**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 03-264         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Biennial Regulatory Review --    | ) |                              |
| Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 | * |                              |
| and 90 to Streamline and         | * |                              |
| Harmonize Various Rules          |   |                              |
| Affecting Wireless Radio         | * |                              |
| Services                         | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**THIRD REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 18, 2008 Released: March 21, 2008**

**By the Commission:**

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. Introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND 6

III\. discussioN 11

A. Power Spectral Density (PSD) Model 12

B. Proposed Increases to Maximum Radiated Power Levels 27

C. Peak vs. Average Radiated Power Limits 33

D. Other Service Rules 43

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 56

A. Congressional Review Act 56

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 57

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 62

D. Contact Information 63

V. Ordering Clauses 64

APPENDIX A \-- Final Rules

APPENDIX B \-- List of Commenters

# Introduction

1.  On July 22, 2005, the Commission adopted a *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*[^1] in a proceeding commenced
    in 2004 to streamline and harmonize certain licensing provisions in
    the wireless radio services (WRS).[^2] In the *Further Notice*,[^3]
    the Commission sought comment on certain proposed amendments \--
    particularly the proposed changes introduced into the record by CTIA
    -- The Wireless Association (CTIA)[^4] \-- to our radiated power
    rules for Part 24 broadband personal communications services, which
    operate in the 1850-1915/1930-1995 MHz bands (PCS), and for certain
    Part 27 services, namely the so-called advanced wireless services
    which operate in the 2110-2155 MHz band (AWS).[^5] The Commission
    also sought comment on whether the proposals should be applicable to
    other services, such as Part 22 cellular, additional Part 27
    services operating under a flexible regulatory framework, including
    the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, as well as other services
    specifically addressed in certain parties' submissions in this
    docket.[^6] Additionally, the Commission considered whether changes
    to other technical rules might be warranted in conjunction with
    changes to the radiated power rules.

2.  In an April, 2007 *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*,[^7] we combined various proceedings, including the 700
    MHz Commercial Services proceeding, the 700 MHz Guard Bands
    proceeding, and the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding, to establish
    rules governing wireless licenses in the 700 MHz Band. We also
    incorporated into the 700 MHz proceeding (WT Docket No. 06-150) the
    issues raised in the *Further Notice* in the instant proceeding (WT
    Docket No. 03-264) as they pertain to the 700 MHz band, and extended
    certain relief requested by CTIA to the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band. This relief included the implementation of a power spectral
    density (PSD) model[^8] and modifications to our rules to permit
    radiated power to be measured using "average" rather than "peak"
    values. We declined, however, to adopt CTIA's request that we double
    base station radiated power limits in both rural and non-rural areas
    before implementing a PSD model for the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band.

3.  In the *Second Report and Order* in the 700 MHz proceeding (WT
    Docket No. 06-150), which also resolved radiated power issues
    initially raised in the Commission's 2005 *Further Notice* in WT
    Docket No. 03-264, the Commission specified power limits in terms of
    PSD limits for 700 MHz public safety broadband operations, thus
    enabling higher power signals from wider band technologies and
    creating a more technologically neutral environment.[^9] The
    Commission also specified that power for 700 MHz public safety
    broadband operations must be measured in terms of average rather
    than peak values, resulting in a more accurate measure of the
    interference potential for wider band technologies.[^10]

4.  In this *Third Report and Order*, we maintain regulatory parity and
    extend relief recently afforded the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    and 700 MHz public safety broadband operations by adopting certain
    amendments to the PCS and AWS rules governing radiated power levels.
    We continue to believe that streamlining and harmonizing our rules
    will clarify spectrum rights and obligations for these WRS
    licensees, optimize flexibility for current and, more importantly,
    future WRS licensees, encourage the development of new technologies
    and services that will benefit the public, and fulfill our statutory
    mandate under Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the Act).[^11] Accordingly, in the PCS and AWS rules, we:

-   Supplement the radiated power rules with a PSD model and specify
    licensee coordination requirements, while declining to double
    current radiated power levels prior to application of the PSD model;
    and

-   Modify our rules to permit radiated power to be measured and
    expressed using average\
    rather than peak values.

5.  For the reasons explained below, we decline to adopt similar
    modifications to the radiated power rules for other commercial
    services, including: Part 22 Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Part
    27 2.3 GHz WCS, Part 27 2500 MHz Broadband Radio Service
    (BRS)/Educational Broadband Service (EBS), and the Part 27 1670-1675
    MHz band. With respect to operations in the 1670-1675 MHz band, we
    do, however, address the existing waiver granted to OP LLC, a
    subsidiary of Crown Castle International Corp. (Crown Castle).[^12]

# BACKGROUND

6.  Since the release of two biennial review reports \-- the *2000
    Biennial Review Report*[^13] and *2002 Biennial Review Report*,[^14]
    the Commission has undertaken modification or repeal of certain
    regulations by issuing notices of proposed rulemakings.[^15] In the
    Report and Order portion of the item adopted in this Docket on July
    22, 2005 (*Streamlining R&O*), the Commission amended Parts 1, 22,
    24, 27, and 90 of the rules to modify or eliminate certain
    provisions identified, in part, during the Commission's 2000 and
    2002 biennial regulatory reviews.[^16] As the Commission stated,
    while many of the amendments were "technical in nature and/or
    limited in application to a particular WRS, they nonetheless
    \[were\] consistent with our goal to harmonize rules and streamline
    the licensing obligations for all WRS licensees by eliminating
    unnecessary rules, as appropriate."[^17]

