personal transceivers for each officer, and standardization of all equipment. ° Personal transceivers for all officers was the most critical need of larger city departments. ° New equipment was the greatest need of small city departments and counties. ° More channels was the greatest need of state police. XVI LEAA POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY OF 1972 Volume II: Communications Equipment and Supplies S. Mumford, P. Klaus, E. Bunten, and R. Cunitz Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards , Washington , D.C. 20234 The report outlines the methodology of and summarizes a portion of the data from the LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972. One of a series of 7 reports resulting from this nationwide mail survey of a stratified random sample of police departments, the present report summarizes the answers of 428 police departments concerning their communications equipment and supplies: Use of mobile radios and portable radios; power supplies for portable radios; scramblers; portable/mobile radios; helmets with built-in communications; and needs for standards and problems associated with communications equipment and supplies. The data are presented by all responding departments and by seven department types. Key words: Communications; mobile radio; police; police equipment; portable radio; standards. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Project Background During the past several years, law enforcement agencies in the United States have become more aware of the importance of equipment in the performance of their duties. Much of their equipment had originally been designed for other uses and had to be modified. Other equipment items had to be used as given. No standards existed against which equipment performance could be measured nor were any standard test methods or procedures available. It has been difficult for agencies to compare the performance of equipment items. Recognizing this problem, the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis- tration (LEAA) of the Department of Justice began a concentrated program in 1971, toward the improvement of law enforcement equipment. As the first step in its program, LEAA in cooperation with the Department of Commerce established a Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory (LESL) at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The broad goal of LESL is to prepare performance standards which can be promulgated by LEAA as voluntary aids for the selection of equipment by law enforcement agencies. Additionally, LESL is developing standard test methods and procedures, so that the relative performance of similar items may be evaluated by departments themselves. In order to provide equipment user information for the program, in 1971 the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) of LEAA asked the Behavioral Science Group of the Technical Analysis Division at NBS to gather information from the users of law enforcement equipment about their specialized equipment needs and problems. Although face-to-face interviews with a large sample of representatives from law enforcement agencies would have been desirable, time and manpower constraints led to the development of a nationwide mail sample survey having two general objectives: (1) To assist NILECJ in the establishment of priorities for LESL's standards development activities; and (2) to obtain detailed information about certain broad equipment categories in support of the research to develop standards and guidelines in these areas. This report fulfills part of the second general objective and the associated survey questionnaire (see app. A) will be referred to as the Communications Detailed Questionnaire (DQ). The remainder of the second objective is accomplished in the reports of the other five DQs: Alarms, Security and Surveillance Systems; Handguns 226-297 0-77-2 and Handgun Ammunition; Sirens and Emergency Warning Lights; Body Armor and Confiscated Weapons; and Patrol Cars. The first general objective (above) is accomplished in the report on the Equipment Priorities Questionnaire (EPQ). l 1.2. Sample Design Although the objective of ATD is to serve all types of law enforcement agencies, this particular study was purposefully limited to police departments as the largest single group of law enforcement agencies with identifiable equipment needs. No attempt was made to survey correctional institutions, courts, forensic laboratories, or special police agencies such as park police, harbor patrols, or university police. The computerized directory of approximately 14,000 police agencies, compiled and maintained by LEAA's Statistics Division, provided the population from which the sample was drawn. Care was taken to exclude the double listings that existed for some agencies. (Details of the selection process are given in app. B of the Equipment Priorities Questionnaire.) The final list of 12,842 departments was cross-stratified by LEAA geographic region and department type by the mutual agreement of NBS and NILECJ. The assignment of states to regions and the seven department types chosen for study are shown in table 1.2-1. The breakdown of the population of police departments by cross-strata is exhibited in table 1.2-2. As can be seen from the table, there were no townships in regions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Almost 63 percent of the departments were city police, 43 percent having 1-9 full-time officers. County departments comprised about 24 percent of the population. By region, the smallest (region 10) contained only 3.4 percent of the police departments, while region 5, the largest, had 22.5 percent. The variation in the number of departments in a cell (region/department type combination) was even greater than that across the strata, i.e., the number of departments in each cell ranged from to 1,470. The considerations discussed in the previous paragraph led to the sampling plan discussed briefly below. All of the state departments and the 50 largest city departments were included in the sample and were asked to complete all 6 DQs, i.e., they were sent the entire package of 7 questionnaires. For the remaining cells the variation in cell size presented a problem: If the same fraction of the entire population was to be selected from the members of each cell, a constant sampling fraction small enough to make the total sample manageable Would yield too few sample units in small cells. To solve this problem, a fixed sample of 30 police departments/cell was chosen, wherever possible, resulting in a different sampling fraction for each cell. A fixed sample size of 30 departments/cell was chosen to facilitate the equitable distribution of the 6 DQs. This plan resulted in sending the Communications DQ to 528 departments. The departments were selected randomly within each cell, from the total cell population, each department (other than the states and 50 largest cities) receiving 2 DQs. Thus, in cells having 30 sample units, the Communications DQ was mailed to 10 departments; cells having fewer sample units were allocated proportionally fewer Communications DQs. Table 1.2-3 presents the total sample for the Communications DQ by region and department type. Once the sample was selected, each sample unit was assigned a unique seven-digit identification number, coding region, type, and questionnaire assignment. LEAA Police Equipment Survey of 1972, Vol I: The Need for Standards— Priorities for Police Equipment Table 1.2-1. Stratification categories Department types LEAA geographic region State police County police and sheriffs City with 1-9 officers City with 10-49-officers City with 50 or more officers The 50 largest U.S. cities 2 Township departments 1 = Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., R.I., Vt. 2 = N.J., N.Y. 3 = Del., Md., Pa., Va., W. Va., D.C. 4 = Ala., Ha., Ga., Ky., Miss., N.C., S.C., Tenn. 5 = 111., Ind., Mich., Ohio, Wis., Minn. 6 = Ark., La., N. Mex., Okla., Tex. 7 = Iowa, Kans., Mo., Nebr. 8 = Colo., Mont., N. Dak., S. Dak., Utah, Wyo. 9 = Ariz., Calif., Nev., Hawaii 10 = Alaska, Idaho, Oreg., Wash. Does not include the 50 largest cities. "By population, U.S. 1970 census. Table 1.2-2. Number of police departments by region and type LEAA region Department type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total State 6 2 5 8 6 5 4 6 4 4 50' County 66 84 257 764 536 506 413 288 103 120 3,137 City (1-9 officers) 27 348 713 979 1,470 703 611 283 135 217 5,486 City (10-49 officers) 40 237 166 344 508 230 142 71 168 79 1,985 City (50 or more officers) 60 64 36 83 119 46 23 19 87 17 554 50 largest cities 1 4 5 8 10 8 3 1 8 2 50 Township 629 349 362 234 - 1,574 Total 829 1,088 1,544 2,186 2,883 1,498 1,196 668 505 439 12,836 Questionnaires were actually sent to 56 state police departments since there were 6 state departments which listed 2 police agencies without reference to a common central agency. However, only one set of questionnaires was accepted from each of these six agencies as described in vol. I. app. B. p. B-2. Table 1.2-3. Number in sample of departments selected to receive the detailed questionnaire: Communications — by region and department type LEAA geographic region Department type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total State ' 6 2 5 8 6 5 4 6 4 4 50 County 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1(1 10 100 City 1-9 officers 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 99 City 10-49 officers 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 100 City 50+ officers 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6 10 5 89 50 largest cities 1 4 5 8 10 8 3 1 8 2 50 Townships 2 10 10 10 10 40 Total 56 56 60 56 66 53 45 43 52 41 528 'Questionnaires were actually sent to 56 state police departments since there were 6 state departments which listed 2 police agenc reference lo a common central agency. However, only one set of questionnaires was accepted from each of these six agencies. Township departments exist only in regions 1, 2, 3, and 5. i without 1.3. Questionnaire Administration From the beginning of the project, it was evident that stringent control would be required in administering the questionnaires to ensure a high rate of response. Computer-stored daily status records were input via a teletypewriter for each sample department. In general, the following procedure was used: (1) Each department in the sample was mailed a letter, signed by the director of NILECJ, addressed to the head of the department. This letter introduced the survey and requested cooperation. (2) About 1 week later, the questionnaire packages were mailed. (3) Departments not returning the questionnaires within a month were identified by the computer and were sent a self-return post card requesting information as to the status of the questionnaires. Departments not receiving the questionnaire package were sent another; those not returning the post card were placed on a list for telephone follow-up. (4) About a month and a half later, departments with which no contact had been made were called by telephone. (5) Returned questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and either coded for keypunching or filed for telephone callback to supply missing data or to resolve ambiguities. Considerable effort was expended to ensure a high rate of response, and this effort was rewarded with an 80 percent response for the Communications DQ, and between 80 percent and 85 percent for each of the other questionnaires. In the course of the survey more than 70 percent of the sample departments were contacted at least once by telephone. More than 1,300 phone calls were made by the survey team. The distribution of respondents (departments which returned usable Communications DQs) is exhibited in table 1.3-1. The highest percentages of response were from the states and larger cities (89-94%), while counties and townships had the poorest response rates (under 70%). Table 1.3-1. Number of sample of departments returning acceptable detailed questionnaires: Communications LEA^ l geographic region Percent total Department type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total sample State 1 6 2 5 8 6 5 3 6 3 3 47 94 County 5 7 5 7 8 6 8 6 10 7 69 69 City 1-9 officers 6 8 8 9 9 10 7 5 9 7 78 79 City 10-49 officers 7 9 9 6 10 8 8 10 9 10 86 86 City 50+ officers 8 9 10 10 7 9 7 5 9 5 79 89 50 largest cities 1 3 4 7 9 8 3 1 8 2 46 92 Townships 8 8 5 2 - 23 58 Total 41 46 46 47 51 46 36 33 48 34 428 80 Percent total sample 73 82 77 84 77 87 80 77 92 83 81 'Questionnaires were actually sent lo 56 state departments since there were 6 slate departments which listed 2 police agencies without refer- ence to a common central agency. However, only one set of questionnaires was accepted from each of these six agencies. i Township departments exist only in regions 1, 2, 3, and 5. 1 .4. Development and Design of the Communications DQ The survey plan and questionnaire design (of all seven questionnaires) evolved over a 12-montb period. During this time, the survey team consulted at length with NILECJ equipment experts, LESL program managers, and equipment manufacturers. In addition, the officers and administrators of about 40 police departments served as consultants and/or as respondents for pretests of various versions of the questionnaires. The Communications DQ, in its final form, is reproduced in appendix A. This DQ asked respondents to provide data about car radios and portable radios in use in their departments; to answer questions about the power supplies used in portable radios; to provide information about other kinds of communications equipment such as scramblers, helmets with built-in communications and portable/mobile radios; to indi- cate the need for standards for various kinds of communications equipment and to discuss problems with communications equipment. The questionnaire was limited to general topics because: (1) It was not possible, considering the scope of the present survey, to explore in a detailed manner all of the many facets of the various communications systems in use in police departments throughout the United States, and (2) it was felt that the general data gathered in the present effort would provide important direction for research in the development of standards, the main objective of the survey. 1.5. Characteristics of Subsample Groups The EPQ of the LEAA Police Equipment Survey requested data from each department about population served, physical size of jurisdiction served, type of jurisdiction, number of full- and part-time officers, approximate total, equipment, and personnel budgets during 1971, and activities handled by the department. Table 1.5-1 presents a partial tabulation, by department type, of the responses to a checklist of 30 typical police activities by the respondents to the EPQ. (The EPQ respondents include, but are not limited to, the respondents to the Communications DQ. See sec. 1.2.) The activities most frequently checked by all departments were: (1) Serve traffic and criminal warrants (88%), (2) traffic safety and traffic control (87%), and (3) communications for own department (87%). The activity with the most consistent level across all department types was that of emergency aid and rescue, ranging from 60 percent (cities with 50+ officers) to 67 percent (counties). Higher percentages of state and 50 largest city departments than of other department types were handling certain of the 30 activities. For example, all of the 50 largest city departments responding, and 98 percent of the responding state departments said that their departments provided police training for their own department. These compare to 68 percent for all responding departments. All of the responding 50 largest cities said that they handled criminal investigation in their own departments. This compares to 86 percent of the total sample of departments. Although only 13 percent of the departments overall had crime laboratories, 73 percent of the 50 largest cities and 55 percent of the states had them. Counties appeared to be the only department type with significant responsibilities for custody and detention for more than 1 week. Seventy-eight percent of those depart- ments had custody/detention up to 1 year, as compared with 22 percent of all responding departments. Tables 1.5-2 and 1.5-3 present summaries of descriptive data by department type and LEAA region, respectively. As can be seen from the column for "Annual equipment budget" (table 1.5-2), there was a wide range of expenditures among different department types: from a mean of about $10,000 for cities (1-9) to almost $2.7 million for the 50 largest cities. Overall, equipment budgets represented somewhat over 10 percent of the annual total budgets. Table 1.5-1. Activities handled by at least one-third of the departments by department type, and percent of total departments having each activity Description of activity City City City 50 Town- ate County 1-9 10-49 (in %) 50+ largest ship Total 70 89 84 89 94 87 93 88 92 56 94 96 96 98 94 87 94 86 76 95 94 96 70 87 66 86 71 95 97 100 79 86 98 55 48 77 87 100 42 68 79 51 73 72 80 43 65 89 46 47 72 83 91 49 64 62 67 62 63 60 67 62 63 40 63 60 58 44 68 54 - - 48 55 60 60 42 48 - - 58 63 42 37 44 96 38 48 36 88 43 51 36 34 41 48 47 40 73 36 46 49 38 66 56 88 40 - - 36 32 77 78 42 84 24 22 34 42 - 42 19 45 - 82 17 62 36 90 17 55 - 17 55 73 13 43 62 11 - - 7 34 53 7 6 - 5 34 3 3 Serve traffic and criminal warrants Traffic safety and traffic control Communications for own department Criminal investigation Police training for own department Custody/detention— less than 1 day Breath-alcohol test Emergency aid and rescue Public building protection Service function Animal control (dogcatcher) Highway patrol Maintenance of police buildings Custody/detention— 1 week or less Communications for other agency Serve civil process Police training for other agency Custody/detention— up to 1 year Underwater recovery Bomb disposal Polygraph Vehicle inspection Crime laboratory Narcotics laboratory analysis Harbor patrol Lab analysis for blood alcohol Other Coroner Test for driver's license Custody/detention— more than 1 year Table 1.5-2. Descriptive data by department type (means) Number of Number of Annual Annual Department type Area Population full-time part-time Annual total equipment personnel (mi 2 ) officers officers budget budget budget 50 largest 187 851,342 2,491 1,115 $43,268,865 $2,669,9'>C $34,712,818 State 62,580 3,936,410 889 18 16,377,358 2,304,339 :2,020,572 County 1,518 130,254 60 25 1,089,919 58,539 859,984 City (50+) 31 83,334 132 26 1,733,340 173,099 1,407,177 City (10-49) 12 15,849 22 9 257,927 24,362 206,187 Township 28 13,228 14 8 175,654 20,854 141,675 City (1-9) 9 5,038 8 5 82,381 9,764 60,061 Table 1.5-3. Descriptive data by LEAA region (means) Number of Number of Annual Annual LEAA region Area Population full-time part-time Annual total equipment personnel (mi 2 ) officers officers budget budget budget 1 750 158,112 96 18 $1,360,155 $135,130 $ 979,911 2 648 240,781 365 97 7,148,315 148,172 5,265,546 3 1,096 245,733 216 7 3,412,567 435,153 2,879,293 4 3,691 340,996 151 11 2,318,382 248,600 1,767,292 5 2,652 448,174 288 8 4,916,607 431,478 3,879,374 6 5,738 271,386 160 17 2,193,823 160,363 1,709,910 7 2,379 112,094 84 9 1,220,385 121,001 983,696 8 6,346 83,023 54 9 728,549 77,081 568,463 9 4,218 372,094 281 46 5,743,553 728,801 4,528,692 10 3,580 104,877 69 9 1,253,894 82,198 1,011,604 The mean number of part-time officers was based on those respondents having part-time officers in their departments. Of the 45 responding from the 50 largest cities, only 6 had part-time officers, including 1 city which had nearly 6,000. Thus, the mean value of 1,115 for this department type is somewhat misleading. It should be noted that the category part-time officers included officers described as auxiliary, volunteer, reserve, school-crossing guard, dispatcher, summer, special agent, traffic supervisor, posse, and cadet. All of these classifications were counted in the part-time officer category since it has different meanings for different departments. Variations in these descriptive averages by LEAA region (table 1.5-3) were considerably smaller than variations by department type. Regions 1 and 8 had smaller budgets than the others, primarily because each had only 1 of the 50 largest cities. 2. QUESTION BY QUESTION DISCUSSION 2.1. Advice to the Reader In reading section 2, certain points should be kept in mind: (1) This report is not an evaluation of any of the equipment described or discussed within it. It is a presentation of information and opinions of a stratified random sample of police departments given in response to a specific set of questions. It does not, in any way, reflect objective testing of any equipment by the National Bureau of Standards. (2) The report reflects only what police departments were willing and able to say in response to a specific set of questions. In most cases, no attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the information given or the level of sophistication of the respondent. (3) Each discussion begins with the presentation of the question that appeared in the questionnaire, and in most cases the choices supplied, if any, set off in bold face type. However, the reader is cautioned to become familiar with the questionnaire sent to sample departments (see app. A) and to evaluate the data in terms of the exact questions asked. (4) The text tables that appear in section 2 are almost never the complete tables that were tabulated for that question. Data categories for text tables may have been collapsed from the full table, or certain categories of interest may have been singled out for fuller discussion. Appendix B contains the complete tables from which the text tables were extracted. Text tables have been numbered after the question number (e.g., the text tables for question 6A would be numbered 6A-1, 6A-2, etc.) The tables in appendix B are also numbered the same as question number, in the same manner. In some cases, tables that appear in appendix B will not have been discussed at all in the text. (5) Data in the text of this report are usually presented by nearest whole percent of the group under consideration. In appendix B, the data are usually presented by number of respondents and percent. Because of statistical limitations imposed by the sample sizes used in this study, the reader is cautioned to be wary of assigning importance to percentage differences of less than 5 percent when percentages are based on the total number of respondents, and to percentage differences of less than 10 percent when percentages are based on one of the subsample groups (e.g., a particular department type or region). No statistical tests of significance are reported. (6) Data were always tabulated by each of the choices supplied, if any, in the questionnaire. Any "other" choices written in by the respondents were also tabulated and/or recorded verbatim. In most cases, the numbers of respondents giving a specific "other" response do not reflect the numbers of respondents who might have marked that choice if it had been one of those provided. Therefore, in most cases, this report lists or gives examples of "other" responses, but does not present numbers or percents of departments giving that response. For those questions for which choices were not provided in the questionnaire, coding categories were developed after approximately one-fourth of the questionnaires had been returned. (7) The following convention has been adopted in the report to designate the four city department types: City with 1-9 officers = city (1-9) City with 10-49 officers = city (10-49) City with 50 or more officers = city (50+) 2 The 50 largest cities = 50 largest 3 In table headings this same convention has been used except that the parentheses have been removed. (8) Questions which asked departments to identify manufacturers of their equipment were asked in this manner only to make the question clearer; not to evaluate a manufacturer's product. (9) In an attempt to make this report more readable, the main topics of the questionnaire have been reordered in the report; the discussion of the findings does not follow the order of the questions. To find the discussion of a particular question quickly, consult the Contents or the List of Tables. (10) When the subsample groups are discussed (e.g., "counties said..." or "cities (1-9) said...") the reference is to the responding departments from one of the sample strata. It is particularly important to note that when the text or tables refer to "all departments" or "all responding departments," the reference is to all responding departments from the sample described in section 1.2. This sample was not proportional to the total population of police departments, and although it is possible to do so, the data in this report have not been weighted to allow direct extrapolation to the total population. (See app. B, p. B-l.) Excluding the 50 largest U.S. cities. By population, 1970 U.S. Census. 2.2. Discussion 2.2.1. Characteristics of Respondents a. Rank/Title of Respondents All of the questionnaires in the LEAA Police Equipment Survey were mailed to the chief (or highest official) of the department with a request that the questionnaires be directed to the person or persons within the department who were felt to be best qualified to answer the questions. The communications questionnaire was usually filled in by the chief/unit head in smaller city departments and townships and by a communications specialist in states and the 50 largest cities. (See table i.) In cities (50+) about one-fourth (28%) of the primary respondents were communications specialists and one-fifth (20%) were either chiefs or assistant chiefs. Questionnaires from counties were most often filled in by the sheriff. Table i. Rank of primary respondent for communications questionnaire , by department type ' Department type (in %) City City City 50 Rank/Title 1-9 10-49 50+ largest State Township Chief 73 42 14 4 52 Assistant chief 3 9 6 Communications specialist 2 28 67 77 4 Excluding counties. b. Number of Years of Law Enforcement Experience of Respondent In general, the questionnaire was filled in by experienced officers. About three- fourths of the respondents had more than 5 years of experience. Although a majority of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience in law enforcement, there were variations among department types. More than 70 percent of the respondents in the states and 50 largest cities had this much experience, while less than half of the respondents in counties, cities (1-9), and townships had more than 10 years in law enforcement work. (See table ii.) Table ii. Years of experience in law enforcement of primary respondent Number of years of law enforcement experience (by % of di apartment types) Department More than More than More than More than type 5 years 10 years 20 years 25 years 50 largest 88 77 24 13 State 81 72 17 4 City (10-49) 84 57 13 5 City (50+) 77 61 22 14 City (1-9) 62 43 21 13 County 58 36 17 13 Township 57 48 9 9 2.2.2. Number of Officers and Characteristics Of Jurisdiction The communications needs and requirements of police departments are usually based on two prime considerations: (1) Number of officers in the department and (2) size of jurisdiction. Data about the average number of officers per department type are reproduced in table iii. The largest mean number of officers per department was in the 50 largest cities. States averaged slightly less than one-third as many officers as the 50 largest cities. counties averaged about five times as many officers as did cities (10-49). (See table 5A-1.) Table iii. Average number of full-time officers, by department type Number of Department type full-time officers 50 largest 2,491 State 890 City (50+) 125 County 113 City (10-49) 23 Township 16 City (1-9) 9 Table 5A-1. Average size of communications jurisdiction , by department type Size ' (mi 2 ) Department type Overall mean Minimum Maximum State 62,704 1,497 263,449 County 2,551 14 64,000 50 largest 237 24 841 City (10-49) 68 1 2,000 City (1-9) 67 1 1,200 City (50+) 34 2 310 Township 32 5 67 5A. What is the total area within your jurisdiction which must be covered by a communications system? (In Square Miles) Square Miles The average sizes of communications jurisdictions which state and county police had to cover were larger than those of all types of city departments and townships. The larger cities, in terms of number of officers, were not necessarily larger in geographical size. Cities (1-9) and cities (10-49) had geographically larger jurisdictions than cities (50+). The relationship between number of officers and geographical size can be seen more clearly in table 5A-2. 10 Table 5A-2. Comparison between average number of officers in department and average size of jurisdiction Department type full-time officers 50 largest 2,491 State 890 City (50+) 125 County 113 City (10-49) 23 Township 16 City (1-9) 9 Number of officers and size of jurisdiction Mean number of Mean size of jurisdiction (mi 2 ) 237 67,704 34 2,551 68 32 67 6. Which of the following best describes the general character of your jurisdiction? (Mark X by More Than One, if Necessary) Skyscrapers, many tall buildings Some tall buildings Almost no tall buildings Primarily mountainous or very hilly Valley area surrounded by mountains Generally flat with some hills Flat area, no hills The departments which characterized their jurisdictions as being mountainous or in a valley surrounded by mountains were most often located in LEAA regions 1 (New England), 8 (Mountain States), 9 (Far West/Hawaii), and 10 (Northwest/Alaska). Respondents who reported flat, with some or no hills, were most often in LEAA regions 6 (South/Southwest) and 7 (Midwest). There were few differences among the LEAA regions in the percentages of departments which said they had almost no tall buildings. Departments in region 5 (Great Lakes) gave the greatest percentage of responses for skyscrapers, many tall buildings, or some tall buildings; this response was given least often by departments in region 1 (New England). (See table 6.) Table 6. General character of jurisdiction , by LEAA region Charact er (by % of region) Valley surrounded by Almost Skyscrapers LEAA region Flat/some mountains/or moun- no tall or some tall or no hills tainous, very hilly buildings buildings New England 31 81 32 12 New York/New Jersey 63 43 33 31 Middle Atlantic 33 67 20 35 South 79 36 28 30 Great Lakes 73 22 27 53 South/Southwest 91 18 28 28 Midwest 86 11 28 28 Mountain 45 81 27 24 Far West/Hawaii 46 80 35 31 Northwest/ Alaska 35 70 26 18 11 2.2.3. Mobile Radios 2.2.3.1. Number of Mobile Radios 2 A. How many car radios are there in your department? Number State departments accounted for slightly more than half (51%) of all the car radios reported by the 428 responding departments. The 50 largest cities accounted for an additional 40 percent of all radios reported. Thus, less than 10 percent of all radios reported were found in the other five department types. (See table 2A-1.) Within the seven department types, there were wide ranges of minimum and maximum numbers of mobile radios reported. For example, some county departments had as few as 1 car radio, while 1 county had 900. Total numbers of car radios were compared with the numbers of patrol cars reported in response to the patrol cars questionnaire. 4 A total of 67,807 car radios was reported by the respondents to the communications questionnaire. A total of 46,462 patrol cars was reported by the respondents to the patrol cars questionnaire. Therefore, about 46 percent more car radios than patrol cars were reported by these subsample groups. Calls were made to a few departments to determine possible reasons for the large observed difference between the number of cars and the number of car radios. Several reasons were given for this apparent discrepancy: (1) Many departments said that they kept extra mobile radios available; some said that they kept a 10-20 percent backup inventory. (2) Many departments are using communications channels on two different frequency bands, and needed two radios in each patrol car in order to operate on both bands. In some departments, one band was used for emergencies (and was sometimes part of an area or statewide communications) and the other was used to handle local jurisdiction communications. (3) In a smaller number of departments, it appeared that errors in reporting the numbers of mobile radios may have occurred. For instance, some of the county departments contacted said that they had included other mobile radios in their jurisdictions which, although they were not used by the county police, were tied 4 * These 2 questionnaires were sent to different but equivalent subsamples, except for state and the 50 largest cities always filled in both. Table 2A-1. Number of car radios, by department type Total Percent Mean Maximum Minimum Department type Number of number total no. per in any in any respondents radios radios department department department State 47 36,365 51 731 3,510 97 50 largest 46 27,221 40 592 4,275 101 County 69 2,653 4 38 900 City (50+) 79 2,597 4 33 177 City (10-49) 86 631 1 7 21 City (1-9) 78 239 * 3 28 Township ents 23 101 * 4 26 All departm 428 67,807 100 158 4,275 1 •Leas than 1 percent. 12 into the central dispatch system operated by the county. It was also possible that a small number of departments may have included portable radios in their statistics on car radios, even though information about portable radios was specifically requested in Question 11 A. In summary, while it appears that departments did, in fact, have considerably more mobile radios in their departments than they had patrol cars, there is reason to believe that the total of 67,807 car radios reported in the survey may have been somewhat high. Nevertheless, the estimate of the total number of police mobile radios in the country, shown in table 2A-2, is not likely to have been seriously affected. Table 2A-2. Estimated total population of police car radios in U.S., by department type Mean number Number departments Estimated Department type car radios that type: total number car per department .population radios County 38 3,137 119,206 State 731 50 36,550 50 largest 592 50 29,600 City (50+) 33 554 19,282 City (1-9) 3 5,486 16,458 City (10-49) 7 1,985 13,895 Township 4 1,574 6,296 Total 240,287 2.2.3.2. Spectrum Utilization: Mobile Radios In this section, mobile communications are considered in terms of police department spectrum utilization. The frequency bands used for transmitting and receiving and the number of channels authorized and in use by the responding departments are reported. 1. Give the following information about your car radios: 1A. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in kHz, MHz, etc.) The reported frequencies were compiled in four categories: VHF low band (30-50 MHz), VHF high band (150-174 MHz), UHF band (450-470 MHz), and an "other" category which included such answers as call letters, which could not be categorized by band. VHF high band and UHF frequencies can usually be received in buildings. VHF high band has better penetration, while UHF frequencies are more likely to pass through windows and other nonmetallic openings. One of the main attractions of the UHF band is the availability of unused frequencies compared to VHF low and high bands, which are relatively saturated. Of all the transmitting frequencies reported by responding departments, almost half (49%) were in the VHF high band (150-174 MHz). The VHF low band (30-50 MHz) accounted for 29 percent of the reported frequencies and only 19 percent were in the UHF band. 13 Since VHF low band frequencies provide the greatest range and are least affected by terrain and foliage, they are more suitable for those departments with the largest jurisdictions, such as states and counties. In both of these department types, over half of the reported transmitting frequencies were in the VHF low band. (See table 1A-1.) The three largest city department types and townships reported the greatest proportions of VHF high band transmitting frequencies. VHF high band, being more line-of-sight, does not provide as much range as low band does, but does transmit farther than UHF for the same transmitter output power. VHF frequencies have been available for law enforcement use longer than the UHF frequencies. As shown by the data, UHF frequencies were not generally being used, with the exception of the 2 largest city department types (50+ and 50 largest). Of the responding departments, 79 percent said all their transmitting frequencies were in a single band. The remaining 21 percent used one of the combinations shown in table 1A-2. Only five departments reported using transmitting frequencies in all three bands. The means shown in table 1A-3 were calculated by counting the total number of transmitting frequencies reported within a particular band by departments within a particular department type and dividing this total by the number of departments within that department type who reported at least one transmitting frequency within the band in question. Thus, for example, if 20 departments of a particular type reported using a total of 30 transmitting frequencies in the VHF low band, the statistic entered in the table would be "1.5." Historically, the VHF low band has been available for police department use longer than the other two bands. Increasing pressure for channel assignments and technological improvements have permitted the opening of the VHF high band and, Table 1A-1. Distribution of transmitting frequencies among bands, by department type (406 departments responding ) Department type (by % of frequencies ) Frequency All City City City 50 band depts. State County 1-9 10-49 50+ largest Township 30-50 MHz 29 59 51 37 28 13 3 29 150-174 MHz 49 35 42 40 61 63 53 61 450470 MHz 19 6 5 12 8 23 42 8 Other 1 2 1 1 3 (n=l,333) (n=292) (n=168) (n=109) (n=153) ( n=181) (n=393) (n=37) Table 1A-2. Percent use of more than one frequency band for transmitting by the 65 departments reporting concurrent usage Band combination Percent of all departments which were using more than one band (n=65) 30-50 and 150-174 MHz 30-50 and 450-470 MHz 150-174 and 450-470 MHz 60 10 30 14 Table 1A-3. Mean number of transmitting frequencies per department , by department type and band Department type Frequency All City City City 50 band departments State County 1-9 10-49 50+ largest Township 30-50 MHz 2.3 4.2 2.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.4 150-175 MHz 2.7 5.7 2.8 1.4 1.6 2.1 5.6 1.6 450470 MHz 4.4 5.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.6 6.8 3.0 All bands 3.3 6.2 2.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 8.7 1.7 most recently, the UHF band for law enforcement communications. With the exception of counties, all department types, if they had made the switch to UHF at all, were using more channels per department in the UHF band than in the lower two bands. This trend was particularly noticeable in the 50 largest cities which reported 5.6 and 6.8 frequencies per department in the VHF high and UHF bands, respectively, vs. only 1.7 frequencies per department in the VHF low band. Increased spectrum space and the absence of co-channel interference at the UHF frequencies should result in an increase in the proportion of frequency assignments (now 19%, see table 1A-1) in this band. IB. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question 1A. About two-thirds of the 50 largest city departments indicated that they were using at least 1 receiving frequency which was different from their transmitting frequencies. Their responses imply the use of some type of duplex system. 5 The majority of departments in other department types appeared to be operating in the simplex mode. Since the 50 largest cities were the primary users of different receiving frequencies, as well as being the primary users of the UHF band, they heavily influenced this picture. (See table 1B-1.) Note, that if one wishes, it is possible to determine the number of departments using simplex and duplex systems by calculating the number of different transmitting and receiving frequencies (from Question 1A and Question IB) and the number of channels (Question ID). Table 1B-1. Percent departments whose transmitting and receiving frequencies were not all the same (n=130) Different transmitting and Department types receiving frequencies Township 14 City (10-49) 20 City (1-9) 24 County 25 State 36 City (50+) 40 50 largest 67 15 ID. Number of Channels Authorized IE. Number of Channels in Use Although the data for this question (and for Question 5B to follow) are reported, the reader is cautioned to interpret them carefully. Discussions with departments and the FCC after the survey was conducted, revealed that the term "channel" was defined differently by different people. The major area of confusion was concerned with the meaning of simplex and duplex channel assignments. In terms of all responding departments, 1,452 authorized channels were reported and 1,332 channels were reported in use. At the time of this survey, of the channels authorized but not in use (120 channels), state departments and the 50 largest cities accounted for just over half (68). (See table ID and E.) In general, the more officers in the department, the greater was the number of channels authorized for its communications, and departments were using almost all (92%) of the channels authorized to them. The overall average number of authorized channels per department was 3.5 and the average number in use was 3.2. Table ID and E. Comparison of channels authorized with channels in use for mobile radios , by department type (department types listed from largest to smallest based on mean number of full-time officers) Percent of Department type No. channels No. channels authorized authorized in use in use 50 largest 411 378 92 State 309 274 89 County 195 186 95 City (50+) 184 174 95 City (10-49) 169 158 94 City (1-9) 144 124 86 Township 40 38 95 All departments 1,452 1,332 92 5B. If possible, please tell us how many different law enforcement channels serve this area. This figure would include not only those channels used by your department, but also those used by other law enforcement agencies operating in the same geographical area (e.g., state and local police). Channels Don' t Know Responding departments reported an average of 11.6 law enforcement communications channels in use in their areas. This is slightly over three times the average number reported for their own use. However, of the 428 departments which returned Communications Questionnaires, 132 departments (31%) did not answer or did not know the number of different law enforcement channels serving their areas. (See table ID and E and 5B.) Although state departments who answered this question (18 departments) reported the greatest number of channels in their areas, they also had by far the largest areas. The 50 largest cities had slightly less than half as many authorized channels in their areas as state departments, but these channels were concentrated in much smaller jurisdictions. 16 Table ID and E and 5B. Comparison of average number of channels authorized , in use, and in area for mobile radios, by department type' Channel Department type Authorized In use In area (n=417) (n=418) (n=296) 50 largest 9.1 8. 32.6 State 6.6 5.8 71.7 County 2.9 2.8 5.7 City (50+) 2.4 2.5 6.2 City (10-49) 2.0 1.8 4.9 City (1-9) 2.0 1.7 4.0 Township 1.7 1.6 5.1 "No Answers" were excluded from the calculation of averages. 