7.  The Commission deferred consideration of certain modifications to
    the radiated power rules and, under the Commission's general public
    interest standard, issued the *Further Notice*.[^18] The Commission
    found that, while some aspects of the CTIA Proposal had
    "considerable merit," the Proposal raised issues that warranted
    further study and evaluation and a more comprehensive record to
    enable us to "craft a clear and workable radiated power rule that is
    not unduly burdensome."[^19] Briefly stated, there are three
    components to the CTIA Proposal: (1) application of a PSD model to
    PCS/AWS radiated power levels; (2) a doubling of the current PCS/AWS
    radiated power limits as a baseline figure before applying a PSD
    model; and (3) the ability to meet the radiated power limits on an
    average, rather than peak, basis. More specifically, for PCS and AWS
    stations operating with an antenna height of up to 300 meters above
    average terrain, CTIA proposes that equivalent isotropically
    radiated power (EIRP) limits for base stations would be capped at
    the larger of either: (1) 1640 watts average EIRP for non-rural
    areas, 3280 watts average EIRP for rural areas (without application
    of a PSD model in either scenario); or (2) applying the PSD model,
    3280 watts/MHz average EIRP for non-rural areas, 6560 watts/MHz
    average EIRP for rural areas.[^20]

8.  As explained in the *Further Notice,* we believe that the CTIA
    Proposal is appropriately evaluated in terms of its three
    independent but related components.[^21] Accordingly, we sought
    comment on the application of a PSD model independent of any
    baseline changes to the numeric power limits recommended by CTIA. We
    also invited comment on the CTIA Proposal to increase the maximum
    radiated power for emissions at the wider bandwidths independently
    of implementing a PSD model.[^22] Finally, we sought comment on the
    CTIA Proposal to permit licensees to meet the radiated power limits
    on an average, rather than peak, basis.[^23]

9.  The *Further Notice* also sought comment on alternatives to the CTIA
    Proposal, including "stepped" radiated power limits that might be
    simpler and accomplish the same objectives.[^24] We expressed
    concern about how substantial changes to our radiated power rules
    might affect other related technical rules. For instance, we
    questioned whether the proposal would serve the purpose of balancing
    the interference potential of various known and future technologies,
    as well as the relative coverage or performance of wideband versus
    narrowband systems, and considered whether we should revise existing
    rules designed to limit interference.[^25] Furthermore, as CTIA
    requested that the proposed changes be mirrored in the Part 27 rules
    governing AWS systems, we sought comment on whether we should adopt
    any or all of the proposed changes for AWS, as well as for other
    services, including the Part 22 Cellular Radiotelephone Service,
    Part 27 700 MHz[^26] and/or 2.3 GHz WCS. We also specifically sought
    comment on possible application of the CTIA Proposal to the
    1670-1675 MHz band in light of Crown Castle's request that the
    Commission increase power levels for stations operating in that
    band.[^27]

10. Nine parties filed comments,[^28] seven parties filed reply
    comments,[^29] and six parties filed *ex parte* letters[^30] in
    response to the *Further Notice*.

# discussioN

11. Commenters generally supported the CTIA Proposal and its application
    to PCS and AWS, and did not oppose evaluation of the CTIA Proposal's
    three components individually, as described above.[^31] We are
    adopting changes to our rules with respect to two of the three
    components of the CTIA Proposal. We address the proposal to
    implement a PSD model to the PCS and AWS radiated power rules in
    Section III.A, below. In Section III.B, we discuss the proposal to
    increase the maximum radiated power for wideband emissions,
    notwithstanding the implementation of a PSD model. In Section III.C,
    we address the measurement of radiated power in terms of average
    rather than peak values. In Section III.D, we explain our decision
    to apply the changes we adopt today only to PCS and AWS, as defined
    above, and, while declining to amend the radiated power rules
    applicable to the 1670-1675 MHz band, we discuss our decision to
    maintain the conditional waiver granted Crown Castle in February,
    2007.

## Power Spectral Density (PSD) Model 

12. *Background*. The current radiated power rules for PCS and AWS
    measure EIRP per emission, and limit base station power \-\--
    regardless of bandwidth size \-- to 1640 watts peak EIRP for antenna
    heights up to 300 meters height above average terrain (HAAT) (3280
    watts peak EIRP for rural areas).[^32] CTIA states that the current
    rules favor narrowband emissions systems and penalize systems using
    wideband emissions.[^33] According to CTIA, systems operating in
    narrower bandwidths are effectively permitted to operate with higher
    power spectral densities than those operating in wider
    bandwidths.[^34] For example, a licensee deploying three 200 kHz
    GSM[^35] emissions in a 1.25 MHz bandwidth could transmit up to
    three times the aggregate power of a licensee deploying a single
    1.25 MHz CDMA[^36] emission in the same bandwidth. CTIA contends
    that wideband technologies such as CDMA, Wideband-CDMA (WCDMA), or
    OFDM[^37] are disadvantaged by the per-emission power constraint in
    the current rules.[^38] CTIA's concerns echo comments submitted to
    us by other companies earlier in this proceeding.[^39] CTIA proposes
    implementation of a PSD model with radiated power levels calculated
    on a "watts-per-MHz" basis, yielding power limits that increase
    proportionally with bandwidth. CTIA asserts that this proposal would
    not only address the broadly-recognized need to "level the playing
    field" for wideband emissions systems, but would also facilitate
    deployment of wideband technologies and result in lower costs.[^40]