5C. Do you have one common frequency for routine and emergency traffic? Yes No (If " No" ) Do you think you need a common frequency? Yes No This question was originally intended to obtain information on interdepartmental sharing of frequencies. That is: Did the different departments in one district or region have a common frequency for communicating with each other on both a routine and emergency basis? It was subsequently discovered that it had sometimes been interpreted to refer to intradepartmental capability. Consequently, the data received in answer to this question are not presented here. 2.2.3.3. Characteristics of Mobile Radios 1. Give the following information about your car radios: 1C. Output power (in watts) This was a difficult question for some departments to answer and 39 of the respondents did not answer it. Four departments gave output powers under 10 watts (they were using repeaters) and 36 departments gave output powers above 110 watts (probably their base station output power since the maximum power available from commercial mobile radios is 110 watts). (See table 1C-1.) The frequency count shows that the most frequently cited output power was in the 90-110 watt range. State departments, as expected by the size of their jurisdictions, showed the greatest use (81%) of high (90-110 watts) output power. Only in the 50 largest cities did the highest proportion of departments cite one of the lower ranges of output power (i.e., 33% of the 50 largest cities reported output in the 30-49 watt range while 26% reported output powers of 90-110 watts). (See table 1C-2.) The overall average (mean) output power reported by police departments in this survey was 70.9 watts, the median was 75 watts, and the most often cited (mode) output power was 100 watts. The average output power per department type arranged according to average size of jurisdiction is shown in table 1C-3. County and state departments had the highest average output power and also were larger in physical size than other department types. 17 226-297 0-77-3 Table 1C-1. Frequency count of reported output power , for all responding departments All department types Output power in watts Number Percent Less than 10 10-29 3049 50-69 70-89 90-110 More than 110 No answer Total 428 100 4 1 28 7 73 17 65 15 24 6 159 37 36 8 39 9 Table 1C-2. Percentages of each department type which cited output power of 90-110 watts Percent of department type Department type citing 90-110 watts State 81 County 52 Township 35 City (50+) 34 50 largest 26 City (10-49) 24 City (1-9) 22 Table 1C-3. Average output power, by department type, arranged by average size of jurisdiction Output power Department type mean number watts (smallest) Township 74 City (50+) 68 City (1-9) 64 City (10-49) 64 50 largest 56 County 84 (largest) State 91 18 3. How recently were most of the car radios bought by your department? (Mark X by Your Best Estimate) Within the last calendar year 1-3 years ago 4r5 years ago More than 5 years ago Almost half (47%) of the responding departments (evenly across department types) had purchased the bulk of their car radios within the last 3 years and about two-thirds of the departments (65%) had bought most of their car radios within the last 5 years. The other one-third (34%) bought them more than 5 years ago. 6 Of the 65 percent which had bought most of their radios within the last 5 years, about half had bought them 1 to 3 years ago, about one-fourth had bought them 4 to 5 years ago and the remaining one-fourth had bought them within the last year. (See table 3.) There were no major differences among department types, although townships were slightly more likely than the others to have bought their car radios within the last 5 years. Table 3. Cumulative percentages for period of time within which 428 departments bought most of their car radios , by department type Time period With in the 3 years ago 5 years ago Department type last year or less or less City (50+) 2S 42 62 Township 22 44 79 City (10-49) 19 56 65 County 13 40 63 City (1-9) 10 48 61 50 largest 7 48 68 State 6 46 67 All departments 15 47 65 4. About how much did each of the car radios cost that are most frequently used in your department (including base plate, control head, microphone, and speaker)? For example, if most of the radios now in use are Motorolas, please give us the cost of one set. (Mark X by Your Best Estimate Below) Less than $ 700 $701$ 800 $801-900 $901-1,000 $1,001-1,500 Over $1,500 More than half (56%) of the responding departments paid $900 or less for their most frequently used car radios. Very few departments (4% overall) paid more than $1,500 per unit; state departments paid significantly less per unit; and counties and townships paid significantly more per unit. It might have been expected that states and Data about purchase of equipment was provided as of summer 1972. The term "most" in the question was used to solicit responses concerning the most recent major purchase(s) of mobile radios. 19 counties would pay more per unit because of a need for higher output power and increased channel capacity to serve their larger jurisdictions. However, this hypothesis held true only for the counties, suggesting, perhaps, that a further examination of the purchasing practices of these two department types would be needed to explain the survey results. (See table 4.) Table 4. Cumulative percentages for cost of the ear radios most frequently used in a department (including base plate, control head, microphone , and speaker), by department type Department type Cumulative percentages of departments All City 50 City City Cost departments State 1-9 largest 10-49 County 50+ Township $700 or less 22 51 29 24 15 14 13 9 $800 or less 40 64 52 44 38 23 33 22 $900 or less 56 83 70 57 54 32 53 31 $1000 or less 73 87 79 61 81 54 75 57 $1500 or less 96 98 97 91 98 93 94 87 2B. (How many car radios are there in your department? ) Of those car radios, about how many were made by each of the following manufacturers? Number Manufacturer Motorola RCA GE Other Ninety-nine percent of all the car radios reported were manufactured by only three companies, and over half (57%) were produced by just one manufacturer. The three largest city department types seemed to favor manufacturer C for roughly two-thirds of their car radio purchases. State departments distributed their buying equally between manufacturers B and C. Manufacturer A captured only 8 percent of the reported market. Other manufacturers combined represented 1 percent of the respondents' police mobile radio purchases. (See table 2B-1.) Table 2B-1. Percentages of car radios in use in department made by various manufacturers , by department type Manufacturer Department type A B C Other 50 largest 5 23 71 City (10-49) 6 23 69 2 City (50+) 14 22 63 County 3 38 59 City (1-9) 5 37 52 5 Township 3 44 52 1 State 11 44 45 1 All departments 8 34 57 1 20 Thirty-nine percent of the responding departments had a mixture of brands of mobile radios within their departments. Radios produced by different manufacturers are not always compatible, that is, control heads, microphone jacks, etc. may not mate, and interchangeability of equipment is difficult. This problem was mentioned by many departments (see sec. 2.2.6). On the other hand, these data may only be a reflection of the fact that many departments (see sec. 2.2.3.2) operated communications equipment on more than one band and consequently may have purchased the radios for use on one band from one manufacturer and those for use on the other band from another manufacturer (see sec. 2.2.3.1). (See table 2B-2.) Table 2B-2. Proportions of different manufacturers represented within one department Radios made by Percent all departments One manufacturer 60 Two manufacturers 30 Three manufacturers 8 Four manufacturers 1 No answer 1 2.2.4. Portable Radios 9. Do you department? Yes No now use portable (hand-held) radios in your Most of the responding departments (81%) used portable radios, with the greatest proportions of users in the larger departments. All of the responding state and 50 largest city departments reported using them. (See table 9.) Table 9. Use of portable radios, by department type Departments using Department type portable radios (% dept. type) 50 largest 100 State 100 City (50+) 99 City (10-49) 90 Township 70 County 62 City (1-9) 53 21 2.2.4.1. Number of Portable Radios 11 A. How many portable radios do you now have in your department? Number Almost three-fourths (72%) of the portable radios reported were used in the 50 largest cities. Although departments in the 50 largest cities averaged about 356 portable radios per department, use of these radios varied greatly among particular cities. For example, the numbers of portable radios available in any single police department, within the 50 largest cities group, ranged from a maximum of 4,500 radios in 1 of these departments to a minimum of only 15 radios in another. (See table 11A-1.) As the mean number of officers per department type increased, the mean number of portable radios per department type increased. As was discussed in section 2.2.3.1 (and is repeated in table 11A-2, below), state departments averaged many more mobile radios per department than did the 50 largest cities, even though they averaged fewer officers per department. This anomaly did not occur with respect to portable radios. (See table 11A-3.) Table 11A-1. Number of portable radios by department type Total no. Percent Mean no. Maximum Minimum Department type No. of portable total per in any in any respondents radios radios department department department 50 largest 46 16,363 72 355.7 4,500 15 State 47 3,621 16 77.0 419 5 City 78 1,682 7 21.6 108 2 County 42 464 2 11.1 125 City (10-49) 77 366 2 4.8 21 City (1-9) 41 109 * 2.7 11 Township 16 55 * 3.4 17 All departments 347 22,660 100 65.3 4,500 *Less than 1 percent. Table 11A-2. Comparison between mean number of officers per department type , mean number of car radios and mean number of portable radios Mean no. Department type Mean no. Mean no. portable officers car radios radios 50 largest 2491 591.8 355.7 State 890 731.2 77.0 City (50+) 125 32.9 32.6 County 113 38.5 11.1 City (10-49) 23 7.3 4.8 Township 16 4.4 3.4 City (1-9) 9 3.1 2.7 22 Table 11A-3. Comparison of estimated number of police portable radios and car radios in the United States , by department type Estimated no. Estimated no. Department type portable radios car radios 50 largest 17,785 29,600 State 3,850 36,550 City (50+) 11,966 18,282 County 34,820 119,206 City (10-49) 9,528 13,895 Township 5,352 6,296 City (1-9) 14,812 16,458 Total 98,113 240,287 2.2.4.2. Spectrum Utilization: Portable Radios 10. Give the following information about your portable radios. A. List all transmitting frequencies (in kHz, MHz, etc.) Five percent of the 348 departments using portable radios did not report their transmitting frequencies. Of the remaining 329 departments, the most used transmitting band for portable radios was the VHF high band (150-174 MHz), with approximately the same proportion of total frequencies as was found for mobile radios. (See table 10A-1.) Within department types, in all but two cases (counties and 50 largest cities), the band in which the highest percentage of total mobile transmitting frequencies were used was also the band in which the highest percentage of portable transmitting frequencies existed. In contrast, over half of the portable radio transmitting frequencies reported by counties were in the VHF high band, while the majority of their mobile transmitting frequencies were VHF low band. The 50 largest cities, which tended to use a greater proportion of UHF frequencies for their mobile radios, tended to use a greater proportion of VHF high band frequencies for their portable radios. (See table 10A-2.) Within the seven department types, the numbers of transmitting frequencies per department for mobile and portable radios were very similar, except for state departments. It is probable that the higher mean number of mobile radio transmitting frequencies reported by states was a reflection of their relative emphasis on highway patrol activities. (See table 10A-3.) Table 10A-1. Comparison of percentages of total transmitting frequencies , by band , for mobile and portable radios for all departments Percent of frequencies in: Radio VHF low band VHF high band UHF band Mobile 29 49 19 Portable 22 51 24 23 Table 10A-2. Percentages of total mobile and portable frequencies , by band , for county and 50 largest city departments Department type County 50 largest Frequency band Percent Percent Percent Percent mobile portable mobile portable 30-50 MHz 51 36 3 3 150-174 MHz 42 59 33 50 450-470 MHz 5 1 42 44 Table 10A-3. Mean 1 numbers of portable and mobile radio transmitting frequencies , by department type (department types ordered from largest to smallest by number of full-time officers) Portable radios Mobile radios Department type Mean no. Mean no. frequencies freqi jencies 50 largest 8.6 8.7 State 4.1 6.2 City (50+) 1.9 2.4 County 2.1 2.6 City (10-49) 1.4 1.8 Township 1.7 1.7 City (1-9) 1.5 1.6 Means calculated only for those departments reporting any mobile transmitting frequencies or any portable transmitting frequencies. 10B. List ALL receiving frequencies, if different from 10A. Most departments were using the same set of frequencies for receiving as for trans- mitting to their portable radios. Only 62 departments reported receiving frequencies that were different from their transmitting frequencies, and the majority of these were depart- ments in the 50 largest cities. (See table 10B.) Table 10B. Percentages of total portable radio frequencies used for both transmitting and receiving , by department type Percent Department type same City (1-9) 97 City (10-49) 93 State 91 Township 87 County 82 City (50+) 77 50 largest 43 24 10. Give the following information about your portable radios. 10D. Number of Channels Authorized 10E. Number of Channels in Use The three largest department types (by average number of officers) accounted for 71 percent of all the authorized portable radio channels reported by responding departments and 72 percent of those actually in use. These department types also accounted for almost two-thirds (64%) of the authorized but not yet used channels. A total of 162 channels (14% of all authorized channels) was reported to be authorized but not used. (See table 10D and E-l.) The number of channels used for mobile communications exceeded that for portable radios. (See table 10D and E-2.) Table 10D and E-l. Comparison of channels authorized and in use for portable radios , by department type Channels Authorized In use Department type No. Percent No. Percent 50 largest 431 37 374 37 State 228 19 205 20 City (50+) 171 15 148 111 15 City (10-49) 126 11 11 County 96 8 84 8 City (1-9) 95 8 65 6 Township 27 2 25 2 All departments 1,774 100 1,015 100 Table 10D and E-2. Comparison of channels authorized and in use for portable and mobile radios , by all department types Channels Portable Mobile Use category Total no. Average Total no. Average Authorized 1,174 3.4 1,452 3.5 In use 1,012 2.9 1,332 3.2 (n- =247) (n =417) 25 2.2.4.3. Characteristics of Portable Radios 10. Give the following information about your portable radios: IOC. Output Power in Watts As was expected, due to the nature of the power supplies employed, the average output power for portable radios was far lower than the output power for mobile radios. The mean output power, for all departments, for portable radios was 3.9 watts, while the mean output power for mobile radios was 70.9 watts. (Most portable radios currently on the market transmit with an RF output of five watts or less.) In general, the larger the average size of department type jurisdiction, the greater the mean reported output power for portable radios. There was only one exception to this general trend: The 50 largest cities, which had the third largest mean size of jurisdiction, reported the lowest mean output power for their portable radios. (See table IOC.) A few departments reported very high portable radio output powers, but the problem was not as great, either in frequency or degree, as for mobile radios. Follow-up telephone calls to some of these departments revealed that they had estimated the output power of their portable equipment rather than actually checking the specifications. Table IOC. Mean output power in watts for portable radios, by department type— arranged from smallest to largest mean size of jurisdiction Mean output power Department type in watts Township 3.4 City (50+) 3.4 City (1-9) 3.6 City (10-49) 4.2 50 largest 2.8 County 4.6 State 5.1 22. Should standards for power supplies such as charging equipment, and batteries for portable radios be given High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Standards are not needed for these items About three-fourths of departments which used portable radios felt that either high or medium priority should be assigned to developing standards for power supplies for portable radios. These departments were evenly divided between those which assigned high vs. medium priorities. About 25 percent of all departments using portables either said that no standards for power supplies were needed or that such standards should have low priority. The 50 largest cities, which were the biggest users of portable radios, were most likely to assign high priority to standards for power supplies for portable radios. (See table 22.) 26 Table 22. Priorities assigned to standards for power supplies for portable radios by 348 departments which used portable radios as compared to average number of portables available , by department type Don't Average no. Department type High Medium Low need of portable priority priority priority standards radios (in % of depart ment types) 50 largest 61 26 7 7 355.7 City (50+) 37 33 19 9 21.6 State 36 36 11 17 77.0 County 37 35 7 19 11.1 City (10-49) 30 44 17 8 4.8 Township 25 50 12 12 3.4 City (1-9) 24 37 22 17 2.7 23. What types of batteries do you now use for your portable radios? (Mark X by Each Item That Applies) 24. What types of batteries do you prefer to use for your portable radios? (Mark X by One of the Following) Alkaline-Manganese Carbon-Zinc Mercury NiCad (Nickel-Cadmium) Silver Oxide Other More than 80 percent of the 348 departments which were using portable radios said that they were using Nickel-Cadmium batteries for those radios. A similar percentage also said that Nickel-Cadmium was the battery they would prefer to use with their portable radios. Although 25 percent of the portable radio users said they were currently using at least some Alkaline-Manganese or some Mercury batteries, less than half of those who used these two types of batteries said that they would prefer to use them. (See table 23 and 24.) Table 23 and 24. Comparison between batteries now in use and batteries preferred, by the 348 departments using portable radios All departments using portable radios (in %) (Question 23) (Question 24; Battery type Now using Would prefer to use Alkaline-Manganese 11 6 Carbon-Zinc 6 1 Mercury 14 6 Nickel-Cadmium 82 83 Silver Oxide Other 3 1 No answer 3 4 Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent since departments could give more than one answer to Question 23. 27 25. Do you use batteries for your portable radios which must be recharged: Yes No Nine out of every 10 departments which had portable radios used batteries which had to be recharged. There were no major differences among department types, although percentages of departments using batteries which must be recharged were slightly smaller for state, county and small city (1-9) departments than for larger city types. These differences may not be statistically significant. (See table 25.) Table 25. Use of batteries which must be recharged , by 348 departments which used portable radios Batteries must be recharged Department type Percent of department type 50 largest 98 City (50+) 94 City (10-49) 94 Township 94 County 84 State 83 City (1-9) 80 All departments 90 (Do you use batteries for your portable radio which must be recharged? ) YES 2 5 A. How long can you use the battery before it must be recharged? Hours 25B. How long does it usually take to recharge the battery to a point where it can be used again? Hours 25C. How long does it usually take to fully recharge the battery? Hours 25D. How long can you usually use these batteries before they must be replaced? Months Responses from the departments using rechargeable batteries showed that they averaged 8 hours of battery use before recharging was required. This was also the most commonly reported figure by all department types (modal response). On the average, departments reported that a portable radio could be recharged enough to be usable in a little more than half the time it took for a full charge: Mean time to fully recharge was 9.2 hours; mean time to recharge to usable point was 5.6 hours. There was, however, considerable variability to their answers. Some departments said that it took a minimum of 24 hours to recharge portable radio batteries to a usable point while others said it required only 1 hour. Similarly, for full recharging, some departments said 1 hour was sufficient, several said 24 hours were required, and at least one county department said full recharging took 48 hours. This wide range of responses probably was a reflection of the use of "quickcharge" and "slow-charge" systems, the 28 ages of the charging systems in use, and the design parameters of many different portable radio/battery systems in use. (See table 25A and B and C and D.) Departments replaced their rechargeable batteries, on the average, every 16.7 months. Excluding those departments (8%) who had never needed to replace their batteries (no data is available on how long these batteries had been in use), battery life ranged from as little as 3 months to as long as 5 years. The larger departments— states, 50 largest, cities (50+), and cities (10-49)— reported average battery lives between 1-1/2 and 2 years. On the other hand, counties and cities (1-9) were only able to use their batteries for 6 or 7 months before replacement. Follow- up phone calls revealed that few departments kept actual battery use and life records; these data, therefore, are probably based, in large measure, on estimates. (See table 12 and 13-1.) TaBLE 25A. and B. and C. and D. Length of time to partially and completely recharge batteries : Length of time batteries can be used before needing recharging , and needing replacement , by departments which use rechargeable batteries in their portable radios Question Departments recharging batteries Mean Maximum Minimum no. hours no. hours no. hours No. of hours battery can be used before needing re- charging (261 responses) No. of hours required to recharge battery to point where it can be used again (260 responses) No. of hours required to fully recharge battery (259 responses) 8.0 5.6 50 24 9.2 48 1 Months Months Months No. of months battery can be used before being re- placed (206 responses) No. of departments never needing to replace batteries: 26 (8%) 16.7 60 TaBLE 12 and 13-1. Weight of portable radios, by 348 departments using portable radios Weight Percent of departments using portables Less than 20 oz 20 oz to 26 oz 27 oz to 32 oz 33 oz to 38 oz More than 38 oz No answer 5 26 25 20 21 2 29 12. About how much does one of these "most used" portable radios weigh? Less than 20 oz 20 oz to 26 oz 27 oz to 32 oz 33 oz to 38 oz More than 38 oz 13. How do you feel about the weight of the "most used" portable radios? The weight is about right The unit is somewhat heavy The unit is entirely too heavy About 7 out of every 10 departments reported that their portable radios weighed between 20 and 38 oz (.567 to 1.077 kg). About one-fifth of the departments had radios weighing more than 1.077 kg. (See table 12 and 13-2.) Departments with units weighing over 1.077 kg (38 oz) more frequently reported that the radios were entirely too heavy than those which had lighter weight sets. Table 12 and 13-2. Comparison between weight of most used portable radios and respondents ' feeling about that weight Reported weight of portable radios (in % of departments) How respondents feel about weight Less than 20 oz 20 oz 27 oz 33 oz —26 oz —32 oz —38 oz More than No 38 oz answer Weight is right Somewhat heavy Entirely too heavy 38 17 6 29 28 17 36 18 9 23 60 12 A. When did you buy most of these "most used" portable radios? Within the last calendar year 1-2 years ago 4-5 years ago More than 5 years ago Half of the departments in the sample had bought the portable radios most commonly used in their department 1 to 3 years ago. 7 About one-fourth had bought them 4 to 5 years ago. Seventeen percent had purchased their radios within the previous year and the remaining 10 percent had radios which were not more than 5 years old. All seven department types reflected roughly these same proportions. It appears that departments had made major purchases of portable radios more recently than they had made major purchases of mobile radios (90% of the departments had purchased portables and 65% had purchased mobile radios in quanitity within the last 5 years). This finding may have resulted in part because of improved portable radio technology, the recent availability of federal purchase funds, and/or the relatively shorter life of portable radios. Data about purchase of equipment was provided as of summer 1972. 30 Table 12A. When departments bought most of their "most often used " brands of portable radios Percent of departments When purchased using portables (n=348) Within last year 17 3 years ago or less 67 5 years ago or less 90 No answer 1 12B. About how much did you pay for one of these "most used" portable radios (including antenna, carrying case, and spare batteries)? Less than $ 500 $501$ 700 $701-$ 900 $901$ 1,100 $1,101$ 1,500 Over $1,500 Forty-four percent of the departments paid between $700 and $900 apiece for their portable radios and 77 percent of them paid $900 or less. About one-fourth of cities (1-9) had bought their portables for less than $500. These small cities along with the 50 largest cities paid a wide range of prices. Two percent of cities (1-9) paid more than $1,101 as did 13 percent of the 50 largest cities. Counties, in general, paid higher prices for their portable radios and states paid lower prices. (See table 12B.) Table 12B. Cumulative percentages for costs of "most commonly used " portable radios in 348 departments Department type Cumul ative percentages City City 50 City (1-9) Township County (10-49) State largest (50+) Less than $500 24 12 9 6 2 2 $700 or less 41 24 15 35 54 24 22 $900 or less 78 74 66 89 89 52 69 $1100 or less 98 93 78 98 99 85 96 No answer 6 5 2 31 11B. (How many portable radios do you now have in your department? ) Of those portable radios, about how many were made by the following manufacturers? Number Manufacturer Manufacturer A made roughly 7 out of every 10 portable radios used by the respondents. There were no major differences among department types, except that a smaller percentage of portables in states and cities (1-9) was made by this company than in the larger city department types. Manufacturer B made slightly more than 1 out of every 10 portable radios and manufacturers C and D each made only 1 out of every 20 radios reported. Only in cities (1-9) did a manufacturer other than manufacturer A capture a significant proportion of the reported market (35%, manufacturer B). (See table 11B.) Table 11B. Percentage of portable radios in use in departments made by various manufacturers , by department type Manufacturer (by % of radios) Department type A B C D Other 50 largest 76 10 3 6 5 City (10-49) 76 14 4 6 Township 75 2 7 16 City (5Q+) 72 17 6 4 County 67 11 22 City (1-9) 54 35 11 State 48 14 13 2 23 12. What model of portable radio do you have more of in your department than any other? Manufacturer Model or Model No. Although only 1 percent of the portable radio users failed to answer this question at all, 14 percent gave a manufacturer but not model, and 6 percent gave insufficient information to identify a particular model. A total of 26 different portable radio models were mentioned by the respondents, but half of those 348 respondents listed 1 of 2 models: 27 percent for 1 model and 23 percent for another. Both of these models are produced by the same manufacturer. (See table 12.) 32 Table 12. Of the 348 departments using portable radios , percent listing each of two "most used" models , by department type Model (<% of de; jartment type) No answer, Department type manufacturer only, Model X M Ddel Y mode uncertain State 36 4 15 50 largest 36 33 6 City (10-49) 31 26 20 City (50+) 27 29 18 County 23 14 33 City (1-9) 17 20 29 Township 12 31 37 2.2.5. Special Systems 2.2.5.1. Mobile Repeaters 13. A portable radio can be used with a repeater by a patrolman when he is out of his car. The portable radio transmits to the car radio which then relays the signals to the base radio. Do you need repeaters like this in your communications system? Yes No Why? (See table 13-1.) Almost half of the respondents (43%) indicated a need for a mobile repeater system (i.e., a system in which a mobile car radio is used to relay transmissions from a low powered portable radio to a base station location). Generally, the larger the average size of the department type jurisdiction, the higher the percentage of departments saying they needed mobile repeater systems. In exception to this pattern, only 26 percent of the 50 largest cities indicated a need for mobile repeater systems. (See table 13-2.) Since there is a relationship between jurisdiction size and frequency of need for mobile repeaters (except for the 50 largest cities), it was not surprising that the most frequently given reason for needing this system was to overcome distance (range) problems. The other four most commonly given reasons for choosing this system were Table 13-1. Percent departments w hich need repeaters within their mobile systems , by department type , arranged according to average size of jurisdiction Percent of all departments Department type saying yes Township 31 City (50+) 35 City (1-9) 44 City (10-49) 40 50 largest 26 County 58 State 68 226-297 0-77-4 33 Table 13-2. // "yes ," why do you need mobile repeaters? Percent of all Reasons departments saying yes (n=150) 1. To overcome distance (range) problems 23 2. To improve or strengthen portables 21 3. Constant communication necessary 18 4. To overcome terrain-caused problems 16 5. Mobility of officers improved 11 6. Good for special assignments 9 Other 7 No answer 11 Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent because the respondents could give more than one reason. Table 13-3. // "no," why don't you need mobile repeaters? Percent of all Reasons dep ailments saying no (n=194) 1. Not needed— current equipment adequate 21 2. Use or prefer other system 19 3. Not needed— area not large enough to warrant use 18 4. Have no hand and/or car radios 2 Other 9 No answer 38 Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent because respondents could have given more than one reason. all somewhat related to the problems of covering large areas of territory (to strengthen the portable system, to remain in constant communication, to overcome terrain-caused problems, and to increase officer mobility). (See table 13-3.) Departments usually indicated that they did not need a mobile repeater system when their current equipment was adequate, when their area was not large enough to warrant use, or when they used or preferred other systems for handling problems of distance, such as fixed repeaters and/or voting systems. Half of the 32 departments in the 50 largest cities which did not need mobile repeater systems said that they use or prefer other systems. This probably accounted for the atypical response of the 50 largest cities which often indicated that they did not need a mobile repeater system even though they had larger average jurisdictions to cover than townships and other city departments. 34 2.2.5.2. Fixed Repeaters 7A. Do you use fixed repeaters in your area (to cover dead spots in communication which otherwise would exist)? Yes No Fixed repeaters can be used to overcome obstacles, either natural or manmade, which would otherwise create dead spots in communications and to increase the range of system coverage. They are also used to cut mobile transmitter costs because, in general, less powerful transmitters are needed when repeater systems are employed. About one-third of the 428 responding departments used repeaters. State police and police in the 50 largest cities were the 2 most frequent users of this equipment. It might be hypothesized that there could be a relationship between the size of the jurisdiction to be covered and the use of fixed repeaters. It can be seen that state police departments, which were the most frequent users of fixed repeaters, did have the largest jurisdictions to cover. However, less than one-third of county police, who had the second largest average size of jurisdiction, used repeaters. Within city department types, the frequency of use of repeaters increased with the size of the department type in terms of number of officers, rather than in terms of average size of jurisdiction. (See table 7A-1.) Table 7A-1. Use of fixed repeaters by department type, as compared to average size of jurisdiction Use of repeaters and jurisdiction size Mean size of Department type Percent use of jurisdiction repeaters (mi 2 ) State 77 64,704 50 largest 65 237 City (50+) 37 33 County 30 2,551 City (10-49) 20 68 City (1-9) 13 67 Township 9 31 7B. (If " Yes" to Question 7A) How many fixed repeaters does your department have? Fixed Repeaters Most of the fixed repeaters were found in state police departments or in the 50 largest cities. About three out of every five repeaters cited were used by state police departments. A little more than one-fourth of all repeaters were operated by the 50 largest cities. Thus, almost 90 percent of fixed repeaters were employed by these two groups. Of the departments reporting fixed repeater operations, state police departments each operated 21 repeater units and the 50 largest cities each operated 11 repeater units (means). Between 20 percent and 37 percent of other larger department types (at least 10 officers or more) and county police, reported using fixed repeaters (Question 7 A) but these department types generally had an average (mean) of only 1 or 2 repeaters in each department. (See table 7B-1.) The largest mean numbers of repeaters were found in departments along the East Coast (in the Middle Atlantic and New York/New Jersey areas) and along the West 35 Table 7B-1. Percentage of total repeaters in use, and mean number per department of those using repeaters , by department type Percent total Mean no repeaters per reported department of those Department type repeaters using any repeaters (n= 1,197) State 62 20.6 50 largest 27 10.9 City (50+) 5 2.1 County 4 1.9 City (10-49) 2 1.1 City (1-9) 1 ** Township * ** All departments 100 •Less than 1 percent. **Mean probably not valid; number of respondents too small. Table 7B-2. Average number of fixed repeaters, by LEAA region, compared to percentage of departments in regions which use fixed repeaters Number and use of repeaters Percent of departments Mean no. which use LEAA region repeaters fixed in region repeaters 9 (Far West/Hawaii) 15.7 48 3 (Middle Atlantic) 15.6 17 2 (New York/New Jersey) 13.6 17 7 (Midwest) 9.4 19 5 (Great Lakes) 6.8 39 4 (South) 6.4 38 6 (South/Southwest) 6.2 26 8 (Mountain) 6.1 45 1 (New England) 5.1 27 10 (North west/ Alaska) 4.0 68 Coast (in the region which includes California, Nevada, Arizona, and also Hawaii). Although more than two-thirds of departments in region 10 (which includes the northwestern states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska) reported using fixed repeaters, this region had the smallest average number of repeaters per department. (See table 7B-2.) 36 8. If you use, or will be using fixed repeaters, which of the following types do you prefer? Will not use fixed repeaters F1F1 repeater (same frequency in and out) F1F2 repeater (two different frequencies) No preference The F1F1 system, in which communications are transmitted and received on the same frequency, is not generally being marketed because it has not yet been perfected. Thus, state departments and large city departments (50 largest and 50+) preferred the F1F2 (in which communications are transmitted and received on different frequencies). Smaller department types also selected this system if they indicated a preference at all. (See table 8A.) TaBLE 8A. Preference for F1F1 or F1F2 repeaters, by department type Favoring Favoring Indicating Department type F1F2 F1F1 Having no will not use repeaters repeaters preference or no answer State 79 6 6 8 50 largest 76 7 4 13 City (50+) 54 6 11 28 County 21 11 23 44 City (10-49) 19 9 22 50 Township 17 4 22 56 City (1-9) 10 5 33 52 AH departments 37 7 19 37 2.2.5.3. Portamobile Radios with Voting Systems 14. Some law enforcement agencies use portamobile radios with several receivers and a voting system. Do you favor such a system? Yes No If " Yes" or " No," why? Unfamiliar with voting system More than half of the respondents who used portable radios (N=348) were unfamiliar with voting systems, an arrangement which provides more reliable communications by employing 1 or more satellite receivers for each channel. These receivers are situated at scattered locations throughout the coverage area. The audio output signals of the satellite receivers are transmitted to a selector or comparator at the base station by radio or land lines. The comparator performs the voting process by selecting the strongest of the several possible signals received from the portable or mobile radio via the satellite receivers. State police and police in the 50 largest cities were the only department types in which most respondents had knowledge of voting systems. About three-fourths (74%) of the respondents in the 50 largest cities and about half (53%) in the state departments favored the system. Data from this question further explained why, in Question 13, only 26 percent of the 50 largest cities said they needed mobile repeaters and most often gave as a reason their preference for other systems. About three-fourths of the 50 largest cities favored 37 the voting system. Twenty-eight of the 45 respondents (65%) familiar with the concept favored the use of such a system. (See table 14-1.) The 3 reasons most often given for favoring the voting system (by all respondents, and also by the 50 largest cities) were: (1) That the system improves transmitting/receiving coverage and extends range, (2) that the department already uses the system and likes it and (3) that the system increases the flexibility and usefulness of the portable radios. (See table 14-2.) Departments which did not favor the voting system most commonly gave as reasons that they had no need or practical use for the system or that they considered the voting system inadequate. (See table 14-3.) Table 14-1. Of the 348 departments with portable radios, percentages of responses about voting systems , by department type Do you favor a voting system? (by %) Unfamiliar Department type Yes No with system Township 100 City (10-49) 10 12 78 County 16 12 72 City (1-9) 5 24 71 City (50+) 28 17 55 State 53 32 15 50 largest 74 13 13 All departments 28 17 55 Table 14-2. Reasons given for favoring a portamobile radio with a voting system , by 98 departments which favored this system Reasons Percent of departments favoring voting system (n=98) 1. Improves transmitting/receiving coverage and extends range 2. Already use and/or think it's a good system 3. Increases portable usefulness and flexibility 4. Voter relays best signal 5. For extra backup 6. Miscellaneous No answer 31 23 20 10 4 11 11 Percentages add to more than 100 since departments allowed multiple answers. 38 Table 14.3. Reasons given for not favoring a portamobile radio with a voting system, by 58 departments which do not favor this system Percent of departments not favoring Reasons voting system (n=58) 1. No need or practical use 21 2. Consider voting system inadequate 17 3. Current system adequate 10 4. Area too small to warrant use 10 5. Too expensive 7 6. Important calls voted out 3 7. Miscellaneous 10 No answer 31 Percentages add to more than 100 since departments allowed multiple answers. This answer cannot really be considered a valid reason for not favoring a voting system. It is probably better interpreted as an indication of lack of knowledge about this system. 2.2.5.4. Scrambler Systems 17. In some areas, police use voice privacy systems which scramble messages so that they cannot be received by people other than police. Do you HAVE a system of this type? Yes No (If "No") Do you NEED a scrambler system of this type? Yes No (If " No," skip to Question 21) Scramblers were in use in less than 10 percent of the 428 responding departments. Cities (50+), states, and the 50 largest cities tended to have greater percentages of departments using scramblers. Counties and the two smallest city department types tended to have lower percentages of users. (See table 17-1.) Table 17-1. Availability of scramblers , by department type Have scramblers Department type percent of department type City (50+) 18 State 13 50 largest 11 Township 9 City (10-49) 8 City (1-9) 5 County 3 39 Almost three-fifths of departments which did not have scramblers felt that they needed this system. Medium-sized cities (10-49) were much more likely than state police to perceive a need for these systems. There were no major differences between the 50 largest cities and smaller departments such as townships, counties and cities (1-9) in their responses to this question. These data represent the departments' assessments of their need for scramblers and did not distinguish between various degrees of need such as "essential to the functioning of the department" and "desirable but not essential." (See table 17-2.) Table 17-2. Perceived need for scrambler system by 388 departments which currently do not have the system . by department type Need scrambler Department type system No answer (% of department type) City (10-49) 71 4 City (50+) 65 5 County 61 3 Township 57 50 largest 54 10 City (1-9) 46 3 State 44 5 18. (If "Yes" to Question 17) For which of the following purposes do you need, or would you like, a scrambler system? (Mark X by Each Item That Applies) General communications During robberies Long term stakeout Demonstrations or protests Undercover investigations Other (Specify) Departments which had scramblers (n=40, 9%) and departments which said they needed scramblers (n=225, 53%) were asked to answer this question. For three of the choices (undercover investigations, robberies, and long term stakeout) the percentages of votes from the "have" and the "need" groups were fairly comparable. However, departments which did not currently have scramblers were much more likely to say they would use them for general communications (49%) than were those departments which already had them (15%). In contrast, those departments which were already using scramblers were more likely to say they would use them during demonstrations or protests (60%) than were those departments which said they needed but did not yet have scramblers (45%). (See table 18.) Nineteen percent of departments which had, or needed, scramblers indicated other uses for scramblers. Some of the more commonly mentioned other uses were: For fires and accidents, for administrative operations, for crimes in progress (in addition to robberies), and for use in command units (communications vans). 40 Table 18. Purposes for which scramblers were (or would be) used, by all departments currently using scramblers and all departments saying scramblers were needed Percent of d epartments Using Needing Use for scrambler scramblers scramblers (n=40) (n=225) Undercover investigations 82 78 Demonstrations 60 45 Robberies 52 42 Long term stakeouts 50 63 General communications 15 49 Other 37 16 Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple answers were allowed. 