13. We acknowledged the industry's concerns about the current EIRP rule
    and agreed that the PSD model has merit. As we stated in the
    *Further Notice,* "the Commission seeks to promulgate rules that are
    'technology neutral' because we believe that ideally it is in the
    public interest for competing telecommunications technologies to
    succeed or fail in the marketplace on the basis of their merits and
    other market factors, and not primarily because of government
    regulation."[^41] The CTIA Proposal nonetheless raised various
    concerns. For example, it left unresolved the issue of whether
    systems using narrowband emissions (such as GSM and TDMA) would be
    capped at an EIRP below what is permitted by the current rule.[^42]
    It was not our intent to reduce the radiated power limits for
    narrowband systems, and thus we noted our assumption that the
    current radiated power limits (1640 watts EIRP non-rural, 3280 watts
    EIRP rural) would be unchanged for narrowband emission types.[^43]
    However, in seeking comment, we asked whether the PSD feature should
    be applied for narrowband emissions as well as wideband
    emissions.[^44]

14. We also expressed concern about the PSD model's potential to result
    in increased interference, given that the practical impact of PSD is
    to allow proportionally more radiated power for wideband
    systems.[^45] We questioned whether the CTIA Proposal is so complex
    that it might lead to "practical difficulties in compliance."[^46]
    In addition, we asked for comment on whether the PSD model might
    "inadvertently affect new and evolving technologies unequally," a
    result that is contrary to our interest in establishing rules that
    are technology neutral wherever possible.[^47]

15. In the *Further Notice,* we also stated that a rule that sets a
    different radiated power limit for wide emissions than for narrow
    emissions "must define which emissions types are wide and which are
    narrow, and the basis for that classification."[^48] Systems using
    emissions that have a bandwidth wider than 1 MHz, we observed,
    generally use their entire spectrum contiguously in each cell,
    whereas systems using emissions with a bandwidth less than 1 MHz
    use, at each cell, a number of narrower channels separated by
    several channels not used in that cell.[^49] We explained our belief
    that if a technology is developed using 500 kHz-1 MHz bandwidth, the
    technology is more likely to use different channels at different
    cells like other narrowband systems, rather than a spread-spectrum
    approach as is typically used in wideband systems. The *Further
    Notice* invited comment on whether we should use 500 kHz, 1 MHz, or
    some other emission bandwidth as the dividing point between narrow
    and wide emissions in conjunction with adoption of a PSD model.[^50]

16. Finally, in the *Further Notice,* we observed that implementation of
    the PSD model as proposed by CTIA "would define power limits based
    on a sliding scale with a potentially infinite number of linear
    scaled limit values."[^51] We therefore sought comment on a
    "stepped" approach, establishing specific power limits for
    particular bandwidth ranges, as an alternative to CTIA's proposed
    sliding scale approach.[^52] We asserted that a stepped approach
    could easily be codified in table form, and provided illustrations.
    We offered variations of our suggested alternative approach
    involving stepped limits,[^53] and invited comment on these and any
    other alternatives in addition to CTIA's preferred sliding scale
    watts-per-MHz approach.

17. In response to the *Further Notice,* commenters echo CTIA's
    complaint that the current rules penalize wideband systems over more
    narrow ones, and endorse use of a PSD model and urge its adoption to
    "level the playing field."[^54] According to Qualcomm, technology
    neutrality adopted around the world has "enabled advanced,
    spectrally efficient CDMA technology to develop and flourish."[^55]
    Qualcomm claims that CDMA technology is now the basis for the latest
    generation, the third generation of modern wireless services, and
    that there is no reason to disfavor systems based on this technology
    in base station power limits.[^56] Sprint Nextel contends that the
    current rules "may unfairly restrict the deployment of wideband
    technologies by requiring more new cell sites than necessary or
    reducing coverage areas from the same number of sites as deployed in
    today's cellular systems."[^57] Furthermore, it argues, while other
    power limit measurements are possible, a "watts-per-megahertz
    approach is one absolute measurement that is relatively easy to
    derive."[^58]

18. In concurring that PSD limits are technology neutral, Powerwave adds
    that the PSD technique will provide licensees using or migrating to
    wideband schemes with sufficient "flexibility to bring newly
    emerging video and high speed data services to market."[^59]
    According to Powerwave, "\[u\]nless power levels are indexed to the
    expanding bandwidths required for new mobile offerings, licensees
    that are operating on fixed carrier power will be forced either to
    serve fewer subscribers or to reduce their areas of coverage."[^60]
    While Powerwave states it is possible to maintain subscribers and
    coverage areas by "increasing the number of base stations or
    creating small cell sites," it contends this option is not viable
    because it would require re-configuring the existing cellular
    infrastructure -- a prohibitively costly venture for "most
    licensees," further compounded in some cases by "contentious zoning
    issues" that arise for tower construction.[^61]