19. (If "Yes" to Question 17) How do you (would you) use your scramblers? (Mark X by One of the Following) With car radios With portable radios With both car radios and portable radios Only in special vehicles (Specify) The perceptions of the 225 departments which did not have, but said they needed scramblers were very different from the answers of the 40 departments which were currently using scramblers. More than half (58%) of the users of scramblers said they were using them with car radios only. An additional 35 percent of the current users said they were using their scramblers with both car radios and portable radios. In contrast, three-quarters (75%) of the departments which said they needed scramblers said they would use them with both car radios and portable radios. Only 15 percent said they would use them with car radios only. (See table 19.) Table 19. Use of scramblers with car radios , portable radios , and special vehicles , by all departments currently using scramblers and all departments saying scramblers were needed Percent of departments vith Using Needing scramblers scramblers (Question 17)' (Question 17) ' (n=40) (n=227) 58 15 2 3 35 76 18 8 Car radios only Portable radios only Both car and portable radios Special vehicles 'The categories were meant to be mutually exclusive. However, a number of departments marked more than one of the available choices. The first three categories were made mutually exclusive in the tabulations. Dou- ble responses using the special vehicles category were permitted and therefore the total percentages add to more than 100 percent. 41 226-297 O - 77 - 5 20. (If "Yes" to Question 17) How much do you think your department would pay for a good, reliable -scrambler system? (Mark X by your best estimate below) Less than $ 250 per unit $251-$ 500 per unit $ 501-$ 750 per unit $751-$ 1,000 per unit More than $ 1,000 per unit These data were useful as an indication of the accuracy of the respondents' perceptions of the costs of voice privacy systems. The simplest scramblers now on the market are inverters. They cost between $200 and $400 each, provide good intelligibility but offer only a low degree of privacy (an electronic hobbyist can easily build a low cost unscrambler). Eighty-three percent of the respondents which had (or needed) scramblers said that they were willing to pay $500 or less for a "good, reliable scrambler system." These departments would only be able to buy a "low privacy" inverter system. Scramblers using cryptographic techniques provide many different key settings, a substantial degree of privacy, and cost $800-$2,000. Only 2 percent of the respondents with an interest in scramblers said they would be willing to pay more than $750— enough to buy a cryptographic type system. More of the 50 largest cities (30%) than of any other department type said they would be willing to pay more than $500 for a reliable scrambler system. (See table 20.) Table 20. Amounts the 265 departments which used or said they needed scramblers would be willing to pay for a reliable scrambler system , by department type Amount (by %) Less More Department type than $251 $501 than No $250 $500 -$750 $750 answer City (50+) 52 43 2 4 City (10-49) 52 30 8 10 City (1-9) 50 42 3 5 County 49 30 2 2 16 State 42 37 8 4 8 50 largest 30 37 30 4 Township 21 43 14 7 14 42 2.2.5.5. Communications Helmet 21. Helmets with built-in communications have been developed and are now on the market. Is there a need for such helmets in your department? Yes No Why? or Why Not? Although only about one-third of all 428 respondents to the communications questionnaire said they needed helmets with built-in communications, almost three- quarters of the state and 50 largest city departments said they needed them. (See table 21-1.) Half of the 139 departments which expressed need for helmet communications gave as their reason the usefulness of this system in crowd control or riots. About one- third of those departments said it would be useful for motorcycle duty. These two reasons were also most often chosen by the states and 50 largest cities. For state police, motorcycle duty was most often chosen while crowd control was second; the reverse was true of departments in the 50 largest cities. (See table 21-2.) Table 21-1. Need for built-in communications in helmets, by department type (all respondents , n=428) Need built-in Department type communications (% department type) 50 largest 72 State 72 City (50+) 34 County 22 City (10-49) 19 City (1-9) 15 Township 9 Table 21-2. Reasons for needing built-in helmet communications , by 139 departments which said they needed this system Percent of all departments Reason needing helmets with built-in communications' (n=139) For crowd control/riots For motorcycle duty Frees hands Improves operations/more efficient Useful when away from base or mobile unit Counteracts noise (other than crowds) No answer 50 30 9 4 4 3 16 Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple answers were allowed. 43 The majority of respondents (67%, n=286) said that their departments did not need built-in helmet communications. Many of the reasons for saying "No" to Question 21 were simply that the respondents saw no need for that type of communications system in their departments: Use not warranted based on department or area (22%), impractical/don't need (16%), no helmets used by department (13%). The reason given with greatest frequency (expense not warranted, 66%) might also be said to be in the general "no need" category. Only 4 percent of those saying built-in helmet communications were not needed mentioned a perceived negative aspect of this system as their reason. (See table 21-3.) Table 21-3. Reasons for not needing built-in communications , by 286 departments which said they did not need this system Percent of departments not needing helmet Reasons communications' (n=286) Expense not warranted 66 Use not warranted based on department or area 22 Impractical/don't need 16 No helmets used by department 13 Have or prefer other equipment for same job 6 Too cumbersome/dangerous 3 Low priority 2 Not enough power 1 Other 2 No answer 32 i Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple answers were allowed. 2.2.6. General Information 2.2.6.1. Need for Standards and Expected Gains from Standards 15. Many policemen have indicated the need for standardization of communications equipment. Which of the following equipment and components would you like to see standardized? (Mark X by Each Item That Applies) Portable radios Mobile radios Batteries for portable radios Control heads Microphones Switches on control heads Mounting brackets Cable between microphone and control head Other (specify) About two-thirds of the respondents said standards were needed for mobile radios (70%) and portable radios (66%). More than half of the departments said batteries for 44 portable radios needed standards (56%). No item was selected by less than one-third of the respondents. This interest in standards for communications equipment further supports the findings of the Equipment Priorities Questionnaire of this survey in which communications equipment was either the first or second most important category of equipment for every department type in terms of need for standards. (See table 15-1.) States and 50 largest cities tended to say that more of the items in the list needed standards than did the other department types. In 5 of the department types (cities 1-9, cities 10-49, cities 50+, counties, and townships) portable radios, mobile radios, and batteries for portable radios always received 1 of the 3 highest percentages of votes. States chose mobile radios and batteries for portable radios among the top three, but not portable radios. The 50 largest cities chose portable radios and batteries for portable radios among the top 3, but not mobile radios. (See table 15-2.) Items not listed in the questionnaire which were sometimes mentioned as needing standards included chargers, antennas, crystals, connectors, other controls, and other cables. TaBLE 15-1. Need for standards for communications equipment , by all respondents Percent of departments Equipment item indicating standards are needed Mobile radios 70 Portable radios 66 Batteries 56 Control heads 42 Mounting brackets 37 Microphones 36 Switches on control heads 36 Cable between microphone and control head 33 Other 12 No answer Table 15-2. Items said to need standards by 40 percent or more of the departments within a department type. Ordered from highest to lowest frequency of response by all 428 departments Department type (by %) 50 Cities Cities Cities Equipment item State largest 50+ 10-49 County Township 1-9 Mobile radios 64 59 57 76 72 83 79 Portable radios 49 70 68 67 68 70 68 Batteries for portables 66 78 67 55 49 61 Control heads 68 63 42 43 Mounting brackets 49 - 41 Microphones 57 46 Switches on con head 49 43 41 Cable btw mike and con head 51 46 45 16. What will your department gain by the standardization discussed above? (Mark X by Each Item That Applies) 10% lower cost of equipment 25% lower cost of equipment 50% lower cost of equipment Interchangeability of radios Interchangeability of components Savings in training of technicians Savings in training of patrolmen Interchangeability with other communications systems Other (specify) According to all 428 respondents as a group, and according to each department type, the biggest gain that would be realized by police departments if standards were set for communications equipment would be an improvement in the interchangeability of equipment; about half or more of all respondents chose each interchangeability item. About a quarter of the respondents chose each of the savings in training items. (See table 16-1.) Among the seven department types, the same general proportions of the responses were found. The states and the 50 largest cities tended to have higher percentages of departments expecting to see better interchangeability of radios and components result from standardization. These two department types also had higher percentages of departments expecting savings in training of technicians. States and townships had higher percentages expecting savings in training of patrolmen. Cities (1-9) appeared to feel they had the least to gain overall from the standardization of communications equipment. In terms of expected cost benefits from standardization, departments most often said they expected to see costs lowered by 25 percent or less. Only about one-third of the respondents said that they expected any cost benefit from standardization of communications equipment. (See table 16-2.) Table 16-1. Expected gains from standardization of communications equipment , by all respondents Expected gain Percent all departments (n=428) Interchangeability. . . of radios 62 of components 52 with other communications systems 47 Savings in training... of mechanics 28 of patrolmen 23 Lower cost of equipment... 10 percent lower cost 16 25 percent lower cost 13 50 percent lower cost 3 Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent since multiple answers were allowed. The reader should be particularly careful in interpretations of tables 16-1 and 16-2 because of the multiple responses. It is much more likely, for example, that a respondent would have selected only one of the three lower cost of equipment choices than it is that he would have selected only one of the two or three choices in the other two general categories. 46 Table 16-2. Expected gains from standardization of communications equipment , by department type Department type (in % 50 City City City Expected gain largest State 50+ 10-49 County 1-9 Township Interchangeability . . . of radios 78 74 67 63 55 50 43 of components 70 72 59 53 42 28 48 with other systems 52 30 46 55 54 37 57 Savings in training... of patrolmen 30 40 32 26 25 17 43 of technicians 57 43 20 12 16 8 35 Lower cost of equipment... 10 percent lower cost 22 19 18 L5 17 14 25 percent lower cost 15 19 13 13 13 6 13 50 percent lower cost 4 3 2 3 4 4 Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple answers were allowed. 2.2.6.2. Communications Needs 26. What are your most critical communications needs? (Mark X by Each Item That Applies) More frequencies and channels New equipment More reliable equipment Personal transceivers for each officer Portamobile voting system Scramblers Standardization of all equipment Other (specify) Five of the eight choices in the questionnaire were cited as "critical communications needs" by one-third or more of the respondents. Nearly half of the departments said new equipment, more frequencies/channels, and personal transceivers for each officer were critical communications needs. (See table 26-1.) Personal transceivers for each officer seemed to be the most critical communications need for all city department types with more than 10 officers and townships. Cities (1-9) and counties most often said they needed new equipment. Almost three-quarters of the states said that more frequencies and channels was a critical communications need. The fact that 45 percent of the cities (10-49) said the same thing is not surprising in view of their answers to Question 17: 71 percent of the cities (10-49) which did not currently have scramblers said that this equipment was needed in their departments. (See table 26-2.) 47 Table 26-1. Most critical communications needs , by all departments Percent of Communications need all departments New equipment 45 More frequencies/channels 44 Personal transceivers 43 Standardize all equipment 38 Scramblers 34 More reliable equipment 21 Portamobile voting system 8 Other 11 Percentages add to more than 100 percent since multiple answers were allowed. Table 26-2. Most critical communications needs indicated by 40 percent or more of the departments within each department type ' Communications need State Department type (by %) 50 City City City largest 50+ 10-49 1-9 County Township New equipment 45 43 43 41 More frequencies/channels 57 48 46 44 Personal transceivers 74 47 48 Standardize all equipment 51 43 42 Scramblers 45 More reliable equipment Portamobile voting system Other 51 49 41 52 Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple an were allowed 2.2.6.3. Problems with and Failures of Communications Equipment 27. What are your most serious problems with communications equipment? Question 27 was "open-ended" allowing respondents to write in their problems with communications equipment and categories, for these narrative responses were developed after the questionnaires were returned. Many of the responses to this question were related to the "critical communications needs" discussed in the previous question. Some of the most commonly indicated problems were: Overcrowding and congestion of channels, problems with old equipment, and problems having to do with repairs, maintenance and lack of reliability of equipment. Since there were many different answers to this question, none of the categories of problems in table 27 was mentioned by as many as one-quarter of the respondents. Perhaps the most important aspect of this question is the fact that more than 75 percent of the departments listed some communications problem that they considered to be serious (11% gave no answer and 13% said "no problems"). 48 Table 27. Most serious problems with communications equipment , by all respondents Percent of all Problem departments (n=428) Overcrowding/congestion Old equipment/need new or more Malfunctions, breakdowns, failures Repair, maintenance, service Inadequacy of equipment (range, power) Electrical/mechanical interference (skip) Reliability/lack of quality control Character of area/terrain causing dead spots Unauthorized monitoring Standardization, interchangeability needs Expense/high cost Other No problems No answer 19 16 14 II 10 a 6 5 4 3 2 6 13 11 Percentages add lo more than 100 since multiple i 28. What are your most common equipment failures, whether entire units or specific components? As in Question 27, response categories were developed from the narrative answers supplied to this question. Eighty-two percent of the respondents listed at least one common equipment failure (15% no answer and 12% "no problem"). Three failure categories stood out: Tubes, transistors, capacitors (25%); specific components, normal wear and tear (18%); mike cables, connectors, wiring (15%). (See table 28.) Table 28. Most common equipment failures , by all respondents Failure category Percent of all departments (n=428) Tubes, transistors, capacitors Specific components, normal wear and tear Mike cables, connections, wiring Antennas, relays, cables Switches/fuses (circuit breakers) Crystals, trimmers, frequency problems Transmitter problems/failures Portable/mobile radios and accessories Power supplies, vibrators, inverters, reeds Other No failures No answer 25 18 15 9 9 9 7 6 4 7 12 16 Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple answers were allowed. 49 2.2.7. Comments 29. Do you have any other general comments or observations about communications equipment that might be helpful to the people who will be studying and testing this equipment for police use ? No attempt was made to actually code the comments received to this question. They have been retained verbatim, and can be made available for research purposes (without identification of specific respondents). When a "comments" section is provided at the end of a lengthy questionnaire such as this one, the response rate is usually expected to be low. However, in the case of the communications questionnaire, over one-fourth of the 428 respondents provided an additional comment or statement. (See table 29.). Table 29. Additional comments /observations about communications equipment , by department type Percent of Department type all respondents State 45 City (10-49) 38 50 largest 36 Township 33 City (50+) 26 County 18 City (1-9) 17 All respondents 29 The comments appeared to be well thought out and expressed the high degree of concern the respondents felt about their communications equipment. Several areas of particular concern were identified: High expense of communications equipment, maintenance for the equipment, the need for scramblers, overcrowding of frequency bands, and need for improvement in portable radios and power sources. Examples of the expression of these concerns follows. The High Expense of Communications Equipment Communications equipment and systems are expensive. It appears each manufacturer adds new features one at a time so obsolescence comes at shorter intervals. An advanced technology by one manufacturer may not be available by another causing a problem in developing an open specification. Or the technology may be similar yet different enough to create not only bidding difficulties but maintenance differences requiring different techniques and test equipment. Cost of equipment— many P.D.s operate on small limited budgets; therefore, cannot afford to purchase proper amount of equipment for proper security. Require LEAA expenditures be made only for equipment that meets the same performance standards for best make tested. Money spent for inferior equipment is money wasted. 50 Some replacement components are priced too high. More standard components are needed. Would like to see standardized equipment at lower cost so departments with limited budgets can get more equipment. Small departments are unable to purchase much needed equipment because of budgets and city leaders who think in the past. Keep the price down. The Need for Scrambers The biggest problem that my department has is the monitoring of the frequency that we are assigned. A call can be transmitted and the person we are looking for can be gone upon the arrival of officers, since he or she has heard our transmissions. This will occur daily. Or someone will call by public service wanting to know why their name or their neighbor's name was mentioned or why we are looking for them. To ensure or secure efficient police work we must cut down on outside monitors. In our department what is needed is a scrambler system which can be used with the base station, mobile radios, and handheld radios, which is priced within reach of the average department. A well built and high quality scrambler device at a moderate price range is one of the greatest needs of law enforcement today. Studying and testing scramble devices should have a high priority. For purposes of security, we would like to see an absolutely foolproof scrambler system. We also need good scramblers at a reasonable cost. The Problem of Maintenance There should be a survey on maintenance, new methods of servicing electronic equipment, standards for electronic technicians and some means of providing good in-service training regarding all electronic equipment the men service. Manufacturers, due to feedback from users, are informed of common equipment failure but they do not pass information on to local repair shops. Any study of police communications should also consider estimated life of hardware, general maintenance, installation and other long term requirements for reliability and performance. There should be no "down time" on police communication facilities, which are often used 15 years or more. Especially true of base facilities. Current communications maintenance programs are inadequate. Equipment receives no attention until it fails. Often no "backup" hardware is available, pressuring technicians into "hurry-up" jobs and inadequate service. The Problem of Overcrowded Frequency Bands The use of power allocations and frequency allocations should be checked more closely. Crowded conditions and non-essential chatter is causing a great deal of problems in emergency situations. 51 We are on a frequency with at least 15 other towns. We are constantly drowned out by others who must be overmodulated. Frequency coordination has always been a problem. At the present time, we have cities operating on our channel which are less than 40 miles away. We would like to see, in this area, a frequency with a channel of our own with no outsiders. The Need for Improvements in Portable Radios and Power Sources Our portables are useless. They almost never work right. This department purchased two hand portable units. We've had them about 18 months and they have been returned to factories several times for repairs. Portable radios with capacity for long distance receiving and transmitting. Consideration should be given to designing a radio for a police officer that would be durable and waterproof under the most extreme condition a police officer may be called upon to perform service. Hand held radio lighter in weight but retain and improve the present power output levels. One of the biggest problems is the weight and size of the portable radios. The output power is low, but the weight of the unit makes it cumbersome. I believe there is a great need for reasonably priced integrated-circuit designed radios to be carried or worn by all officers for constant communication availability. Might eventually eliminate need for radios in cars. Battery size and weight reduction should receive high priority. We feel that batteries used in portable and hand-carried equipment are too large and too heavy— that the power source development have not been kept with circuitry sophistication. We would like to see a 5-watt hand-carried portable transceiver with very small dimensions. One suggestion is that manufacturers of power source batteries be given the necessary incentive to "catch up" with the communications industry by making compatible batteries that are smaller in size, weigh less, have a longer life and increase the power output. 52 APPENDIX A NBS-885 May 1972 OMB 41-F72030 Approval Expires June 30, 1^ U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE: COMMUNICATIONS POLICE EQUIPMENT SURVEY Sponsored By: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration U. S. Department of Justice Directed and Conducted By: Benavioral Sciences Group National Bureau of Standards We aington, D.C. 20234 Phcne: 301-921-3558 NOTE: This questionnaire is included in this document as a supplement to the discussion in the text. It has no intended use. A-l INTRODUCTION : Maintaining good communi cations "under very poor conditions is important to good police action. Many departments have lost communication when they needed it most. System parts often cannot be interchanged, batteries are unreliable and some equipment is too ex- pensive for many departments to buy. In order to make it easier for law enforcement departments to be able to buy communications equipment that meets their needs , the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory will be writing performance standards for this equipment. These standards will be available to any department that wishes to use them. PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE: The purpose of this "detailed" question- naire is to get answers from YOU, the user, about. the communications equipment you are now using, and the problems you find in using it. Your answers will be used to determine what kinds of testing need to be done, and what sorts of problems must be solved. We must find out what YOUR needs are. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Fill in the questionnaire completely. Even if you do not have all the information you need "at your fingertips" , please make your best effort to supply every answer AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE. 2. Answer all questions FOR YOUR OWN DEPARTMENT. Do not attempt to supply information that might exist in some other department. 3. The results of this questionnaire will be compiled by computer. It is very important that you follow directions and answer every question in the boxes and spaces provided, 4. No individual department will be identified in the report of this survey; the results will be published only in table form. 5. Additional instructions for filling in your answers appear after some questions. Follow the directions given. 6. Please PRINT all answers and comments CLEARLY. 7. When this questionnaire has been completely filled in; place it, with the other questionnaires sent to your department, in the stamped, addressed envelope supplied. Return all of them to: Technology Building, A-110 National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234 8. If you have any questions, write to the above address or call collect: E. Bun ten, or P. Klaus Phone: 301-921-3558 9. Remember that it is only by getting YOUR DEPARTMENT'S answers to these questions that it will be possible to begin really working on problems that police have with communications equipment and supplies. A-2 PART I; CAR RADIOS 1. Give the following information about your car radios: l.A. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in KHz, MHz, etc.) (Attach an additional sheet if necessary.) (10-17)*** (18-25) l.B. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question l.A. (26-28) l.C. Output power (in watts) (29-30) l.D. Number of Channels Authorized (31-32) I.E. Number of Channels in Use 2. A. How many car radios are there in your department? (33-36) Number 2.B. Of those car radios, about how many were made by each of the following manufacturers? NUMBER MANUFACTURER (37-40) Motorola (41-44) RCA (45-48) GE (49-52) Other (Specify) 3. How recently were most of the car radios bought by your department? (Mark X by your best estimate) (53-56) Within the last calendar year 1 - 3 years ago 4 - 5 years ago More than 5 years ago ***Numbers in parentheses are for computer use only, A-3 About how much did each of the car radios cost that are most frequently used in your department (including base plate, control head, microphone, and speaker)? For example, if most of the radios now in use are Motorolas, please give us the cost of one set. (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW) (57-62) Less than $700 $701-$800 $801-$900 $901-$1000 $1001-$1500 Over $1500 5. A. What is the total area within your jurisdiction which must be covered by a communication system? (IN SQUARE MILES) (63-68) Square Miles 5.B. If possible, please tell us how many different law enforcement channels serve this area. This figure would include not only those channels used by your department, but also those used by other law enforcement agencies operating in the same geographical area (e.g., state and local police). (69-70) Channels (71) Don't Know 5.C. Do you have one common frequency for routine and emergency traffic? (72) Yes No (IF "NO") Do you think you need a common frequency? Yes (73) No A-4 6. Which of the following best describes the general character of your jurisdiction? (MARK X BY MORE THAN ONE, IF NECESSARY) (74-80) Skyscrapers, many tall buildings Some tall buildings Almost no tall buildings Primarily mountainous or very hilly Valley area surrounded by mountains Generally flat with some hills Flat area, no hills 7. A. Do you use fixed repeaters in your area (to cover dead spots in communication which otherwise would exist) ? (10) Yes No 7.B. (IF "YES" TO QUESTION 7. A.) How many fixed repeaters does your department have? (11-12) Fixed Repeaters 8. If you use, or will be using fixed repeaters, which of the following types do you prefer? (13-16) Will not use fixed repeaters F1F1 repeater (same frequency in and out) F1F2 repeater (two different frequencies) No preference A-5 226-297 0-77-6 PART II; PORTABLE (HAND-HELD) RADIOS 9. Do you now use portable (hand-held) radios in your department? (17) Yes No (IF "NOV SKIP TO PART III, QUESTION 15) ( IF "YES" TO QUESTION 9, ANSWER QUESTIONS 10-14 ) 10. Give the following information about your portable radios: 10. A. List ALL transmitting frequencies (in KHz, MHz, etc.) (Attach an additional sheet if necessary.) (18-25) (26-33) 10. B. List ALL receiving frequencies; if different from Question l.A. (34-35) 10. C (36-37) 10. D (38-39) 10. E 11. A Output power (in watts) Number of Channels Authorized Number of Channels in Use How many portable radios do you now have in your department? (40-44) Number 11. B. Of those portable radios, about how many were made by the following manufacturers? NUMBER MANUFACTURER (45-49) Motorola (50-54) RCA (55-59) General Electric (60-64) Halicrafters (65-69) Other (Specify) Other (Specify) A-6 12. What model of portable radio do you have more of in your department than any other? MANUFACTURER MODEL OR MODEL NUMBER 12. A. When did you buy most of these "most used" portable radios? Within the last calendar year 1-3 years ago 4-5 years ago More than 5 years ago 12. B. About how much did you pay for one of these "most used" portable radios (including antenna, carrying case, and spare batteries)? Less than $500 $501-$700 $701-$900 $901-$1100 $1101-$1500 Over $1500 12. C. About how much does one of these "most used" portable radios weigh? Less than 20 oz. 20 oz. to 26 oz. 27 oz. to 32 oz. 33 oz. to 38 oz. More than 38 oz. 12. D. How do you feel about the weight of the "most used" portable radios? The weight is about right The unit is somewhat heavy The unit is entirely too heavy A-7 13. A portable radio can be used with a repeater by a patrolman when ho is out of his car. The portable radio transmits to the car radio which then relays the signals to the base radio. Do you need repeaters like this in your communications system? (28) Yes No Why? 14. Some law enforcement agencies use portamobile radios with several receivers and a voting system. Do you favor such a system? (29) Unfamiliar with "voting system" Yes No (IF "YES" OR "NO", WHY? A-8 ITJIT III: NEED FOR STANDARDS 15. Many policemen have indicated the need for standardization of communi cations equipment. Which of the following equipment and components would you like to see standardized? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES) Portable radios Mobile radios Batteries for portable radios Control heads Microphones Switches on control heads Mounting brackets Cable between microphone and control head Other (Specify) Other (Specify) What will your department gain by the standardization discussed above? (X EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES) 10% lower cost of equipment 25% lower cost of equipment 50% lower cost of equipment Interchangeability of radios Interchangeability of components Savings in training of technicians Savings in training of patrolmen Interchangeability with other communications systems Other (Specify) A-9 PART IV: SCRAMBLERS 17. In some areas, police use "voice privacy" systems which scramble messages so that they cannot be received by people other than police, Do you HAVE a scrambler system of this type? (48) Yes No (IF "NO" ) Do you NEED a scrambler system of this type? (49) Yes No (IF "NO" SKIP TO QUESTION 21) 18. For which of the following purposes do you need, or would you use, a scrambler system? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES) (50-55) General communications During robberies Long-term stake out Demonstrations or protests Undercover investigations Other (Specify) Other (Specify) Other (Specify) 19. How do you (would you) use your scramblers? (MARK X BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING) (56-59) With car radios With portable radios With both car radios and portable radios Only in special vehicles (Specify) 20. How much do you think your department would pay for a good, reliable scrambler system? (MARK X BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BELOW.) (60_64) Less than $250 per unit $751-$1000 per unit $251-$500 per unit More than $1000 per unit $501-$750 per unit A-10 (65) PART V: HELMET COMMUNICATIONS 21. Helmets with built-in communications have been developed and are now on the market. Is there a need for such helmets in your department? Yes — — — — No Why? or Why not? PART VI; POWER SUPPLIES 22. Should standards for power supplies such as charging equipment, and batteries for portable radios be given? (CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING) (66-69) High priority Medium priority Low priority Standards are not needed for these items 23. What types of batteries do you now use for your portable radios? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES) (70-75) Alkaline-Manganese Carbon- Zinc Mercury NiCad (Nickel-cadmium) Silver Oxide Other (Specify) A-ll 24. What type of batteries do you prefer to use for your portable radios'; (MARK X BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING) (10-15) Alkaline-Manganese Carbon-Zinc Mercury NiCad (Nickel-cadmium) Silver Oxide Other (Specify) 25. Do you use batteries for your portable radios which must be recharged? (16) Yes No (IF "NO" SKIP TO QUESTION 26, PART VII) 25. A. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long can you use the battery before it must be recharged? (17-19) Hours 25. B. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long does it usually take to recharge the battery to a point where it can be used again? (20-21) Hours 25. C. (IF " YES" TO Q. 25) How long does it usually take to fully recharge the battery? (22-23) Hours 25.D. (IF "YES" TO Q. 25) How long can you usually use these batteries before they must be replaced? (24-25) Months A-12 PART VII: GENERAL COMMENTS 26. What are your most critical communications needs? (MARK X BY EACH ITEM THAT APPLIES) (26-31) More frequencies and channels New equipment More reliable equipment Personal transceivers for each officer Portamobile voting system Scramblers Standardization of all equipment Other (Specify) Other (Specify) 27. What are your most serious problems with communications equipment? (32-33) 28. What are your most common equipment failures, whether entire units or specific components? (3/»-35) A-13 29. Do you have any other general comments or observations about communications equipment that might be helpful to the people who will be studying and testing this equipment for police use? A-14 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: (All identifying information will be kept confidential) Name of Department: Address : Name of person who answered this questionnaire: Name Title: Rank: No. of years experience in law enforcement: Telephone Number : Others who helped: 1. Name Title: Rank: No. of years experience in law enforcement: Telephone Number: 2. Name Title: Rank: No. of years experience in law enforcement: Telephone Number: A-15 APPENDIX B Data Tables B.l. Advice to the Reader (a) The data presented in the following tables resulted from the responses of a stratified random sample (see sec. 1.2) of police departments in response to a specific set of questions (see app. A). These data do not, in any way, reflect objective testing of any of the equipment by the National Bureau of Standards. The reader is cautioned to become familiar with the questionnaire and to evaluate the data in terms of the exact questions asked. (b) Tables have been numbered after the question number (e.g., the tables for Question 6A would be numbered 6A-1, 6A-2, etc.). The data are usually presented by number of respondents and nearest whole percentage. Because of the statistical limitations imposed by the sample sizes used in this study, the reader is cautioned to be wary of assigning importance to percentage differences of less than 5 percent when percentages are based on all respondents, and to percentage differences of less than 10 percent when percentages are based on one of the subsample groups (e.g., a particular department type or region). No statistical tests of significance are reported. (c) These tables are based on the responding departments from the specific sample selected for this questionnaire. This sample was not proportional to the total population of police departments, and although it is possible to do so, the data in these tables have not been weighted to allow direct extrapolation to the total population. (d) In order to extrapolate to the total population from the respondent data presented in this report, use the following procedure: For each department type, multiply the percentage of respondents of a particular department type giving the answer of interest (see B.2 Data Tables, app. B) by the total number of departments of that department type in the population (see table 1.2-2, sec. 1.2); add those seven subtotals; and divide the total by the total number of police departments in the population (table 1.2-2). The quotient of this division will be an estimate of the percentage of all U.S. police departments that would choose the answer of interest. B.2. Data Tables B-l ooa-ooj-oooooocool^-t^oca-o so as IT) ~n »h a- OJ— - l/) Ld U. -i tr >-> • U_ < O O OJ-HOOOO«H*">OOOt\JOOrO-H<\JO.-IO >£> •- 71 «e > l/l Id 1- UJ l-H U. IS >- h[Th • U. < (J O _l 2 J MH O ^1- 4 ^ C\l f*~ .-t ^ - UJ I- K u — t^oooinoruoowooouoroinoajo cr ■H O ►"• • »H fi .* -H rt >- JU _ij I— I O i tOOMCCOW- <00-HOOOJ-WOf\l-^ CL MOM t (O M -H >- O — < U. O OS < a >- cr> UJ 1- I a — rooo-Horoomoooooo-Hirscoo—i 7i * I s - — I*-00—I3(\IO:*000000— t.S'COOO— I '_> — LL O z id s: t- < Q_ uJ □ L/l >- cf U t- I U >-l o >-< l_> -H U. — U_ o 71 a: >(Mi] i- i o o — u. rj (\j ~ •c\.<\j —if cxjojpn^rtc cm u_ UJ u. 71 •-■ u_ z en u_ x ►-• u. o uj uj u cr uii. m ^ _ |_ UJ -J «-" >- o ik z ice uj z »- cr « a: ►H O Z <_1 71 O Jh- uit-)-uii.l/1->->->-S'2 _l UJ >- 71 >- 71 o in o a. z or oHN(\ino< OlOH I I I I I I H vDrt >OrtO (MK)vO-l-l(\l(\JiOZ B-2 CT »-< CO cr rO ~-< CM vfj o p- „ _| pr, r- :* O O rO \C o o to rQ c\j rO o —t 1- l/l « If) J- o >- 1/1 iij .-H 1- UJ « U. 15 *- cv r» 3- c •-< 3- t— * Or t— i • -H o »fl -H 0" Lu < U o CM »H fl _) 2 2 -I -H CM O 1- l/l UJ >- l/l UJ ID -H CT> fl O 1- UJ l-H < MTilOO u. c t- or • • • • M (I " UJ rtlf) j)o u_ •■* UJ or — to to to »H ~H —1 O l/l <* •H vQ CM s 5T or ~< >■ UJ •— or <_> po in ry h (\i to 0* H-. O !-■ • Wrt d- ec r~- O U- o H — i O U- 2 lD O or — O l/l UJ z or Co f- in (\J o V UJ < r-- o id O i- or o or • • • • i-i O «-i LU « CM CM -H o U. > O U. >4 in o -~ CC ^ 00 -^ -H a en s? cm vD C* a> cc >- d- UJ UJ i— i <_) d- r> to -( CM ji Q. •— « o H- • 3- 0" H in OC >- o ~< u_ o -H •" w u_ o 2 t— 2 Id S. h- ^ r- o wwc o or J1 « m 3 «H o < >- o> or UJ - 1 •j H— 1 o n JO JMH o DO rj — « -^ >— * • j- * — 1 —1 CM [*■ o ~ u. u_ ^t t- l o or ID cm 3- r- o in>o ^ o o. aJ H- O — LL or & uj i — I — I .jj CM — l ~i -H "M -H —4 3- 3 to ~i — i cm in o m —i in a- cr cc cv cc o in cc r- u: ^ CI o f^ r- o CM H < -* r- ^c cr vD ~ 0: • ■ ■ ■ • ~ UJ CV CM CM CM O > U «: h e ?c O Nl < x or 5- or » - — t- l/l Z> UJ o •- cc o O <-t CM uj i/: _i s: uj _i i- a o o •H rt J * o in 0^ o CM -H icrg -< d-w in o- vC v£ — i cm in m J3 CM ro 1- z ^/ ^-, — ^^ 2 UJ t— • UJ l/l U3 O CM CM O CC E y UJ < to r- a- cc CM i- a_ cr • • • • • « c a-o Cr V U_i CM CM 3 CM m CM CM " — < t- > X 0. •a c U) s: o O _1 U. _l 711- n ** td _j E-t >- u or Q o 2 o O j 0. i- 1^1 < UJ u ISJ X r or >- Nl S s or u. o X UJ o 2 5: 3- 3 i UJ r^ f^ i/i >/l or 3 O -H 3" or 2 _J UJ O m i 1 ij < < U UJ l o o X H- S" or o in in t— O o o u. tO -H 3- o 2 1— 2 o 10 UJ 1- < u M Nl X X >- NJ J u X 2 S J" O UJ i^ r^ r> o —t ct or O in i i uj UJ 1 e o x or o in in »- u. <) ^ 3- O N Nl X T Nl ? s: T > 3 3 r- r>- O •H 3" or U1 1 1 UJ 1 O r> T o /) in ►— rO -^ 3- O B-3 c in o c ji in cm cm CM — I 3 O —4 -H — I O O UJ — i —I id J" 3 >H —1 ^H 1- l/l J* c\j r- o >- l/l UJ •-» i- Lu —. U. O (- C I s - 1*- CM — 1 r- — > hKm • -i J- to o rO U. « <_> O -H — * _l z 1- l/l UJ >- l/l Ul ii) lOjino IO KLjM < KlOtIO iT> U. 15 1- cc • • • • • i-h or —> UJ rO CM -0 CM vD u. > m -—i —i r\j 3 (T =t C\j UJ a: — o to 0> to to CO o l/l w -« in cm a* s^ ct >- UJ i— rr <_> vO -i r- CM CM CC i- o •- • to —i ID o u. o o u. z in o cc — o i/i UJ s: or U> o to o o >- UJ >a in o r- o i- cc o cc • • * • KH o >-i UJ h .H — t CM o u. > o u. < J"l o rt H-( <\J Q_ _, O l-l CM CM O- C h- .O CM —I l_> "l U_ O l/l uJ cr> cc CD r- 3 I s - o >- J- UJ < CM O %0 O UJ 1- 1 o cc • • • • D_ l-l C l-H UJ .H -H *H UJ s r- — . to o to o to ac l/l se rO to to < CC Q_ >-OLJ .J 1- 1 o H 3 — 1 O — 1 jj s: o UJ I o cr> in to o j- .h H H *-i * l/l LJ -i o l/l 5 O o >-i cc Q Ll < CC r- z CC UJ UJ U CC Ll r> l-l O Q >- u l- »-H D O •- CD I/! <: UJ cc ro h o in o in in o o ae J3 cm — i rtOHHin CM ro 3- to ~h O J- CM 1 CM • C CM \0 CM O Lf O —l —i J- -H UJ l/l o CM CM in O CC i> _1 5" UJ < O (f 3 c O* _l 1- 0. cc • • • • • CM s 3- CM ■a cc >- UJ CM — 3 CM CM ■-< —t < t- :> X 0. < < K rj < o S Ul CC cc o u. Ll z o t— t z t— < o > z HH I—* UJ ^ o O UJ _j cc -1 O _l U. _l < Ul X 1— t- l/l o l/l UJ o tsj ru ar X I >- NSS or u. o X Ul O z. 5-3-3 ■* Ul I s - r- i/i >/l a: z> O — 4 3- cc ^ _l LU o IT) 1 1 Ul - Nl 5T 5" o I z S J" 3 UJ I-- 1^ Z) oh 3 o: o in i i lu UJ 1 o o I rx Olfllfll- u. IOHJO r\j Nj X X X s: * o r>- >^ oh j a: in I I ui I 3 o X o junt- fO h a- o B-4 o Ld a. u UJ or — O 1/1 a? ■x or >- uJ h- CK O .-i O •— • u u. o o u. z in o on tr >- # u UJ >- i u Q. M O HH in LlI o UJ in 2 < _i s: ui _i t- Q- UJ Ul o I 3 UJ s: — t- i/l 0C o < •- a. o ui •a o 1 or 1 05 li. or o Ll) - • -i u 3 UJ cr i/i 1- Q -z. z aJ < s: i— • CC lO < z a. < uj cr Q 1- B-5 226-297 0-77-7 G. UJ ►-» o I < Jl re z LU X) o C\J -1 O J n N (MTK1 ff. c O^KIJCMOOtOAJ rO h- I/) LO UJ l. ta I'- ll < <_> i- i/i vi/iuj KlUM ItlSh ll < u O O L^ — » j r\J rO cv e: — O CO UJ y o: ID j- v UJ < Jl 1— CC l_> ce • HH O >-> UJ r- O li_ 3> vD o ll <: Li O -1 H O or — ioho jm jioip o O Ul » — 1 CM -H tO c s: a: -H J- LU I s - 1- a: cj alO> Jlrt JNvC J cr ^0 .-. o »-> LJ u. O U. in o o —i-H cm r- L" s a: >- cf UJ LU I- I (_> Q_ — O -. o — LL < cr> a: v a- uj 0> UJ h- 1 o vO Q- l-i O 1-1 >- O -h u. 1- — Li- ^0 CM -h I s - * o CO 0> C\J (\J CM -H 0^ CO vO — < s r-- .H -h c c J3 ^C — 1 C* O IO o ~* U"' — ' ** o o o ^■ ~ rt r-- I s - s a oocmtOJ-hoo o ^ cc o oo-hvDcxjcooo r- IO J -ni--i s -invCi--crCT 1 ■=r i— UJ -I ? UJ _l t- 0. JfljlO>D JO JCT CD c\i h» \D <\J vD IO IO CM UJ a z o CL u a: z) UJ •H < o z (!) L_> o a. L0 UJ cc z x UJ O CD X 5" i/i 3 UJ Z or Z OZK ^CT-OCTiO^-hcIUJ icMj-ocowrs >- I- l/l Jl I I I I I llJ < B-6 I l/l 5" 3- 3- a. co 1- l/l <* CVJ c\i >- l/l LiJ 1 — UJ •— • b_ t- «-* cC 1-1 or >-" • •H l>- u. < u 3- 10 Z — pH h- I/) UJ >— 1 l/l bJ 10 to 5 UJ >-i <; — 3- bJ Ct — rO fO O 00 ae «H H :? cr >- bJ t— cr <_> 3- J- _ >- • CO 1*- O U_ —1 —I O b. z m bJ cr ~ c 1/) 5" CE >- u 1- a: u >— 1— t LL Ll in „ (M (\) L/l SR -H *-H :r> cr V J- bJ bJ «- 1 <_> ct> s) Q_ 1-1 1-1 ■ ^c in >- OHLL O — 1 ~* 3- 3" O -1 -I l/l bJ 0> cr CD CT> * >- * bJ < CT> CO bJ 1- 1 u a: • • 0. t-t i—< bJ »H »-H >- U — « Ll -> (- w U O < t- Z bJ 5 t- -^ LY i/l bJ - O bJ CE • • 3 -1-1-1 IT ^c • a cc bj ►— >- IS -h CC •s. K- < ct r-- Z a • • vC •£> 3 bJ CM CV ro to O > X cr < cr 3 O >- I— 3 O en c <: UJ N. 2 —i cr bj — ■ 1/1 t— I 3 < h- 5" 3 z cr < — ON J o r» r- n 5: in co • • v£> in <\J CM o j- -o Z -1 *-> —I bJ bj < < X X (_> l_) o 3 cr cr bJ bJ t) -D ? S 3 3 □ J1 1 3 l/l i/l _l _1 uJ LU z z 2 Z J iJ n n z z 3 0. 