19. CTIA emphasizes that rural areas are particularly affected by the
    current rules that "artificially constrain more modern technologies
    . . . that increase network efficiency and decrease the cost of
    deploying new services by expanding coverage over larger
    areas."[^62] It notes that "many GSM/TDMA providers are or soon will
    be evolving their networks to WCDMA."[^63] By restricting
    permissible power levels of a wider band offering such as WCDMA,
    CTIA argues, the current rules force providers either to
    "reduce\[e\] the coverage area under the current base station
    configuration or . . . obtain new cell sites in order to match
    existing coverage."[^64]

20. With regard to narrow emissions systems, CTIA acknowledges as
    legitimate the concern that, with implementation of a pure
    watts-per-MHz power limit, narrowband service operators would be
    subject to a lower power limit under the proposed rule than what is
    permitted under the current rule.[^65] As Ericsson also states:
    "Requiring a GSM system that can operate multiple carriers in a
    single MHz to comply with the same \[watts-per-MHz\] limit applied
    to broadband systems would force these carriers to operate at a
    fraction of the power permitted for broadband."[^66] To address this
    concern, rather than drawing any specific line between narrowband
    and wideband emissions, CTIA proposes what it calls a "savings
    clause provision for narrowband emissions" -- which it alleges is a
    simpler solution that avoids disrupting operations involving
    existing narrowband technologies.[^67] Specifically, it proposes to
    permit licensees to choose the larger of: (a) the existing rule's
    power limit; or (b) a PSD watts-per-MHz limit.[^68] CTIA claims that
    under such a rule, "narrowband emissions such as AMPS or GSM would
    be treated as they are today without a concern that a watts-per-MHz
    limit could lower existing permitted radiated power limits."[^69]

21. Commenters generally agree with giving narrowband operators a
    choice.[^70] Ericsson states that "modifying narrowband emissions
    limits strictly based on a PSD model and implementing varying limits
    for different narrow bandwidths could adversely impact these systems
    and . . . result in the reverse effect of the current rule."[^71]
    Commenters do not all agree with the Commission's proposal to
    establish a dividing point between narrowband and wideband emissions
    for purposes of allowing use of PSD. According to Ericsson, for
    example, a demarcation point or eligibility test like the one
    described in the *Further Notice* is "unnecessarily restrictive and
    could actually undermine the goals of the CTIA Proposal."[^72] On
    the other hand, Motorola and Powerwave indicate their support for
    allowing stations with bandwidths of greater than a specified amount
    to be governed by PSD limits, while allowing stations with
    bandwidths below the dividing line to operate at 1640 watts maximum
    per emission, as they do at present.[^73]

22. With regard to our concerns about CTIA's proposed sliding scale
    approach, CTIA responds that a pure watts-per-MHz approach is
    forward-looking, easily understood within the industry and would not
    result in the complexity that the Commission fears.[^74] The
    calculation, it contends, is simple, straightforward and technology
    neutral. CTIA states that equipment manufacturers and spectrum
    licensees who would be subject to the radiated power rules are
    sophisticated entities engaged in the technology world, and it is
    "highly unlikely" that a wireless service provider would be unaware
    of the emissions bandwidth operating on its own system.[^75] CTIA
    opposes the stepped approach described by the Commission, claiming
    that it entails arbitrary line drawing "that could hamper future
    technologies."[^76]

23. Commenters unanimously favor adoption of the system proposed by CTIA
    for PCS and AWS based purely on watts per MHz; none endorses a
    system of fixed (stepped) power levels. Motorola, for example,
    believes that the potential for confusion arising from use of the
    sliding scale approach is "overstated and, in any event, does not
    supersede the importance of developing a technology-neutral
    approach."[^77] While the "stepped" framework may serve the
    industry's current needs, Ericsson observes, it will not provide
    flexibility to allow for future technological developments.[^78]
    According to Ericsson, the stepped approach entails "unnecessary
    regulation" while CTIA's sliding scale proposal will provide an
    "optimal range of flexibility in which existing technologies may
    operate and new technologies emerge" - with resulting benefits to
    wireless consumers.[^79] Ericsson anticipates that a rule based on
    fixed steps would likely require that a new limit be added to the
    series for each new technology, "forcing needless delays in
    introduction of new technologies and creating additional regulatory
    uncertainty."[^80]

24. *Discussion*. Consistent with our decision in the *April 700 MHz
    Order*, and based on the record developed in response to the
    *Further Notice* in Docket 03-264*,* we adopt a PSD model for
    defining EIRP limits for PCS and AWS base stations. As noted in the
    *April 700 MHz Order*, we believe that this model will better
    accommodate newer technologies employing wider bandwidths \-- by
    establishing EIRP caps on a "per megahertz of spectrum bandwidth"
    basis rather than on a "per emission" basis.[^81] We find that a
    stepped approach is not warranted, and we agree with CTIA and other
    commenters that application of a sliding scale, watts-per-MHz
    approach to radiated power in these flexible bands is more likely to
    encourage innovation and will not require modifications as new
    technologies emerge.

25. Based on our finding that narrowband licensees should not be
    required to operate below current EIRP limits, we establish a
    bandwidth dividing line for purposes of applying PSD in the modified
    rule. Consistent with our recent amendments to our radiated power
    rules in the *April 700 MHz* *Order* (regarding the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services band)[^82] and the *August 700 MHz* Order
    (regarding public safety broadband operations),[^83] we will allow
    PCS and AWS licensees employing bandwidths greater than 1 MHz to
    meet a base station power limit of 1640 watts/MHz EIRP (*i.e*., no
    more than 1640 watts EIRP in any 1 MHz band segment). PCS and AWS
    licensees operating with bandwidths of less than 1 MHz will,
    however, continue to be permitted to operate at power levels up to
    1640 watts EIRP over their bandwidth. Thus, for example, a licensee
    transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 5 MHz could employ a power
    level of 8200 watts EIRP over the 5 MHz bandwidth, with each 1 MHz
    band segment within the 5 MHz bandwidth being limited to 1640 watts
    EIRP; and a licensee transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 200
    kHz could employ a power level of 1640 watts EIRP over the 200 kHz
    bandwidth. As we stated in the *April 700 MHz Order*, this approach
    to defining power limits "will achieve a degree of technological
    neutrality by ensuring that all licensees regardless of technology
    will have enough power to operate a viable service."[^84] Consistent
    with the current PCS and AWS rules, licensees will be permitted in
    rural areas to operate at double the non-rural power limit, subject
    to the new PSD model, *i.e.,* the rural radiated power limit is
    increased from 3280 watts EIRP to 3280 watts/MHz EIRP.[^85] Today's
    action will not only provide flexibility for licensees employing
    wideband technologies used to provide advanced, high speed wireless
    services, but also will potentially reduce infrastructure costs,
    thereby increasing the provision of service to rural areas.

26. [Coordination]{.underline}. As noted above, the current radiated
    power rules for PCS and AWS permit a doubling of the limits for
    systems operating in rural areas, subject to certain coordination
    requirements.[^86] In order to balance the need for licensee
    flexibility with our concern for limiting potential increased
    interference from higher power wideband operations, we will require
    rural PCS and AWS licensees operating at greater than 1640 watts
    EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP to coordinate with
    adjacent block licensees in their respective services that are
    authorized to operate within 75 miles of the transmitting base
    station. Further, consistent with our current rules:[^87] (1) PCS
    rural operation greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640
    watts/MHz EIRP will be limited to base stations located more than
    120 kilometers (75 miles) from the Canadian border and more than 75
    kilometers (45 miles) from the Mexican border; and (2) AWS rural
    stations operating at greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than
    1640 watts/MHz EIRP will be required to coordinate in advance with
    all Government and non-Government satellite entities in the
    2025-2110 MHz band and with all BRS licensees authorized under Part
    27 in the 2155-2160 MHz band.

## Proposed Increases to Maximum Radiated Power Levels 

27. *Background*. In its Proposal, CTIA requests a doubling of the
    maximum radiated power permitted for both PCS stations and AWS
    stations *prior* to the application of a PSD model, resulting in an
    initial EIRP limit increase, before proportional power increases for
    larger bandwidth operations, from 1640 watts to 3280 watts in
    non-rural areas and from 3280 watts to 6560 watts in rural
    areas.[^88]

28. In the *Further Notice*, the Commission expressed certain concerns
    with a doubling of both non-rural and rural radiated power limits,
    noting that as recently as 2004, we had doubled the then-existing
    1640 watt EIRP limit for rural systems operating in various radio
    services, including PCS and AWS. In the interest of establishing
    flexible power rules that also reflect realistic power levels, we
    questioned whether existing licensees "use as much radiated power in
    their systems as is permitted" by the current rule.[^89] We
    specifically asked that commenters supporting the CTIA Proposal
    "provide examples of actual situations in which licensees could
    beneficially use radiated power levels on the order of what \[was\]
    being proposed" by CTIA as well as other parties who submitted
    comments earlier in this proceeding.[^90]

29. In addition, we asked whether the current limits have caused
    particular problems that could be solved by the proposed increases.
    We also expressed concern that increased radiated power might cause
    new problems in terms of harmful interference to adjacent spectrum
    users, and asked commenters to consider this as well as possible
    enhancements to coordination and/or notification measures to
    minimize instances of harmful interference.[^91] Finally, because
    PCS systems are, like other wireless systems, subject to certain
    restrictions governing human exposure to RF emissions, we sought
    comment on whether doubling the EIRP limits (which, for rural areas,
    would mean a quadruple increase from pre-2004 levels, given our
    action in the *Rural R&O*) would potentially increase the number of
    filings required for proper evaluation of facilities' compliance
    with our environmental regulations.[^92]

30. Parties' comments on this issue in response to the *Further Notice*
    support the CTIA Proposal to modify the rule to permit doubling of
    radiated power limits for PCS and AWS.[^93] Motorola asserts that
    such changes "will increase licensee flexibility and promote
    technology neutrality,"[^94] while CTIA states that increasing
    radiated power merely "evens the playing field between narrowband
    and wideband emissions."[^95] According to Ericsson, EIRP limits
    dictate how operators may construct their systems -- including how
    many transmitter sites to install to cover a particular area with an
    acceptable signal-to-noise ratio.[^96] It argues that increasing
    EIRP limits will provide added flexibility by allowing operators to
    be "more selective in their site locations and install fewer
    transmitters where use of higher power is feasible, lowering the
    cost of deploying a network or increasing coverage."[^97] In
    addition, Ericsson contends, the proposed changes in the EIRP limits
    will enable operators to improve coverage by using higher power in
    locations where installing additional transmitters is impossible or
    impractical, and argues that this is especially relevant in rural
    areas: the increased limits "will allow rural operators to expand
    the reach of existing systems without adding infrastructure and will
    reduce the number of transmitting facilities required to provide
    service."[^98] Powerwave states that the current limits were
    established before "mobile video and high speed data were . . . on
    anyone's 'drawing board' \[and the rules\] no longer serve the needs
    of licensees who are beginning to offer these new,
    spectrum-intensive services."[^99]

31. *Discussion*. For the reasons discussed below, we decline at this
    time to double PCS and AWS non-rural radiated power limits, or
    further double PCS and AWS rural radiated power limits. Although
    commenters generally favor doubling the current PCS and AWS radiated
    power limits as urged in the CTIA Proposal, we did not receive
    comments on this issue responsive to concerns raised in the *Further
    Notice*, particularly regarding the potential for unnecessarily
    increasing the risk of interference to adjacent spectrum
    users.[^100] In addition, no commenters justify a need for doubling
    radiated power levels independent of implementing a PSD model, which
    we are adopting today. With respect to rural operations, commenters
    do not demonstrate that rural systems have been deployed taking full
    advantage of the recently doubled rural radiated power limits and
    that, notwithstanding such increased power,[^101] rural coverage is
    inadequate. As noted above, we did not receive comments that
    contained specific examples of problems caused by the current EIRP
    limits that could be solved by increasing the limits. We believe
    that adoption of the PSD model is forward looking and will foster
    broadband development, and will permit licensees deploying WCDMA,
    for example, to operate at up to 8200 watts EIRP (non-rural) and
    16,400 watts EIRP (rural).[^102] Moreover, we note that some
    commenters expressly recognize that today's technologies do not
    fully utilize the proposed higher power rates,[^103] and the record
    does not reflect that today's PCS systems, for example, use the full
    radiated power currently provided under our existing rules.

32. Based on the record in this proceeding, and taking into account our
    adoption of the PSD model for wideband operations, we find no
    justification for a baseline doubling of EIRP limits for PCS or AWS
    base stations at this time. We conclude that the Commission and
    industry should be afforded time to gain experience with, and assess
    the effect of, the PSD model we adopt today. As we observed in the
    *Further Notice,* supplementing the EIRP rule with the PSD model is
    a "fundamental shift in how base station transmitter power limits
    are determined."[^104] Moreover, our decision declining to further
    increase radiated power limits independent of a PSD model is
    consistent with the Commission's recent action in the *April 700 MHz
    Order* in this Docket implementing PSD for 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Bands, as well as the Commission's *August 700 MHz*
    Order*,* which implemented a PSD model for public safety broadband
    operations.[^105] Our action today is therefore consistent with our
    objective to harmonize our rules where possible across similar
    services.

## Peak vs. Average Radiated Power Limits

33. *Background.* The Commission's PCS and AWS rules currently limit
    permissible radiated power on a peak basis.[^106] Section 24.232(a),
    for example, states that PCS "\[b\]ase stations are limited to 1640
    watts peak" EIRP.[^107] Similarly, Section 27.50(d)(1) limits the
    peak EIRP of AWS base stations in the 2110-2155 MHz band to 1640
    watts.[^108] CTIA urged in its proposal that we amend these rules
    and specify power limits on an average rather than peak basis.[^109]
    CTIA asserted that the "peak" terminology in our rules is subject to
    varying interpretation, and that adopting average power limits for
    base stations would remove uncertainty and facilitate the deployment
    of broadband technologies.[^110]

34. We sought comment on the CTIA Proposal in the *Further
    Notice*.[^111] We noted that for most of the past 50 years, wireless
    services, such as land mobile services, used frequency or phase
    modulation (FM or PM) technologies, which produce emissions with a
    constant envelope,[^112] where peak and average power are
    equal.[^113] We also noted that pursuant to the Commission's
    flexible technical rules, licensees more recently have deployed
    "digital technologies, many of which produce an emission where the
    modulation envelope is not of constant amplitude."[^114] A number of
    these newer technologies, such as OFDM, produce an emission with
    sub‑microsecond power spikes, and its peak power therefore is always
    higher, often significantly, than its average power.

35. Receivers begin to exhibit the effects of harmful interference when
    the power of an undesired signal reaches a certain threshold value.
    As we explained in the *Further Notice,* the Commission had adopted
    peak power limits because "peak radiated power of \[an\] emission
    can be an important factor in evaluating the interference potential
    of a transmitting station."[^115] We observed that if the Commission
    were to limit power on an average basis as CTIA proposes, peak
    emissions could be much higher than currently permitted under the
    Commission's rules, resulting in an increased risk of interference.
    We thus sought comment as to whether we should "guard against
    interference" by adopting a peak-to-average power limit ratio (PAR),
    which would limit the magnitude of power spikes, in the event we
    adopt the use of average power limits.[^116]

36. Commenting parties generally support modification of the PCS and AWS
    rules to limit power on an average basis, noting that industry
    standards widely use average rather than peak EIRP emissions
    measurements.[^117] Motorola, for example, states that "the
    measurement of average values with non-constant envelope
    technologies avoids the possibility that impulse-like transient
    surges of extremely short-durations will unnecessarily govern the
    operating power of such stations."[^118] Ericsson concurs that an
    average power limit approach "provides more accurate and relevant
    information on output and a more accurate picture of power in the
    band."[^119] Ericsson also observes that a peak approach
    "artificially assigns a much higher power measurement in the band
    than levels typically observed during actual operation . . .
    ."[^120] Similarly, Sprint Nextel asserts that application of peak
    power limits to "CDMA, W-CDMA and OFDM and related modulation
    techniques . . . could require an inequitable and unnecessary
    reduction of the overall channel power due solely to errant spikes
    of power of extremely short duration."[^121]

37. Ericsson further contends that application of peak power limits to
    non-constant envelope technologies disadvantages such technologies
    because operators must decrease station average output power to meet
    the peak limits, thereby reducing coverage and capacity of cell
    sites.[^122] Stated differently, in being required to employ peak
    power limits, network operators must, according to Ericsson, build
    additional sites to provide the same level of coverage. Ericsson
    asserts that limiting base station power on an average basis would
    be technology neutral because power limits would be "independent of
    the underlying radio access technology used."[^123] Ericsson also
    notes that the Commission's PCS rules specify that EIRP levels be
    measured on a peak basis[^124] but require instrumentation
    calibrated in terms of Root-Mean-Square-voltage (an averaging
    method) and argues that this inconsistency has caused industry to
    interpret our rules to limit average power.[^125] Ericsson concludes
    that adopting average power limits will eliminate this ambiguity,
    conform the Commission's rules to industry standards based on
    average emission limits,[^126] and provide industry with regulatory
    certainty.

38. Although CTIA proposes that we apply average power limits to PCS and
    AWS base stations only, Ericsson urges us to review whether to apply
    average power limits to PCS and AWS hand-held units as well.[^127]
    Ericsson claims that average power limits for such devices are
    warranted "for the same reasons as the base station rules."[^128]
    According to Ericsson, applying average power limits to hand-held
    units "will not lead to use of excessive power" because "\[m\]arket
    forces . . . drive equipment manufacturers to select modulations
    with minimal PAR and incorporate peak reduction techniques to
    minimize . . . power consumption for mobile units, just as for base
    stations."[^129] Motorola concurs with Ericsson so long as the
    Commission specifies that average power limits must be measured
    "during active transmission time."[^130] In urging the Commission to
    "proceed cautiously in applying the proposed average measurement
    techniques," Sprint Nextel references "handsets" as well.[^131]
    Other commenters did not address this issue.

39. [Peak-to-Average Ratio:]{.underline} Several parties claim that a
    PAR limit is unnecessary to protect against potential harmful
    interference, arguing that manufacturers and operators voluntarily
    minimize PAR to help reduce equipment costs and achieve more
    efficient operations.[^132] According to Qualcomm, the Commission's
    out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits already act as a guard against a
    high PAR.[^133] CTIA reiterates its position that adoption of a PAR
    limit "does not serve any sound regulatory purpose," claiming also
    that "\[m\]arket forces already operate to minimize PAR, as there is
    a direct correlation between higher PAR and the cost of equipment
    and deployment."[^134] Nonetheless, CTIA (which represents the
    interests of both equipment manufacturers and network operators)
    states that if the Commission concludes that a PAR limit is
    necessary, a PAR limit of 13 dB would be appropriate.[^135] Sprint
    Nextel notably states that, while it does not expect new wireless
    devices to "materially exceed" present \[PAR\] ratios, "the
    possibility that future wireless devices might produce more than the
    sporadic peaks that characterize current wireless devices cannot be
    entirely ruled out."[^136] Thus, it concludes that we may need to
    impose PAR limits on such devices "in the future," and urges that we
    "proceed cautiously in applying the proposed average measurement
    techniques.[^137]

40. *Discussion*. For the reasons stated below and consistent with our
    decision to permit licensees to meet radiated power limits on an
    average basis in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band[^138] as well
    as for 700 MHz public safety broadband operations,[^139] we find
    that the public interest would be served by amending our rules to
    similarly treat PCS licensees and AWS licensees. We conclude that
    for non-constant envelope technologies, such as CDMA, WCDMA, and
    OFDM, limiting power on an average basis will more accurately
    predict the interference potential for such technologies. The record
    demonstrates that using peak power measurements for non-constant
    envelope technologies inaccurately suggests a much higher overall
    operational power, compared to actual power levels, due to power
    spikes.[^140] Consistent with our recent 700 MHz rule changes,[^141]
    we believe that any effective increase in power that may be
    associated with limiting power on an average basis will be modest,
    and certainly outweighed by the benefit of measuring existing
    non-constant envelope technologies, as well as similar future
    technologies, using a more realistic and appropriate
    technique.[^142]

41. We agree with Ericsson that the same reasons for permitting average
    power measurements for base stations apply for mobile and portable
    units as well. In the interest of harmonizing our rules across
    similar services where appropriate, we determine that it serves the
    public interest to treat PCS/AWS mobile and portable units no
    differently from base stations and, accordingly, today we adopt
    changes to our rules to permit average power limits for PCS and AWS
    base stations, mobiles and portables.[^143]

42. We find that measurement of average power for PCS and AWS operations
    must be made during a period of continuous transmission based on a 1
    MHz resolution bandwidth.[^144] Parties should consult with the FCC
    Laboratory staff for guidance on the appropriate method of measuring
    average power for particular technologies. Because the average power
    approach will allow for emissions higher than permitted under
    today's PCS and AWS peak power limits, we also conclude that it
    serves the public interest to adopt a PAR limit to mitigate the
    potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise.
    In the *April 700 MHz Order*, we found that limiting PAR to 13 dB
    strikes the right balance "between enabling licenses to use
    modulation schemes with high PARs (such as OFDM) and protecting
    other licensees from high PAR transmissions."[^145] Similarly, we
    find that adoption of a 13 dB PAR limit when average EIRP is
    measured furthers our goal of facilitating the deployment of
    advanced technologies in the PCS and AWS bands, while limiting the
    potential for harmful interference that might result from high PAR
    transmissions.

## Other Service Rules

43. *Background.* In the *Further Notice,* we specifically considered
    whether the CTIA Proposal should be applicable to "those Part 22 and
    Part 27 services that operate under a flexible regulatory framework
    similar to Part 24 broadband PCS," as well as other services. [^146]
    We recognized that unique concerns might arise in applying the CTIA
    Proposal to services that may be less flexible than PCS, or to
    services that may use spectrum adjacent to public safety spectrum
    users or incumbent broadcasters.[^147] In adopting or amending any
    technical rules, we are necessarily mindful of the potential for
    increased interference as well as other adverse effects on
    licensees. We sought comment on the issue of affording relief beyond
    PCS and AWS in the context of this proceeding. We also specifically
    sought comment on the *ex parte* submission[^148] by OP LLC (Crown
    Castle),[^149] the sole nationwide licensee in the 1670-1675 MHz
    band, in response to the *Further Notice* seeking power increases
    and the application of PSD to the 1670-1675 MHz band. We separately
    address Crown Castle's filing and the 1670-1675 MHz band
    below.[^150]

44. CTIA reiterates its belief that we should modify our EIRP rules for
    both PCS and AWS, but specifically argues that relief should not be
    extended to services such as BRS or EBS, which have different EIRP
    limits, unique coordination issues, and are undergoing significant
    transition.[^151] Similarly regarding Part 22 cellular service, CTIA
    notes that such service is subject to a power limit that differs
    from the 1640 watts EIRP limit applicable to PCS and AWS and does
    not warrant the relief CTIA proposes.[^152] Most commenters agree
    that the proposed rule changes should be applied to AWS as well as
    PCS.[^153] Several also agree with CTIA that it is inappropriate to
    apply the same relief to other services at this time.[^154]

45. WCSW and XM disagree with CTIA and urge the Commission to adopt the
    CTIA Proposal for base stations "in *all* services regulated under
    Parts 24 and 27 . . . ." [^155] According to WCSW and XM, singling
    out licensees in the 2.3 GHz WCS band among Part 24 and Part 27
    licensees for continued measurement of peak EIRP "will uniquely
    hinder WCS licensees from using . . . new and more efficient
    technologies, further impeding deployment in this spectrum which has
    long been fallow."[^156] They support adoption of the PSD model for
    2.3 GHz WCS base stations and argue that WCA's objections on grounds
    of interference are unfounded.[^157]

46. NPSTC focuses on the possible impact of the CTIA Proposal "in bands
    where there are adjacent public safety communications" and opposes
    "any change to the standard of measurement . . . or in raising power
    limits in the 800 MHz band until the ongoing reconfiguration is
    completed."[^158] Other companies echo NPSTC in noting the massive
    rebanding process ongoing for the 800 MHz specialized mobile radio
    ("SMR") and public safety channels immediately adjacent to bands
    allocated for Part 22 use, and urge deferral of radiated power limit
    rules changes for the 800 MHz cellular band.[^159] Sprint Nextel
    also observes that some of the "very complex" and "precise technical
    rules" that were developed "to overcome limitations from the 2.5 GHz
    band's unpaired, overlapping and irregular licensing scheme . . .
    are still subject to refinement on reconsideration."[^160]

47. WCA filed comments expressing its