1/1 1/1 Q r aJ bj XI X cr u cr oj ./i 1/1 X 3 X 3 -.-. ?. bj _n z o 0- l/l uJ cr i/i 1/1 _i _i bJ ud Z Z z z < cr X X (_) o 3 Z CC -• J\ i/l -I _) uJ -U z z < < X X O l_) B-7 IX IC t- 1-H CC tH U. < <_> tr — O l/l ? Or >- UJ h- or o K-4 o ►-< o LL o lo- in o 1/1 cr- or —1 >- * UJ Kl >- i u ■XI l-H O >-< ^0 CO or i/1 -(nu LLl I— I O 3 -I -H -i in h r- o ^0 'J") W t-4 ro • m fl in 3 O >- UJ LA _l 5" UJ _j i- a < Cr >- 3 z -1 2 (- Ul y S 7* 'j 3 rs -1 uJ < 5" s: a O a. i/i Ul or or >-i w B-8 X l/l z (MlO J HO ioiojho X m r- 3- ro o •O - l/l LU t- UJ •-• Ij. ID 1- lO O CM 3 — " (M 1-1 or M • CC \Tt f~ •-< CM Ll < o o n j wh CM _l z s -" -D r~- i- i/i a? >- l/l UJ i- iij i-i ll id r- .-< Or i-h Ll < o o o vD — • rO cc — rO 3- CM O O C* O l/l se >T> <-l CM 0> s: cc >- UJ i— CC l_) o 10 in c* cm cr o^ .-. O i-i • in ^> r- t » o u_ 3 vO ro in in O Ll Z «H C\J in o UJ CC — J3 rO (J> rfPJ O l/l ae in -< cm s cc >- oJ h dU O J- -1 — 1 C\J l-H O « • JJHIO on id ro c\j o cm r- r-- 3- o r\. l/l * a CM l/l CJ> CC r >- * UJ Id UJ i — 1 u .o CO iD r-t 3 or a. *-* a t— < • ro rO 3 •H 3 >- o —4 LL. o * ~-t H t— — Ll z o O < h- Ll z 3 UJ z s <. r- —~ CM in f- LO >H s: < l/l ^ LO rO CD a >- o> Ld Z UJ I— 1 O J1 CM y ■O CM — • 3 — 1 -* M • VI -M -a — « ro cc (J* ro cc o o in rO cr* a >- cf UJ UJ 1- 1 o (MOO J13 Cl HH O t-H • ^0 ro >- o -i Ll o >— — u. o z r- Z UJ s 3- CO — < LO CM CM D o J1 .M J-l -O in CO CM rO . U o I u - 00 UJ a < UJ or u >- z < 3 o CO in rH 3 •H O 3 rt 3 CO O a- CO o o CO r~- o ro r- o »- LO ro LO f>- CC 3 r-t CD -z * IT rO O LU l/l ~-c J5"y _l t- Q_ o 3- in cc ifl rO <: a >- • HriMd vH < t- O in r- cm ro CO Cl z co in ro r- UJ ro cm iT CT o t^ 3 o ro cm ro O o r^ 3- o ro cm ro 1- c\j CM CM ro ^ z sk in — i rO LU l/l y lu r- a. CT iO O CM iC V • CM r^ O CM lu d <: CD ZZZT. i— X < < < r— O o o 5C S S O Z r— z u or r— i— i- UJ u u u s 3 < i i/i Ll Ll Ll ar z :> r> 3 UJ < z z z T ?■ s: s: o z r- B-9 X t/> CM CM IT CM O *-1 SR CM CM IO CM o in in co in o r- .h o o cm 1- I/) i* J- CM fO 1/1 Ul UJ >-i 13 ►- nCMT j h or >-4 • i-H •-( < o O or — » lt I s - o in cm cr O 1/1 se CM -H CM tO IT 5" a >- Ul i- or o O 3- >£ CO CM o ►- o >- • CM -h rt CM CC O Ll o o u_ 2 in o l/l < CO O l/l Z 3 Q IxJ D >• l_> •-" z o l/l t- < Z UJ UI _l ^ Q_ X l/l z IL151- m or i-i ll - UJ i- or o >-, o •-• O li. o u. in o irniTiOo it» ~H CM to CM to CM ~0 I s - CM -H * 3 fO J- o r- CM CM -h to w IT ^ f\j .t 'O «h IO O O CM tT d" IO rt (MlM IMH O ^0 v0 I s * J"l IO CM o o «-' to to cm CM I 13 r> o CD (/I C i— i o or >- 3- Ul Ul 1— 1 o CM CO C O a >-• O l-H • — t to to >- O *H U_ o h- — u. o Z >- /> Ul or O CCON CM XI -H '-l O M to r- to ^ to if w CM CM tO CT CT ^O J" CM H •-! Oj iOOhMO cr> B? 3- CM lO f> (O CT o in o in CM CO 3" CM •-< 3 CV CD ^o r^ \D to r- zt >- o Q z ►- o o ID o L/l 03 CD - UJ o >- >- ^ z in 1/1 l/l as .-. to in z _l UJ X or < « co i- i i Ul 1- x t— 4 > o o o S -H 3" o 2 h- z or - < i/i a. < Ul _! a o or or o a i- o o >- s. Z Ul •-< or < Q Ul UJ l/l l/l 3 r> CT> CC >- 3- Ul t- I o MOM O -H U. l/l or Q -i -I -• o — u. o Z j£ Ul o 3 z o UJ i/ or o u G »- . u. cr O Ui •x T < o Ul < CL Ul l/l Q n hH z • Q < 1- Ul I » L0 o UJ 3 Z ul s; a Z o s d o o LL X or o o ^ t- >-H »- Ul I n s l/l l/l *T o o 3 CO k <_) o QJ < Q CL nS EH < Ul t/1 • UJ I Ul 3- X 1— or if) rO m0 (^ (^ o h rt (\JH (\JH (J* fO CO CJ^ CO o -^ 0J CM ^H -H .-o -O 3- r^ j- o to ^ (T CT CM (T (O d" * •rf CM IO >- 1- z o vO iC in h- cm co X) • w «-t CM o o z Ul I- <: t- cr cr rtfllTJHrJO in ^H -H >H 3- ^o (T cm in • cMXvOr-fOtOlO CM (MHHHIM O tO CO I s - CM h- -h 0" I- vO f- (T* •-" Q Z o o 0. o L0 r^ Ul tfl o or o o o z o o o in o or LL < o o o ^h in uj o i co rr -n >« -i ~s t- (A ifl (fl 1 rf* l/1 i/i oc 1 1 1 -^ Z _i UJ i/i — i -h -h o o: < < CD jl o o o o ui i— s: ui r^ co cr -h > o o X) _1 (#1 (fl (#» (« o z 1- z B-10 X I/) z s. o in r- X Lfl z Ll - LO Ld I- LU •-■ Ll CD I- >-• cc t-i Ll < o or .-. o LO S ce LlI cr o o t—< Ll o Li. lO o <\J CD Lu a: — O LO UJ ?: cr O CC >- Ld < --H 1- cr cc • CM 1-1 i-h Llj vO CM t_> Lu > u. < in Q. no.-. • QU < UJO LU L/l _J a: 3 < □ Ld Z J) Ll < >-< o X X LU J) o- a; v a- Ld Ld (- I O CL •-> O >-■ >- O — I U- LT- 03 <: - CT* Ld < CC 3 j >— 1 ce • Ld a 1— » ^H — * LU X O — LL ^> -. «r S 3 o 5" rt C • fO e\j ■ cC O .-. ir LO z Ld LO _! 5" LU _l ►- Q_ < cr v < h- Q_ LU D CT> rf- 3- 3- C\J l/l Ld Ld 71 X >- 1- -0 L0 z 1— 1 r— 1 »-» H \— < 1 -< < < Ld Ld CC CE < < LL Ld O s s O 3 3 < 1— < Ld O I— > l/l l/l CC _l Ld <. - l/l I- LO LO 3 • _l CD Ld jj — •><: t— t- CC _) Z" « 5" Ld —1 LU O X O C cc cr < ODCf Ll O LD z >- c Ld LJ V LD s CC - O Z Z >-i -■ _l o Ld O Ld I- Z LD LU LU IflQt- < 3 2 Ld I Ld _l l_) 5! CL Z Ld Ld Q O _l _1 Ll n 3 2 mOU LO 3 LO S O id < CL CC _l 3 ll ld cr LL X »— • l/l O CD *-* • I >- in 1- co CL >(MJ Ld I— I O 3 •-• -H -" '_> — Ll Ll O o • 3- in *-* i> -1 c\j > rH ^ B-ll o 1- o B-12 M o cc >— » <# ~> r> -y Ul 2: ■n or • 3 < o J3 CM l/l -J QC _l Ul Q_ O >- O J1 Z _l >-<•-< * s: 3 1/1 1 m _i l/l _i o < Z O 3 l/l Q O _l _l _i « o < I- CO t/) _l Z _1 < T O LlJ 5: > LlJ O t- Jirs _i x < 3 >- > l/l CD i/> 3 x < ? _l O _l o Z _l < < t- o o T in oocMiflctOOO (\IK1 10 j ooincor-ooo O rO to (\ X i/> 2 t— i/i as >-ui y I- UJ >- U. ID t— ■-. CC <-• • U. < <_) O ^.MMCNKlatM CM CM f^ HHlO{\i O CM J") -0 1- 1/1 Hi *JD lO >- l/l UJ t- UJ m li. <£ 1- HOKl i-i C H-. • tO -c U. < <_> o uj tr — o i/i * a- cm to cm to to —< cm -- UJ l/l CC — OMO O 1/1 » fO ■£> s: cr >- aJ >— cc c_> 3 0>0 !-. o >-> • (M Lfl l_> Li. o o U_ 2 in o ac < X o _l < or UJ z UJ ID UJ X 1/1 UJ CO 1/1 Ul 03 -I o UJ r i/i cr cc >- * UJ _J V- I (J OvOIOlfljn^O -h * -< <\l d- -h OJMOhMmo h ro h t\) ro h ri. »- — u_ 2 2 o o i- ►H 2 >- Ld o S 1— 1 >- ~-~ O CO CO X) ~H d- -H O Q 31 l/l * CM ~< CM * CM J1 < CC l-H 0. >- CT> UJ CC jj i — 1 CJ O t\J J- D 3- 3 D Q — 1 .-H >-i • CM -H —i ■O -l -) <_> ~^ U- 3 CC o 3 o >- U- ^ 0>K1CO (J- C \D c o V W CM 3- CM to or H H J)i!K!OH JO w IO CM CM u in MM CJ j) o> o — i CM CM ro — i •H O 1- iriLOCfjvCnjcoo r> 2 se CM CM CM CM 3- »-l *C UJ l/l ,-< s: uj t- 0. ioi^c\iniocot--H S re v • cm e cm c — i r~ r- CM < K o r- Q_ 2 cj> _1 (— •-! 2 •-< s: x t— t I 1/1 a >- UJ 1- i/i _i >- en s: l/l 2 o -• X D _l UJ 2 3 UJ Q J1 _l 3 hh ca > UJ tH 2 3 □ « X O _i _i CC 2 1- Q. M _l o r> < o l/l n < o _l 2 UJ CO l- 1/1 cc u. CC 3 X. » _l o o -2 >- < CC u. _1 2 z l/l _1 UJ UJ o < H-* _l cc ■« »— h- < >- < < J1 l/l CC l/l (- UJ re 2 _l UJ UJ O 2 _J UJ 1- < O U_ 2 I— 2 < (J Ul D CC U) > o u Cr < rr o 1/1 CC UJ UJ Ul in i/i !> CC >- 3- UJ UJ I- I l_) CL >-i O t-i >- u — i u. o in in to cm iH CC l<10N h- CM * S 2 * to J3 UJ l/l _i s: uj _i t- a h- ID vO « c: >- • * r- <; >— o —l CM B-13 UJ l/l o X CM o yt 3- m o o in in CO • CM CM J- o z m in CM o <* j Li •-> „, in r» rO • -h •i rO o a «e 0- UJ 1— 1 n 13 o ■— | ■H I X o z O < t- t- v to uj 1- UJ i-i u_ to l— CC HOT" • CM It. < (J o fO UJ or — in O 1/1 « 5 OT >■ UJ i- or o in i-i O i-i • in U u_ o o u. Z m o t- l/l >- l/l UJ I- UJ i-i It OK h(Th L. < (_) 0T — O l/l S or >- UJ t— 0T O i-h O 11 U UJ a uO cr> or >- d- UJ UJ t- I u 0- _ O H >- (_) ■-) u. o a: a .-I CM a. UJ Q or o in U_ c o l/l or o_ >- cr uj uj t- i u O Hp4M O ~- li- u_ o ji UJ o^ or ■3 CM >- 3- UJ et -H UJ i— 1 o or • Q. t— < O H UJ vH >- <_> -H li. > 1— — u. o < k— Z uj •5. V- — * or l/l UJ - a* uj •a: CM UJ ►— i j or • Q *-i ~* -* UJ >- o ►- < 2" or 10 UJ C > o o >- i/i or UJ i- < UJ Q. It) ft o UJ l*- in J3 —i CM JO o u o Ltl 0_ lil or a UJ x o i in UJ -■ a UJ to V-* 3- « •£ CM z UJ l/l JSlil < I- o 2 UJ l/l _i k a < or >- < i— to UJ H >- 1 23 LL 1-4 UJ r~ ~" Jl 2 - Ul LU V- LU 1-1 a o t- inniiaiH -iC" • ro Ll < o O cr ~ cr> x> * -h cr O l/l a? ~H LD *H - LU Ktru in xi o Oh- CT» _ o •-• • -h a- h- O Ll o O LL z in o CC •a -* s LlI ae CO -H ■^ in .' *0 C\J c\j «j • ID l/l cr* cr >- a- lu i- i <_> l-i O M U -H LL r- C LT- <\J f> M -I - Z Lj o s: a t— i — -UIOIOH cc J) .* ro H rO f\J ji < cr LlI a. >- (T LU i LlI ■— 1 ~> d- 3- D O >- 3 *-* — i "• • pg 'M .H -o a- -I 3- j- cr- m -r r- o rH -• -I -i f- • LL CC -H Ll a- ic cr- id j- cr r-- a- oj to co ro c\j HOCC 1- m r- r- a j- z et CM to »H — LU l/l _J 5~ LU _l K CL O 1 W CT' O o < 0: >- • cr f in cc id 1,1 or n CL Ld 01 l/l 3 ,-{ 3 O LJ CO >- l/l LL O IH CL XI Cfl Eh CO Jl -J or z jj a z o a. LU i/i LU U LJ l/l Z cr 3 .U CC cr LU 1- LU LJ O O Ll s Z LU l/l J) a: cr z _l LU JHCM1 < < en JlL IL >— T HHHO o o 3 ilLlLZ z. >— H 3 ;u i/i Ji cr LL 3 LU O i- 3 - a. cr l/l UJ LU LU —4 l/l O cr 5 cr z Q J) - z B-15 X 1/1 2 H- i/i >- 1/1 UJ K UJ t— < U. ID t- i—. o: t-H Ll < (J a — . o on y rr >- Id h- re o »-« o K- 1 o U_ o Ll. in O 1/1 C> CE >• 1 o o —t Ll "^ Ll O h- ~- H (<1xO cc l/l a? lO J- < or CL >- 0"> Ll) J 1- 1 (J -H H o ! 1 ■ *f • d- o O ~ IL o U. z H WiD o as ^C IO O >- .— i H Z .-i r<~> in CT- ~ • J- CM vC C o o z- 1- o ^ CO Z ae CD .-! Ld I/) JSU _) t- 0. CM CO CO •a 0: >- • ^f r-- < 1— o m CO < I- o a_ u in o lu o z >- z B-16 IT C\J CM CO ;* ~H o_ /H -4 .0 -* o t-i w-K X 1/1 * XI pO CM — t •D z • —1 <\s 3 o O z fi o o o — • w (O CM ~H ~ l/l LU O —i -* o o 1— UJ «-• < h- a- o o Ll ID h- rr • • • • l-l CC •-< LU •H ID vD Ll => ro O a o UJ cc -~ O l/l 5 cc >- ijj 1- cc o 1-1 o >— < <_> u. o Ll in o Z -I -I -1 * d- cf r-~ o -h ** in «h r- o r- o v/1 * CM £> o tf> t: .— < >- 3- LU LU 1- 1 o r~ in r— o cc r- r- CL i-i c: i-i • - OHU. o --< z ~l ~l -I -Q < I- CE O a a: D O >- — I- o 3 I- O LU CD < •• rsj Z X o ? S X CC * o Ll Z a i-i -t -i « -t to x) ki r- l/l * rt*rt cc a IU 1 o 3^ D r> M d- — 1 H-» • -HMH 1/1 LU h-t C* CC IS cm O o o fl 5" >- j- iu < d- ro 3 o J- LU i— i o CC o • • • • CL *— i a I— 1 LU *- 1 — H ~H — i >- o '-i Ll ^ x 1- ■^ Ll O - o- Ul < d- ro o o m uJ — i u or • • • • • a i j H LU li- ui :> < H \) \l tH X < r- <0 CT -l ri „ „ rf « s- o ^J CC o o h- < d- vC c o z CC • • • • z Ld ^-1 l\J W rt o > in »h o o o o -^ Z -H ^1 CM <\J O d- CM M Z — I -I -H rt IT, N rt w Z -1 -H CM * 3 O O z _) LU _l 3 O C3 Ll LU cr LU Ll X y- ld Z UJ l-H :=■ h- i-i »- ID i—i s: « LO o> z z T O 1- 1- _l LO _1 LU < Z) o 1- l/l o i— t 1- _l l/l LU • >- < 1- WH JC M c* Z je CM in (M a LU l/l _1 5" LU _l 1— CL iDh in 10 o v0 - • IMrt J ^ c < 1- O CM in CM o Q. z »H z LU LU l/l O cm cm in r^ _J ? LU < OKlrfvD _l t- CL CC • • • • <3 CC V LU ClM 3H < t- > a_ < Ul Q >- LU ■x a o z -D o LU CL i— l/l < Ul U rsj isj X X ct >- rsi ?: s: rr a. o X LU o z S d- o 3 LU r- r*- i/i yl cc ■D o-i jarz _l LU 3 in i i lu - m s: s Nl 5- S CJ X X z rr d- O r> j o UJ i~- r~- l/l r- r- o 3 -H d- cc _l UJ O rt J C3 in i i Jj < o in i i LU 1 o o T I— z 1 CD CD CC o xi n i— O < O J"> J? Ll rO ^H * o 1— a: -O -H 3- B-17 --* iH O O r-l * * * » —I rt O O O r- 3 —1 .H cr 1- l/l ae co r- cr >- L/l UJ t- UJ m L.0h o co o cm <\J r\i ►-. ar >-• • Kl O J- U- -i < OiflKO U_ CD 1- CC • • • • »-i K *-* UJ MLlIM UJ X — O * (M O * O O l/l ae 03 fO o s or *— 1 >■ UJ i- cc cj O CO 0* 3 rt CO 0* i-i O i-> • *H (\J ^-* lj U. o o u. 2 >n o cc — O L/l UJ s or. o o co o o >- UJ < ofltoo i— or o □r • • * • hOh UJ «~l «-( (_) LL :> O lo- < rn o * — < -I ♦ O 3- ftj O L/l lt> or >- ;»■ UJ UJ h- I l_> q_ ■_, o i-i >- O -1 LL r- * ^ o r~ s rt r\j m CT rt(\JrOO J) 0> r >- 3- UJ 1— 1 o 1—1 O I— 1 o rt u *■* u. o -H rt rt » Hrt (\JO L/l t- -^ o o o o o o or un M <\J CO 1-1 «* cc Q 0- >- a* uj < u 1- l o 3 —I 3 3 J CC a O — LL. o uJ u. 2 CC L/l < CC Q_ >- CT Ul jj I- I O 3 -i.-i.-i (_) — U. LL UJ LD O O O O - UJ O LT O 3 —< c rt o c ro *.-(♦* UJ >- CD o r~ c o h- < O LT c c 2 or • • * • 3 UJ •H C > o Ul O X UJ t- or u LU > CD t— i 2 CD •— i 1- cr .-i - • r- rt »H t-^ ao - UJ rt -h 3- (V in O ii t- _i Ul J1 i/i z UJ • o >- CD a. • ^ cc Q o 2 CO O UJ 0. 1- l/l d Ul LJ tSJ ISI I X cc >- NS J CC LL o I UJ o 2 s: a- o s. .J r- r~ i/i Jl re 3 ortjorz _i uJ O in i i y < < CO UJ 1 o o X f— 3? CC 3 Jllill- O o Z> LL lOrt JOZ t- 2 CC o CD uJ t- < u X X rsi M I X >- Ni s: s: m 5: 5: CJ X X 2 ? 3- O S * O UJ r~ r>- l/l i^ r- •o o -t j cc _J lU O -iJ2 o in i i ui — O < OllllOh u. rO rt J- O t- CC IO "1 3- O B-18 (- l/l >- l/l UJ KUM U. LS t- •-. or « u. < <_> >- in >- l/l Id I- UJ •-■ LL ID I- « a m u. < <_> UJ a: — O l/l ae s: cc >- UJ I- cr o -. O m • <_) LL o o ll z in o CE — O l/l s ar >- UJ hCO « O «-■ <_> LL 0. *■* O 11 l/l as a; v 3- uj UJ i— I u Q_ M o M o — i u_ o UHL > s or in < < a: l/l a. >- CT aJ ■jj i— 1 o Id a n '-i *-* r o — u. i- LL o UJ a; < Lfi UJ »— t >- o K z r UJ 3 D o c o UJ tr ll UJ s i- ~- (X i/i UJ < ce o r~ a >- a* uj < m UJ 1- l o a; • a *-« -H »-• Ul IO UJ o — s. < t- tr >- _ila CD 2 < < I- ct or t- o a. uj — LA o X o s ►i y- t- a: ji < UJ Q. a q O LL (- o >- 21 2 UJ l/l UJ l/l jjy _i t- a Cff >- « I— a. UJ L0 O CL l/l UJ LA 5- a o • o. o — -H ■— < Q o l/> LL o or UJ m B-19 h- in C\i cv »-H IS cr vo X < vo in l/l or • • z UJ *-* ~- r- r- t- i/i ;* ro ro V 1/1 Ld K LU i-i U. W t- — i j i-i IE i-i • ro r- LL < C_> o a- to >- 01 UJ >- l/l Ld ID (*• ro 1- UJ •-< UJ cr ~ lD Ifi O 1/1 i* — « •-! 5" cc >- Uj t- cc o -i co 1-1 O 1-H • r~- •* O LL o •-4 — 1 O LL z in o cc ~ o l/l > CL V UJ 1— or o 1—1 o 1-f o ll o u in o -i O 2 -H -I iC 3- * -I ~H & t >- * Ul UJ t- 1 U •fl *H a 1-1 O i-l • CM —t i/l UJ CT> cc CO .O XI V d- UJ < i0 * t- 1 <_> cr • • l-l O l-i UJ «H vH O *H U. :> UJ s: i- — CC i0 x l/l * < cr 0. >- CT- Ul jj 1- 1 <_> in .n .-3 — 1 — 1 -H • CT J3 o ~- U. o u. z o < CC iH C\J o~> CL V O UJ < iO /l Ul h- 1 c_> r • • Q "1 -H i— 1 ui CM -l O ~» U- > Ul V u ro m t- o 11 z en in CM C CM <\i o _J c _1 UJ o M u. i-i cr uj UJ O 1/1 T I 3 i- o o z * o o UJ l/l «-H •-( _l 5" Ul _i r- a J CM <. c >- • r~ —■ < i- o •-I o CL Z .-4 •-! Ul o z Ul Ul ul L5 CC <\J JStd < ro o _J 1- CL CC • • < CC >- UJ ro UJ 1/1 z z o r-l i/l z UJ • > o >- a UJ CJ Q_ i— 1 l/l u. 3 o Id — .-H — t CC CC Ul O i/l I I Q Q Id Ul rsi IM l-H ■x ui X Ul O i/l O 1/1 I X) I D »- 1— Z) z 3 z < 1-1 -• C/l l/l to i/i -I -I -i _i Ul Ul Ul Ul z z Ul z z z z o z z < B-20 I in 2 3 o * P» »H I- l/l >- I/) UJ I— UJ >-■ u. 13 (- »— 1 tr >-< u. < o a: — o in 5" QC >- UJ i- 01 u t— < o ►-. o u. o u. in o CO j-i — > — • Q- 1-. o >-h >- O -• U. 0_ >- 0^ LlJ IjJ 1— I o 3 ~l -I ". cc o UJ - CM CO I- or o o. o o UJ I \T> 2. • O < 0. • L/l Q£ ►* w uj CD - B-21 226-297 0-77-8 LO o IT: MVJ O 4 O o a ;* r- -< o LA — t J -H O CT O LO vO z • * ;T «-l s o o z X LO z tMHHO in o X rO o ifl in o t- LO as r» -< >- LO Ld t- UJ M LLIBK OMC P^O h Km • CX 1 CM — * ^C LO U. < <_> o a- d- r- t> r- _1 z CM —1 k- LO >- LO UJ t- Ld -. LL CD (- Mi" li_ < (J LJ cr ~« CM %D 1*- O d" O 0> O LO <£ r- -l CT- s cr >- UJ i— or o i0 N 3- J H □ <\J i_i O »-i • rt OI » co O LL o CM — 1 (\l J3 o U. z t—4 ■H LO O Ld or — O LO ae 5" or >- Ld >- a: u HH o >-i • l~> LL o O LL z LO O :t ro (\l -i r- c l> jo — 1 cm c -£ 3- J- C JD O LO v? r- -1 o a: >- a- Ld 1- l o CO if) w O-CM O M O >-t • l> -H LO <\J (_) -t LL o OJ — LL z iDCO iCOCO s £1 -( LT Ld 1— 1 u lO CO LO c cr* o LO 0- M O l-l • vO ^ a >- UHlL o y- — LL O z < LL. z CD Z 3 -" -i -" O — LL JD o o o j- o cr LO s? LO ro -i < 0. a: >- o>uj aj i- i (_> cl- r> .-o o Jj o Q ^ — i *-* • C\| -i o LL. >- CD (\J f\) C^ O H H rO OJ s O J- CM » LO OJ .-i >- K Z ^O .H .d" cr l> -h 3 • OJ .-i O o t_> z ~h ~h ^C o ro o d- r- o zt r- 3- lo co >- — < lo oj lo co cr .-, z & 1^ -1 o Ld L/l w S Ld i- a ro v0 0- ro -h ^h ~H CC >- • 3- cv a- ro -h i£ < t- o rt O J3 O CO vO Q_ z •JD w CM —l «H CM z Ld L0 _l ? Ld HCVIIMH^ o o « *H OJ OJ o OftlrtHrtO r- • 3- .-! CM OJ c IP (T H H ^ C LO CM .-I or O CL Ld LO o X or cr cr rr Ld Ld Ld Ld Ld cr rr or 3T CC 3 3 3 3 cr LL (-1-1— ►— Ui o O U LJ <_> "3 l_> O O 3 < < < < dl Lu U. LL LL cr Z 3 3 3 3 uJ « Z Z Z Z X «<<<>— o X 5" s: ■$ o z B-22 OvOOO*DOOOOO(\i>£!OC\,vO c O — <00*HOOOOOCD-*0<\J-H •£> ooooooj-oooltctcmoo ^ i- i/l ,* rvj vD o >- in ui «h t- Ul <-t U. O I— ooocoo-ooccoo^-hoo ^D M (E m • ro J U_ < (_> o O l/l #? ^OOOCT^OOOOCOO^OO-H o ^H^300j^0000r0f^-OO^H CC UJ I -~ OOOOW^OOOOOLOCCOOO o 5- J- UJ _J (— I o ooo^^cmooooco^cooo r» u. h oh • ^-i in r- >- o — < u_ o ~ ooo<\ic\J;*-ooc\jc\j.-hooc\jc\j o _J — I o L» — U. 3 033<-4»HOZ30--t-HJlI33— t^H M a. - inr\jcMino— ooocrOl^c\jo-H r» o o * w ^j o UJ v/l _J 5" UJ _l I— Q_ fliC-HlOmjRIH-KMJ^KlKlJ CO < cr >- • *c c\oo 3- < I— O (M IO CL 2 yi — i j Dji j) iUrt ohn T(\jh yi - B-23 LTCMMOCOOOOCCOOOOOO^DOCO^OOOOO^OCM o ■* cm m to — < o ^cMinooooooooooooooMoooMooooMoj vO ^fOP0OOOOC\ll0^-OOC3OOOCM^-O^-OOOOOOOCM o t— c/i «e to to m o >- 1/1UJ M t- UJ m U. Oh CY^lOOOCDOMsCCMOOOOOOMCMOCMOCOOOOC^M vD MKM ■ »IH d- Ll < C_J O UJ or «» 3-r— o^ooMoo^otooooos-MMMoooooooo;}- o Oc/iaP— icnjcm m o S" or —( >- UJ I— CCO MMrOOOMOOIOCOCMOOOO o V- Ll o UJ rr o — ;fMvOOOfOMMfOvOoOMMOMOioooooMOOOO*B o l/l « H iO PJ O s or -i >- J- UJ UJ V— I l_> Mct-OOOIMMMfMLOOOMMOMOOJOOOOMOOOOin f- 0. mom t rtlMN r- >- u-ill o m ~ U_ Z liJ s C£ — ojr^o- a* lu UJ h- I o Q M M M • cj — Ll o 0> f- 3D M 3 OOiOOCDOMMOOOOOMOOMMOOlO —4 \DlOJ-CMOOOLOCMLnOCMOCMOOOCMOOOOCLOOLOOf^ O K (VlUH O MO^MCOccMMCMOMOMCocMocooccvccvoto to ^DJ3^-OCMOCMinoOOCMOCMCCMOJ-0^OOOC\JOOJ-OCT O ror-cMOMOMi^-oooMOMOMoc\)joooMoocMocr r~- z UJ C/l J?U _l t— Q_ < a >- < I— Q_ UJ o m»~rOMOMMtO;t^DMMC:MOMMfOMMOOMMOMO^C o S? M CM CM o MUDCT'CMMd-IOMinoCMCMMJ-MiriCMOLrCMMMCMtOMJ'MM CO • IT' CX f- M —, cv CM 3- O rO H DC o 0- u. o L/iMfM3-ir>ncocrcDMto*-nvDr^-cooc3MLncooMj-t>-MfOo i/i Z MMMMMMMMMCMCMCMCMfOlOlOlO^J- _l B-24 s Mr o c 0. *s •h a- to ^H X i/> rO CO JJ O O z • 3 o o z X l/l OJ OJ O O O C JO 0' (\) (\J CC lO O O H JO JO HjIMTO —1 t- l/l M —1 U0 CO V l/l LU 1- UJ >-h U. IT 1 »- in r^ o ^ o 1-. or i-i • f\J ^H u. o _j z V l/l UJ l~ UJ ►"■ Ij 10 1- hUh U. < c_) Cj OJ OT rO rO O <\J O OJ. oj to .-i o oniriiCcrf UJ or «■» mo(\i a»o .— ( O l/l & h in m o S or l-H >- UJ i- or u ■o w I s - r- o CO _ o «-< • -H d- .H !"• <_) u. o c u_ z in o Uj or --» o 1/1 ? or >- UJ h- or o HH o »— < l_) Ll o U. jn O o r- r- ^h j- o o ~ h j)h inc l/l iP OJ ro OJ H cr- or cr uj 1 o r~ cr ^\i oj o O M • •H (\1 0w - CT- UJ UJ 1- 1 o CT> XI d- f> O 3 — 4 ~H «— t • ^1 O — U- o LL z O " >C O' i ff H C G l/l a? OJ If) s or >- =f Ul UJ h- 1 O JlPOtMS HOO UJ a >-■ O l-H • UJ UJ 1- 1 _) CO *-< — < —* j- r* r- o oj o o OJ — I lO (\J osjiajHoo — • -h JDiOKllll SP ^ .JO _< JO JO o- OJ O^ 1 or < H or o a Q U_ L0 >- i- z x> o o cr- jo —t cm r- o m .-. m —i 3 r- tvi in to c cv ro OJ (M h- o to o ■ s" h ini\j h cr jo o jo oj u, t^ x to or < UJ >- o I- O O IS J1J 15 < < < < -I l/l i/i i/i or uj x or - UJ >- >- 3 Z Jl Jl ►h to m ~ x or < K I i ui -• > o 3 -i ;r o z z or O UJ t- ar i- o < U. E >- UJ < or a. -a. CL 3 L0 o >- Q 2 n < l-H Q « UJ I in u < D (_) s o 3 Z o >-■ X >- or .H t- or 3 CD CNJ < » UJ i-H < l/l Z z (U • z o CO UJ 0. Eh • t- l/l 0J z UJ w < or _l 5^ « Ct o- ^O 3- cc 3" C —I 0J d- —i MH^JIflC J oj c in —> o o o Z O o o in o or < o ooHinu I co O -H tfl ^H 3 h- rf> rf> f) 1 tf> l/l 1 1 1 ^ z l/l *-4 HHOK J1 o O O O UJ UJ r- tlO>-i>o _l rfi t^ tf* tfl o z UJ Q Z o CL l/l UJ B-25 10 d- -i h itin (ooo ^d X l/l Z o C- "H O O i0 tO Hl^O O vD -0 (- I/) >- in ui 1- UJ hi U_ iD I- U- « (_> * O ifl \0 CM CM * CM CM CM CM a ^(\i woh O CT CM o (- l/l as CM ID CM vuiu hLJM U. K & 1*- o O m!£m • CM -h U. < U o 0T ~ O l/l x or o U_ in o CO vC C h No w ae cm cm cm .h o .0 o CO ^0 rO O X CO CM CM <-< *-l I s - I s - or — N CM O O 0> O l/l se a- a- -h 0^ s or >- UJ HCCU MO CO O CO l_ O •"■ • to to r- o u_ o O lo- z in O l/l O or >- # uj r- 1 u i — i O i—< (.J —i u. *■' Ll o O H ^ (\1 d- J") J") ii"> .O tO CO f- CM -H ~H -H r- I s - h- — r>- cm o r- cm cm or i/l « O CM -H CM « I 0. >- CTMjJ jj t- 1 o rO -O CO t*» 0> -l a o — u. o —l rv. U- z i o o I/! O hH O <£ Q or o Q. Q UJ in 3 cm ro r- it cf in cv cm ro — i c cm a- in cv o s - i0 o -o o «-h ae —i cm to cm or r-t >- * UJ UJ 1— 1 u o r- o o r- a t— t o ►-i • d- CM tH l»- >» (_) -* u_ o i— *^ o z h- Z UJ E t- « -JO -3- f - o or l/l * ^ tO -H cr < or 0. >- CT> UJ UJ 1— 1 o 0* d- r>> -h ■H Q i— i — 1 i—« • —4 — » * r\. i-J — LL o v/1 U. z o o 1-1 Q - ■-i cr (- < Z in to in o to (- D • CM ^ 3- or O o o <_) z a o UJ in UJ a? in O 0> o IO -H O o i/i t- o < 3- a- o> o N 2 1- • CVJ *H J- l/l c UJ z T i/i o 5^ li- CS UJ z o U) UJ o Q in vD in o ^^ cm ae CM CM CM CM nho>huin w a a r- r- UJ I t- r- cc d- o c- z sc 3- ro ~* a- UJ to X UJ 1- 0. in to o >h co ct >- • !CM J ^ < h- o •-( — 1 ro 0. z UJ z UJ a z •si ,nj im tsi rsj o o o o o o a. j> O -O CM CO CO UJ CM CM tO fO tO ct: o a. z o o o z or < I- r- r- <. UJ X IS (— • • • t— i/) rvj tsj t\J Z l/l O O OU< i/i or uj o r» io o o _1 CM CM IO 5" Z >- UJ > Q < Z t- UJ O X ">- X 0. > l/l -« < UJ or uj or X »— l/l or u. 1-H 1- >- UJ < _J 3 (- X ui i/i 1/1 or I 3 or 2? _l UJ U> UJ *—i 5: r- »— T UJ Z O 3 * l/l UJ z l- Z B-26 Z U-) ^1 H ^O HlOM X o IO o s: l-» UJ 3 1- < l/l i X D > • t- »— » M rsi r-~ J"> cc K1 o < s o .-• t- id >— >- UJ X >- X UJ 3 10 > CD O l-H < o H Q CC cr UJ o 1 2 »~< I 1— u o "5 UJ l/l CC l/l UJ O X .—4 K >- UJ CM »-t i/i I 1- < _l 3 r— 1 ct 2 t— Ild'Jl < o • >— X J3CZ CD CL 0. Q X> o UJ -« < r— 1 5T l/l • O 1— 1 s: ■— XI o UJ CVI CD UJ o Z o (T5 (_> CC *4 < s my z B O 5 t- UJ i— l/l l/l I- >- ►1 l/l ■5 l/l l/l 2 Z cr o CC i-c o o o z cc s" UJ O _l o CO < CC I- D a- o O V a_ z CC a o UJ UJ uJ X z Z 3 UJ o X >- "3 o z o 5" • _l o l-H CC C I- 1 1 CC a UJ cr i/i cr >- c CO UJ CL X UJ h- t- < o UJ l- a UJ 1/1 CC _l cr cr z CD I -> I- l/l »-» 3 UJ X a t- UJ l/ 1 IT. 3 >- cr UJ _i CD UJ ac z « z o UJ I O I- H-l Q X < O CC ■-■ X CO o < >-H t- Q cc cr o cc a. cc •CC < <_> • UJ K1 I r i/i z O -I 0' K1 03 cd in -i 03 J- 03 o i- in BE CVI 1^ >- l/l UJ I- UJ •-< u. m i- CVI (V cv. ►-. cc «- • .— < Kl U.4U o _l z cc ~ -in * O 1/1 » rO 03 s cc >- UJ hiru -i r- o ►i O <~- • cvi in o u. o o U. z in o ~ o o o i/i S? 3- 0' cc >- 3- UJ I- I <_> CD -H i0 HI O >-t • r<3 a- D -• -h -■ »-« ro J- cr I/) * a- in CC a^ uj 1 u -H CO CVI —4 *H • -H ^J o m co ro CVJ r-( d- o ai cvi h- HK1 ^ Z i* j- m UJ 1/1 _j 5: uj _I t— 0_ * o a- < C£ V • m o~ -I -4 K1 O a. UJ -c B-27 <-< Ul s: i/i in 2 2 < o cr <-< o 1_> n z < z> a s 5" UJ O -J <_) < :r or o o >- o. Z Uj i-. T I- oo u. to t- U. < (_) K — o on 5" a >- UJ 1— cr o ►—I O M o U_ O b_ in o a* O i/l CM < UJ <_) 5d 1/1 _l I 0", TT u. UJ o 1— - s O 2! a «t 5 • _l o O »-H a Q i- < < a: in >- 3- UJ uJ h- I <_) CL 1H O H-l >- UHU. I- — Ll o cr X uj t- a. UJ l/l < < 2 ID X >-" a H UJ l/l in ""> >- « UJ -1 a- UJ a: 2 - Q X < o cr — < I UJ "3 _i CE O < •— i 1- Q or - < •— Q. UJ < l/l cr 2 tr O U) »-• < h4 2 h- l/l _i HH UJ l/l 2 UJ 1/1 S' < u. OS 2" 3 ar n UJ •-* Li- < UJ £ t- D _l o O _J 5" i/i CD UJ UJ CE O UJ O 0. u. s o o UJ s X l/l o o a: >- > l/l o a. (_) 0_ t- cr o UJ o cr >- Q K z < or -J or — o •- uJ z UJ o < ji a. Tl UJ uJ u_ — > o > UJ ►- i/i s < :> ID _l O in O l/l l/l UJ M h- o 2 o m cr < Z3 2 (J cr O 2 t— a. ►- ** 05 s ~> B-28 r\. o y i- lj t- lo lo ►- >- •-• 1/1 10 i/i z z - 10 LU I- LJ >-t LL O I- U- < U tc •-( —* tr s Ld o _J o < cr t- x> or c o >- a z Ld ►-> I t- 10 LJ tr ~~ o l/l s: tr >- LJ 1— tr o *— < o •— t o u. o Ll IT) O li. LU o t- < K Ld x> a. o Ld a LO w a ^j LJ LJ X 2 z r> Ld O X v 3 C T c <- s • _J o o t~ a o h- - CD CO Ld tr T LU t- t- tr >- * Ld Ld *— 1 U 0. »-< O 1-H >- o - 3> Ld LU h- 1 _) □ — -I -1 Ld LO _l S~ Ld _J t— CL C\l to CM LO r- J- c o CM -H l/l LO 13 3- rr z < z U Ld X O I- Q X <. o tr >-• I ^j ~s _i tr o < M t- a a: < o tr o. tr - Ld •a < Ld T LO o T Q ID a. ID < D tr lo ^J LU tr " h- Z X t- \ Z LJ h- •-> Q tr Ld O _l Z o S Ld _1 «t Lu CL ID cr Ld i— « rr Ld h- o LU r> o < UJ L- C z ID O Ld _l LO Ld LO < et Ld Q 3 cr X 1— Ld i- CL « Z l— Li o 1— n o < z z Z z z tr cr z l/1 O _J o LJ «a O Ld o C3 O I/) tr (- < ce i— Ld ■— < < tr ■s tr o Ld cr Ld O > Q h- Ld r> z a: < l/l > « < o < tr lj 1 - it uj *-t t— tij ■-• ItOh OlD T O vJD H^H • rO 3- (T -» in to r~- O l/l a? in ojh ST or —< >- UJ i- rs o 3 rO c\i fO CO >-< 1-1 ■ d- C\J — c r- u. O O Ll_ z LD O o > ■a O Z «* LO r UJ o UJ or 1/1 cr* cz uj (- 1 a a wow >- UH ll Ul h- „ ar 1/1 a or 0. >oy ^j 1- 1 3 -I -I -t O o CO s or UJ > UJ l/-. T I- o •- r«- LP ro l/l LlI H in ce i*> c: 2 * inivw UJ l/l .H _J £ UJ _j t- a. O CJ CO CO CO < a >- • CT IT LP 3 <: t- ^ ro a. z 7 l/l UJ >- 5" l/l UJ u <: t o r u_ o 2 n UJ L/l 3 or < Ul u. s 3 "3 l/l o 3- o -1 Q a n r c a. 1/1 UJ or or < uj >-> * -I l/l — < 2 S - Z B-30 X I- L/l >- l/l Lu I- UJ >-■ U. IS) t- Ll < o cr — o i/i ?■ ce >- UJ 1— or l_J ►-I o t— » u Ll o Ll in O lt >- 5- uj Id h- I O CL P-l O i-l >- Urt IL h- — U. o (\1 CO L/l X UJ a: in a >- a^ uj .J 1- i u J3 -• -l ~i O — LL LT UJ o rv - S I/) UJ (_> < on O X IL 1_> Z- 3 uJ LA "3 or < o _l :> 1 < 1 UJ Ll 1— 1 :> o r> 0) H l/> o >- EH J- o -c o UJ i-i 3T -d o iJ _i _i O 1- UJ ID CD I—. V l/l 2C Z «X ED Q >- \ — —. Z SI ►— a: or X < -H o LU Q s: s> CL _l UJ O X -i Ll SI o 2 l/l o o l/l UJ UJ a UJ i- m 2 >- « 2 > X — <-4 or >— Ll 1 cj UJ or — H r>- O l/l *e (\) S 0T >- UJ htru rO ~ 1 ■-H O M • 3- CO O > Q Z < l/> a: UJ > Id J LO or ~~ o o Ul i* r\J a> 3: >- 3- LU Ijj a >- 1- 1 o ►-1 O >-l O -H U. o l\l o >— — Ll o Z i- 2 LjJ 0. >- CT> UJ LJ 1- 1 -J 3 ,-* .H *-l IT) CT> or uj > UJ i/i t- 0> 0> z » ~H UJ LA J5 liJ _) 1- D. cv vO < a >- • ■H UJ lD 0. < Ul 1- y- z t/i UJ >- 5: i/i UJ u "4 or o X u. U z 3 n. UJ i/l o 3 or Z - I UJ 5" o u 3 5 H l/l O 3 >- Z -0 En 3- o U. pH Q 1-1 UJ 3 l/l lJ O 3 5" t- UJ < a _J t- 3 UJ < L/l o i- o >- Ll o l-H l/l Q > t- «I l/l l_> ID f— i/i < z 5" Z _i Or ►-• UJ UJ _i 0. »- K- ? < o l/> UJ o or •> UJ >- or o 1- i/i -i y- or < 3 z Q UJ 3 i- a < Z uj a o Z UJ t— o UJ -. UJ uj or or i/i Z 1/1 D or o - J OT iD S)(0 wo oroj-iOcOinror>-:T'0 * — I J- J- rO J- in X in z 3 O OrO^O-nXOrOCMO I- LO v 1/1 uj r- UJ >-i u. lo >- "or ih LL < l_> ccrccro.D'Ocr.rj.oo f\J h- iDf hc X — INC rO<\JroCMCMCM"--< (\jiT3- £ o r^ o cm .n o 1- l/> ,*• cm — i r~ r-- in ro in —i >- l/l UJ r- UJ ►"■ LL CO K o r~- cm £• cm vC 3- * r- o ho:m • — I rO IO CM — 1 CM u.- UJ »- tr o 1-H O •-< U LL corod-r-crorMvOirivD ^■ororor^-^o^nvOCMin • —I —I 1/1 J-l(\| nrt l/l rj> Gr" >- 3" UJ UJ t- ( O 0- *—> C *-4 >- CJ w LL r> vO LC ro lO OM/1 Jfl ■ in j o o 1IO H z> o uj r\. o I/) LU Z Nl O >-> >-i Q < < l_) Q •-4 Z 2 < 3 r- S LA O UJ O UJ l/l u. o o < _l o o or >- <: Q O Z _l < 3 1- O LO 3 Or LO O t- Ll Z U! Q Z UJ O uj a. Z T O UJ <-> I t- Q Z Li < UJ t- K < z O UJ ►-1 ? o a z M n 3 C UJ UJ > < (9 X z uj o 5: _i O O ►H U. O UJ 0. X Z LL < o :» i xrinr-r-ojiooo^c LO>£!:J-fOIOrOrOCM O ff. lO D M rO (\l * IO J ^Or^rOCMrOCMrO'H Q >-l --4 — « ■O CM U 3 in O Jl n ~o cm t\i c\i «h \j cm ^ j) w rj o in n o m o> ^ vC f- J tO CM K) ro CM 3- IT. Klftlrt R| WH JiTifl iDlT J JlfllM roo-HCMf-rOr0.3-roo <\ltOrOlO(\,(\|(\/(\lrJ rocc~HOiD.d-r^orOo CCC JllPlPlTJinn (\lf\)CJHHHHH o in I -I 3 UJ LO Z o Q_ l/l UJ cr /i o >-> i/i o o < >-H < uj or _i M UJ < _l cr :d o o Q. X LO LO 10 a i- uj < uj * UJ -£ — I i o s < LO Z QC • U] ijj o n ^ LO X Z 3 UJ OI/IOH i-i _i i uj z m ccoir-i UJ Cf O U I- 111 Cf 2 hhlXH'Z JUJ4 t-ZUMDOI «0i-i30 or >- 3- UJ t- 1 o »-t O t-t O -H LL o — LL z o Q -i -( -( UJ lO _1 5" UJ ji-a 1/1 niM rO lO CM \0 in w h — I «H /) jl-tmxi- 1 rO.HCM^fiOO'Mr'-O — I j-^Od-ococor^r-mro * -i m cm -h co -i HilO!I>(\| OTJ> J 3 • «H "0 CM ~h oj — i o-roromcMiDin^cMr- JK rt-H IT ^rtdilTH cMtrcMcccT«-ir-r^ccir w c, CM w w ro CMl^o j mrooo jj o ;* -(w 1^-f^^-j-rocM OOO/IJ-OONJ-CMO ro ro cm — i ^ h vDrorocMCMrocrr^roin cj^jioinHNooi/iH vjoir.'-i^cMCj'CMoincM CM CM H ft| l/l LO ? O • X _1 LO «auir ? Q 5" UJ t- UJ - >- >- 2 2 71 I— t— •-" 1-1 i-i i-i Z Z on JJmhU p-r-r-«-t»-«<— r-r>>»-X Oinozz«r t- l/l se rt CO >- l/l UJ I- UJ m U. ID f- oin^ hKh • j- ll - l/l Ul t- UJ i-i U. 10 1- M [CM U_ « <_> J w Jl -* o UJ > u UJ oc UJ Id or — DOOM o o in ae -t CO O s: a. — I >- UJ »-□:(_) O JK1 0> M O l-H • -H vD I s - <_) U. o O U. 2 in o or — mm-* o O l/l je i0 to o ■% a. --t >- UJ t- ttu rO t\l O Lfl <-* o ■-> • * CVJ vO o u. o O LL z m O < — O CO CM o c? l/l or * cr V >- * UJ UJ UJ t- 1 <_> o r^- o^ X CL !-• O *— » • I s - t- >- O — 1 u. o 1— w u z »- c < h- X z 1- UJ o h- ~~ o in in l/l < l/l a: * 0^ l/l a >- 0> Id Ld u 1- 1 o o a- » J3 r>. 3 •-• ~» »— i • I s - < UJ (_) — Ll. o ■./) CL Ll 2 l/l >- O ^ 3- -H lO o l/l se r- cm o a* or — « >- 3- Ul Id 1- 1 o rO i0 3 cr 0. >-i O >-■ • in cm I s - ^ (OOh l/l ae d- in Q£ >- a> uj 1- 1 o C\l * CO — 1 — < >-( • m io :D. —* — * *- I _l X a: t- I t- O l/l M V X l/l 5 o- l/l UJ 5^ -I UJ cr (- S m «=r >- a l/l CJ i/i >- CJ < < > UJ K-H > or <: CL T UJ r> o o t— 1 >- o > o O LJ l/l o • UJ UJ o o *-» »— < _l _l o o a 0. 2 •3 i/i T - •-H -a 2 O H z « 0^ UJ l/l _J 5" UJ _J 1- CL o o co < Q- V • J- CC «! t— o rO 0- z id in r^- CM ~+ ce UJ ■5 1/1 l/l z _l t ■ 3- o 3- o C *S *N. — f\ — C at -h to h- ^O CT rO V l/l UJ r- ID HI LL 15 1- Jl O-MT I « tr >-• • -I rt CM u_ < u o . CO Ul +> cn -h •H CO -H fc, J O «»> if m o UJ tr — w r^- CM O IT rO O H O l/l « d- in kD in r- <\j CM s en to UJ lE O IO CM J3 rO J- "O O O ^0 o •-■ • cr to UJ >- 3" UJ r- UJ i— 1 o ro ro CM «"t O CO — l cc tO l/l Q. •— < O •— < • to to * IO If) a* •o >- V <_> .-< Li. o *-l i/i >— " o z cc t— UJ z _l uJ CO s: s r- -^ lf> O IOSS>£IO ■H < .r l/l 2« 'J3 to in cm r- -< .0 a: i cr (M Q_ >- O UJ UJ I- I J 3 -■ -« -i d o — i Si 3 ao sO O CM -H CM >M en cm ro in r- — i o LO * IT. tO vC CM o ih Sri g o — in in in in — o O r? rs f\ IT- CC IO IT' o- a O CM rt C\, rt (\, cr to rv — — — rsj — c CM O CM I*- CM CM O to r- in vD cm to o — i — I (M O Q l/l UJ l/l O tr OL ID Z >J3 ^D «H in CO •-* —I • ^ -4 iC ft c if: O HH H Hfll in m c c n h c — if, if -c a rr _l o LL r- uj rt X i- o u. •-• o r- l/l X UJ o 3 •-• <3 I 3 1 Z ' >-i cr UJ o l/l l/l u_ z CD UJ o >- 0. J3 rS E-t U_ CD l/l UJ M -H as 2 3 M J o o 1— Q »-H l/l 2 t— UJ UJ O < ^ J) ■> 0- l_) < z z l/l t— 1 t— o ■-• Ul z i/) t— t cr r> i- cr 2 l/l E < UJ q; U. s: uj X a: > UJ o O -i UJ r- O < c_) ar H- l/l l_> i/i VI C£ UJ 1 z or X z _l UJ • CD o O UJ UJ <: < CD Z 33 z 2 Q I 1— 5" uj o o Ul Z t— O o !3 O CC -I Q ~D o 3 r- Z ^ 10 > CO c a +> H w -H h e tg 0) h fi U > 0) > (D Q ■rt CO ■H 1 (n J o o * K) « W 0) J L< f~* CD fM ^ T — «*) C — — f) r* O (> - >- un uj ^ N t- UJ •-• hd:h • LL<(-> O rHOLDvO UJ a: — O 1/1 Jfi CN1 1-^ \0 f"* s: cc 00 >- Id hCCU .-. O ■"-! • !_) U. o 1— I K) \D tO o u_ z tO LO o O C -C L/l u0 «C 3" Lfl t* oo r-j en rH t-. * UJ l o O l-l • OH'JN >- 0^ UJ I- I L) CON^-O X) — 3" 3" -O C G — ill 3- iT rn -o (\! r^ HOCON r^ co rv rv o r-. o — fSi -c o cc — (*t i/t cnj r\, >o ft o \0 v£> OO t"- i-i rH > ij E-i O Lfi — ■< O — ^ ^ Z _ _ r- LO tO ^O OO ■z ae rH r- Ld l/1 _l ? Ld _l t— CL < Ct >- • < h- ^t- 1^ x— i r-- 0. z to I s - .— 1 a, w o • 3 S c3 c B •H <1> -P O L, H CO O ,0 £1 .. O Q 0) C V a. J o & o -> z *H ■* LU l/l l/> I Z Ld O >- 0. CD —4 cc cc CC < < _l c_> CL - i/i lu l- Lu >-• Li. U t- ho:m • Li. rO rO ro o co o • l/l UJ 1- LU •- U. ID 1- C tO rO )-< a: i— ■ ro -i u. o cr — CM rO CM o o .3- ~H O L/l ae m * o s: cc -H LU ce o cr> J — i o o i\j *0 id O >-■ ■ CM CM in IT b. o O li_ z in o ce — O Jv0 O l/l ae ro iD ^ cc >- LU i- tr o ON CM >-H C l-l • cm in (_> u_ o o U_ :: in o l/l ON CC >- J- LU LU H- I O Q_ _ o .-i >- O -I LL I— — U_ O rO CT 1 in O O sD rO rO -> iD -I LU a S 2 1- « o cm o o ro in o < cc I/) a« in * 3 cr < CC —1 o 0. > C^L) Jl ^J i- 1 -J J» O 3 3 -» AJ O X *-4 -H »-* • — 1 -H ■o .u u — U- O !-< O (- O Jl UJ I X <_) O 3 s 1— 1 1 )-H 3 LU o O l/l CM ji r z LU O >- a. ^ • i/i .Q u. o LU cd .-! CM ce En 0* CD CM CM CD i£> o se a- ro -* a ro« ^c N CM r> CO J- O CD o s£ a- ro a> o cr cm -^ o cm 1- \DNNHH(T c z se 3- ro o LU l/l -H _l > UJ _l 1- CL ro r- tfl £ Z t— ^ — C O r- c Li se — * CO o o ce rH >- d- LU • UJ r- 1 o O \D o vC i- a t—t o >-■ • ■H r- dj LU >- o •H Li. o •XL t— — u. z ce o < r— s Z LU LU y I i- *^ ro Si CM a 1- ce < l/l ce * -H CO CD Z 0. ^ O LU o LU ►— 1 O CM CM -t a O — « ^ H-« • —l -o r> "S o — U. o o Li. z z O UJ ce G LU D. O _i Li > LU □ f\. Z ►- LU Z LU LU rr r t- UJ CC > < < CL x u,- Q l/l Z Cl- O 3 >-. o 1- >- < o z t-i ^-t X X l/l DF K r UJ o 5: o _I UJ Z I 1 I t- u _J X -. l/l X co ce o X u_ l- ►-i a S UJ UJ l/l z t- LU «t S - _l LU LU CC X UJ I ►- -H l/l CM —i .-I CM N ro iC ro cr iC ro cc -H CM l/l O UJ O z >- z B-37 226-297 0-77-9 X I/) — I O o t- l/l * >- in Lu 1- UJ >-< U- CD t- mKm • ll.■ UJ i-cr u l-H O H • O U. o O LL z in o ^ CT> -< vD l/l as •O -( cr> a: >- 3- LU t- 1 o h- <\j .-< H-l O 1-1 • O -H U. o ~ rO J- l/l a? 3- —1 or >- O UJ 1— 1 (_) X> 00 O -• H -i o L0 Q O _l LJ > UJ Q r\. z h- Ul Z UJ LU CD 5" 1- uj cr > < « CL T UJ Q l/l Z a O 3 i—i O t- >- < O z z 3 in S t- S. Ul O K O _1 UJ Z X HH 1 T 1- o -I 3 1-1 l/l 3 co ac o T u. l/l z ld < -H l/l CO -i in I- •1 3- in z & J- cv LU l/l _l S" Ul _l I— D_ O -H m <;□:>- • r- 3- - 3 ce z i-i L0 ce <: CL UJ i— 1-1 K- U =; UJ S < o Z _J < b0 Ct CL cc z O l_> ■* s o 5 o K —1 Ul o l_) s 3 _l 1—1 l/l o l_> i— U. 1— 1 s: i/i Ul m 1-1 z z ct er LU CO -i i/i UJ CL U. D < o o l/l o _J o tr ? u. O X LL U. 3 ^ Ul _l LL •-• UJ o ►- o- X) LP o a. to B-38 r 2 j o cr> 3- HOM -H »- l/l >-l/l Id ►- bJ •-> U.OI- U- < o if! CC O X (Mho — K — o i_n 5- ac ~o .c m a- rO ro h- i/i CF cc rO -H in l/l a- ac >- j- bj l- l o « O HH (_) rt LL -H -H J CC ~-i co c x a* .J •» I- -~ o; i/i < ac n >- er UJ UJ i- I o n i-i -i -i oj oo cr in -i ~i ^ ~n <\j I s - CO CM -* 3- >-* o O CM O O ro vC rO vD UJ 1/1 _l 5- bJ _i 1- a s cr> co r- < Ct >- • ~ i^j — 5" bJ O 5- l_) -I UJ 3 X 1 I 1- _J n -1 l/l X) CC ac 3 X u. 1— -i 3 3 UJ UJ en 2 t— bJ 1 *T S 1 -J UJ --H bJ CC CNi I aJ T (D >— .H a .a -I l/l i« C\J i-l H tr o UJ UJ in bJ UJ O a. z < O H UJ -0 2 ~* >» U. CO ^— < < a: bJ O O uj oc a. ~i 2 bJ IS1 >v ar a 3_ H- •— < bJ >I bJ jj O Z l/l S. S l/l a s 3 < O 3 _j — 1- ac Z 3 ,/> _1 3 O O 2 UJ D_ < 2 uO bJ X UJ -■ ac t- 3 0- UJ CL UJ O X < s l/l UJ -£ t- bJ "Z I bJ ►H 3 Q 71 Z "I r o 0. /I UJ QC U. o « fit CD I- s. 003 2 I- Z B-39 :}• CO CM CM O X -4IOH-IH - in ui ~H 1- UJ M U. O h- CO CM to fO c vD >-. or n • CM •-H Ct Ll < o o _l z Z UJ > U! o or — r~ tO s 0> -i O O l/l » to to - UJ i- or o ON ^0 i/i r- —i CO i/l >- o >-■ • CM CM -H r- o <_) u_ o M o u_ Z Q m o < w or U- 13 h- >-< or t-i u_ < u UJ or *-s o l/l S~ or >• Ul t- or u ►— 1 o t-H o u_ o u. i/l o o o o o o o o o c c o o o o o O O -H O O Ul -I cc -~ o d- r- co -h ■4 l/l =* to d- -H (- cr- or or >- * Ul o Ul h- l o to j- tO vD -1 0- CL t— < O -i • CM tO «H y- <_) •H U_ o or y- — u. z o o u_ h- Z l/l UJ UJ 5 t— 1 ►- « d- r- CM I s - O or or 1/1 as CM fO (M —1 UJ < or t- 0- >- On UJ (- UJ i— 1 o o n o> r» o < 3 t— i " * *-t • *-* h 3D CJ — u. z D o z < o 0. or o u. ^ rt*M(MO l/l * •H * CM CM (T> or >- 3- UJ h- 1 o —t * CM CM O >-l O l-H • UJ s: tr- — . ee l/l - On Ul -d 1- 1 o .3 >-i -t -" on h ^ cm in r-l tO CM CM CM SI ON ^o fN. UJ (- 5 z 0- Ui *-* ? 3 1- e or UJ d a to UJ r? o K- 1 O rr or — «i o I >- o 1/ T O U ►h 3 o l/l < or i/i - or < o a a 2 — ' < D- • • l/l ON a o _i 1- 3 o 1/1 i UJ i/i »- u. CM t-l CM r- in r~- a- CNJ S* IO to w •r, IT to co o H iD iO J ftl h Z i* IO tO .-1 -H Ul l/l _l IT Ul ji-a r- h> o — < to - • CM CM ir. d" < i- o rH »H a z t- or >- o w o t- Z or -< >-> o or or i/i or >-< q. o a ui or -• o: "s o_ s: or ct si "D a. o z X >-H IB O HUJOI-O i ?: z < i/i ; r. ? 1- D Z i— i ui r> 5 C 1- Ul or < O Q ? Ul »— i O (.0 CE or «t D X O o V l/l z < •—< T l/l o o 3 t— 4 l/l Q <: l/l or Ul *— i UJ _l _J 0. m 0- < 3 t- l/l or o or 0. Ul 3 UJ o la a. 3 o- s o o u_ z l/l Z)Q o or >- < o o z Q < ^ H- l/l 0> Q -J O 3 1— o T o l/l _J 5" Ul _l K 0. CC CO .-i zt IT o o o o o o o o o o cm ro On On On cm ro —i .h f^ nC r^ in in co ^ cm -< ^ h- O Ul a UJ or t-t >-• o or o: i/i ar MlOOIll ar ho: ! a. y or < v/i l/l 3 o. a z _l x •-< z < < U034 t- HUOI-O o I J Jl/IZ t- B-40 XOCHCvCiD CO O o rO o — ' I l/l z O >P O O -H O C C CM o «e cc -10 — lOOtOOOGCM >D J3 h-c a: •-■ u. < o c\i r- £ cm o ro o ■ IP CM .P -I 3- >- l/l UJ Ll UJ H- Ll < u o cmo^cmgcmoo i o pj j o — t c c cc cc — o c\j r~ O o -h o c O L0 as CO 0> >: cc >- UJ i- cc <_> O CM o to O —I c CM CO M O HH • r- CO r- o Ll O o Ll z IP O Ld CC — fOO^H\DOOOO o O l/l ae CT> o 5" CC _, V LU 1- CC (_) CNJO^HlPOOOO CO •-• o >-. • r- r~ u Ll 3 o Ll Z iP O « CO Jl (\IH o l/l * -H f>- 0> CC >- J- Ld Ld 1- 1 l_> r^ lp o o o 0- >-H O l-H • —i ^i >- o — i Ll O l/l LT> CC >- 3 Ld I- I o hH O 1-H • O -i Ll O — Ll Z O IOK1CO\CCOHC w *■ CO O CMCMvP>POO~HO Ld 5 H — tc l/l < CC 0. >- CT Ld ll] 1- 1 LJ 3 -H W »-« cm cm r- co o cm I s - cc * -i ^0 CT> U — Ll O in H lO CO o h -o w — 1 o_ >- p y Ld >— I O O -< -H •-. CMOOlOCMCMCMr- CO Pl^DJ-O— l-H— lO — « O 1 ^ J J)o toco -I IP o .* — i ip a- C cm cm r- cr j- r* cc C0OCMOOCMOCG O^ *> ,H IP rt 0> ICHjjOHCK C\J ro t~- 3- vD o o o d£ -H CM IP J-^H^OOOOOO K O LP CM C^ O CM CM O Z * w ^ %0 cr LU LP — i _) 5" Ld _l t- a O O O <£> O O CT> in CO < CC >- • 3 CM IP CO —1 r- 3- h i- • « mo —i ip < l— O CM rO 0. Z Ld O Ll O iP Ld CL CT- >- 1- O ►- (- Ld CO <3. J1 PI 1.1 T Z i.i 2 o It >- fl- rH • ip .q Ll O Ld irt •—, CM CC EH Z Ld Ld < O * O s z o -• 1 1-H 1-1 X cc Ld r\J Z O LU Z 1 >- — 5 •-1 z cc cc l/l l/l JODOU1 cc Z _l < mu <> Ld < - 1- o 1- 1- Ld CM < l/l X i/l Z CD 3 cd t-i Ld S o >■ Ll 3- 0. IP Ld i-i CM cr z O o X CC CC LL Ld NJ z o Ld Ld o Z 1 >- *- Ll £ -• z cc cc Ld iP IP cc _l o D Q Ld Tr a: z _l LU < CO o <5 > Ld 0- < < CD ^ cc a <_> _l X t— S _1 ct LU t— i *-* *— o o o r> - l/l Ld .-) 1- Id M U.OI- oin h •D .-t or •-< • 3- J- li.- l/l Ld CO 3" t- Ld >-• ■H (V Li. ID t- • "ir« o> ij. < o LJ cr -~ o UO ^ cc >- Lu t- or O t— • o i— t (J LL o U_ in o OIO 1/1 CO UJ a: « o l/l s cr >- id h- ar o >-* o »— * o u_ o u_ in o '71 * 3-* On lC v^y t- l (_> om in t-l O >-H • 1^ U-IlL o w [J. z o l0 a> or >- rf- Ld u 1- 1 o CL >-< O >-l — * o o o O in ;* X) (M o ar *-* v (MJ t- 1 l_> OKI 00 — 1 — « *-H *-« • •o J- (J — u. o Li. 2 3 -. w ^ < or 0* 0. >■ 0> Ld 0> Id 1— 1 O • Q r-i H *H ct- I u Id a Id CD t- o o o z At 0> -H Ld l/l 5- Id t- 0. on in tt >- • —i io <. \~ O ro 0. 2 Id or o u. Ld CD id l/l JSU1 _i i- a - < I- o. Ld l/l • • 3 cr- D o o in 1- >- r j l/l o Ld O >- X) u_ in i-l C\J l/) 1 O 3 t- O X u_ in •-• CVJ Ld l/l 2 O Cl l/l ■* or o Ld s: s: z s 3 ■d •X. •Jt l/l s: 5: 2 cc 2 1-4 f-H Id 1— < !3 < X 2 Q z o Ld < (— 1 O o O I 5- s: 5: s: Q 2 B-42 in -o -* * o t- in >- l/l Id CC 1- Id 11 r^ LL l£> t- • mKh CO ll « o cc o -* •- i/i >- 1/1 uj I- Ld 1-1 U. 15K M 0T M ll ■ Ld O httU • i-i O i-i ^0 o ll o ll iT) O — i * J ^o bJ cr — o i/i s or XI V- Id r- KCtU • ■-■ C •-• o <-) Li. — * O Ll in o < o < ^ □ l/l UJ 3* cr r^ -D l/l V J- UJ cm H o UJ 1- 1 u • a i-i O •— vD LJ >- o ^ u. CD i— — u. o 2 i— < Z u UJ «-< CO r-4 <£ l/l c* cr >- 3- UJ <- I (_) 1-1 O >-H UHU. < cr -^ 3D ~H UJ 0. >- 0> UJ m .-t cr Ld 1- 1 LJ • UJ Q —i -i —i c\l X u — ll 2 u. o 1— z t—i c 0- <- >- a J- CL - o 2 • o_ >- ty ui uJ i- I o Q »-i ^H .-« UJ l/l _i s: uj _i t- o. < or >- o. a UJ l/l UJ o Q CO z • • o C* _l DP o 3 in CM 1— Jl o X UI yi z 0) XI id Eh Ld • o >- LL CD in 0. l/l UJ 1-1 <\j or 3 cr O UJ ^ 5" z 3 r> _o *c l/l i/i s 5: z or z i-i i-< UI 1- < 3 < X z Q z o UI < ■—« O o o i s: s: s: s o z o Q k0 z • • o CT> _l u O 3 in h- o X l/l a) UJ • X! Eh Ll in i-i (M 2 X o Ld S 5" z ^ 3 rs ->c L0 E ^ z w —« Ld 1- <: X z Q Z - l/> III t- 111 t— 1 Ll. tD 1— ►— 1 cr t— • Ll < o t- l/l se J JIMMOIMJH o >U1 lu to h- LU —> lL 15 t- ^C(\jJ(CrHC^,C cm iC Mai-. • IM(\|HOrtrt(\| d- j LL « U o w cr ~ o in y X *- ij t— rr u i— < o ►H o U_ o ll in o J3fOinf^cC33*Lf)K^ SR 3-d-^d- tO -O -* DctCM^->0Or^CMCM rO rOrf to to CM ~* l/l O X >- ;t LU LU 1- 1 o a >-i o •-■ >- u-iu. i— — u_ o >— z UJ r>. s n t- « LU cr l/l o < .-r < a >- & LU _i UJ 1- l o Q. O »— « ■ — ■ •— • UJ o — Ll cr Ll o u CD K l/l -1 s >- >- z Ui 3 T o 1- o Ul IX o u. I.I CD ~- jh a- s)rt in w corn _n * J- & -• • IOK)(M * to to -* ll o — Ll Z vO CM -H ~H rO -( -H O UJ ^a -n o n w c\j cc as to in —I rO to C\J in CM O — Ll O CO 3 'D f- -H iT) CM Al J HM A) CM ea-uicomvDincocvi CM PO -H CM CM CM Mni>rtJN-liO J it * rt c\i —( in cu ^••-iCT>OCMC03-w. CM CM -^ CM -* LU LU l/l LU LA _J X LU _i t- a < t- d-lflrtlOCOJCOH d- 3- CM a lO IO —I h-CMCOJ-lOvDIOCOin ICMCCCflJiDJx l/l o >- CT> _1 O 3 I- o X Ll in -i CM o •£ cr LU O LU LU s s: z £ z J1 3 3 * yi X 5T r z r 1- Z t-» >— « LU t- < LU z < X z n z > o LU < H4 o o o UJ y ?■ s: s: 7T Q z z o a. i/i -^ i- > ir> I— LU UJ Z i-H Z z Q cr LU LU >-i UJ Z o >: i_> i- s o s 0. Jl o a. a. — ►- -< z > *-* i/i z 3 «t 3 LU l/l LU o cr lu C3 cr LU 5T UJ t- _l 01 UJ -« CL *-* cr cr u_ U <-" LU _I CD LU _l u O Z 3 _l < o _l -1 3 UJ C3 032 ? rn < U1 yi cr 3 LU — ' ro c c I- i/l >- l/l UJ I- UJ t-4 U. O t- 1-. ce >-i U- < u O 3- O O h- to V i/l Ul ►— LJ »~t Ll O »— 4—4 a •— < U. «r cj i/> O 10 ?: :> cr UJ >- UJ _l t-CfU CD .-. o >- o u a. IT o u. a. in o i/i 3 o »— ' or ji laJ o< a: l/l >- 3- UJ UJ ►- i o 1- 0. 4-4 O >-4 l/l >- UHL. O (— — li_ s: o • ^~ or >- 2 4-4 cr UJ Id O s I o >— *"* UJ >- 2 (J O 2 UJ i/l 3 < O UJ Ui UJ U. I cr t- UJ »- X 3 -4 -H -* c_> — U. UJ cr — O l/l s a: >- UJ 4- cr o 4— < O 4-4 o u_ o u_ If) o rtjoc iniowo l/l l/l cr cr cr o in cr - 3- UJ i- LJ \- 1 o ■ u — < Ll_ 0. I— ^ U. UJ O cr 2 u UJ _j 5 M K — . n ce i/l o - cr UJ UJ 4— i o □ 3 rH w^ —4 j L) — u. UJ u. 2 o n 2 < C? u >- 3 <\ 3- O <\J -J 1- CO r o - cr o a o «a Q u UJ •-■ cr 2 -4 S O 0. 2 '-i •-< D GJ O UJ I 3 LT UJ < £ u 1- 1-1 cr 2 «t z> 1 CL 5 UJ ST UJ ^ 3 O l/l <_) 2 •IJ UJ o ul I 0. Q rj O H 1/1 X »-« llJ t— s a: rsi IM X X M S S X S d- o t>- r- J1 o —i :* cr _l ID 1 1 LU < 1 o a I 1— O ID J") i— o lO -H * O 1— 2 2 UJ 4-i cd cr o o < i/l u. CL ^ «t O l- l/l UJ 2 l/l cr a •-4 >- UJ UJ »- ? lp i- cr O jj < > i- o UJ UJ l/l 2 a. _i X >■ 4-4 UJ -4 i- yi i- cr cc >-■ o o "S i3 > UJ s 2 _l cr 4-1 cr 1-4 Q < i- o CD UJ M o =• O UJ _i ^ - UJ 2 u_ => z UJ O 2 < O 2 Q 3 U. Q B-45 I l/l z 2 O -I CM 0> >- l/l bJ t- Id n ll o t- ►— t or ii u. < o cc cm uj or — o l/l UJ Z o 1 s o u l/l a* ar >- j- uj i- l o n O >i < ar Q_ >- CT> UJ U I— I O 3 i -i -i o — u_ CO :± CO -I CM CT> -I CM vD CI h- LO o UJ o UJ z o 5 o o UJ l/l _l S UI _i i- a. < c y < t- 0. UJ o t— z a -/I O 2 1— t c < tn s 2 o or < l/l o < K CC UJ t- o o * ►- n • i U_ _l l/l (_) i < UJ < o s. CD 0_ uj or 3 4 0_ o ►- O l/l z l/l z o CM CO 10 <=£ jn •N. _l s i/l uj _1 UJ LA HI n UJ UJ UJ Ln co CO or i or cr 3 O O l/l i— _i UI U. or 5T UJ 0. - UJ * V — 0. ^ n » 0. l/l ar or i/i lo i/i ui -r l/l l/l 3 or 3 UI i l/l z o * i— - 1- UJ l/l CO UJ UJ UJ u. - o s :> I z a or s o u or or o z h- o o < 1/1 CD X o. « l_> 0. 0- i o z z B-46 D o x T t- < O X o X Z h- i/i V rn UJ 1- UJ »-* U. i- 1— 1 x 1— 1 Ll < o UI £ UJ 0- *~ x> — or- >- ui hjh I- cr u 1-1 O M •j\ Z u u_ Z O 3 U. O i-i ^ o i-h (- "■" >- LO < UJ O 3 ■- a ~ z ~ tfl o in s or i0o 3^ :r d- o S UJ U) K t U O I- £L i-l O M o in >- o ~* u. >- CT> Id A lO r> Z O •-" ►i o C£ UJ UJ U) LIZ > y- *- I- ? l/> O 3 O Z C £ <-> cr UJ o I 1- o z u_ •-• O D UJ UJ uj ui y- z z < o •- n m 10 UJ < i/i ID Ul z cr i-i Q. cr x t- O UJ z ,_ UJ l/l i-h O _l 5- UI z x _i •- CL O 3 « C>- y < H UJ 0- o u"i ui ui o a IS] X m re cr < ui cr z (^ -> <-> i-. CM D^ o ^ < Q uj cr ui i_n o UJ 2 L/l Z 5 £uj Q. D(- •9tO Ul UJO B-47 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977 U4-M) ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PUBLICATIONS ON NATIONAL CRIME AND RELATED SUBJECTS Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing OH ice, Washington. DC. 20402 Dear Sir: Please add my name to the announcement list i I new publications to be issued on the above subjects 'including this NBS series): Name Company Address _ Citv State— . Zip < ode (Notification key N-351) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards Washington. DC. 20934 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for Private Use, $300 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ADDDDTnnSIS POSTAGE AND FEES PAip US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-218 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK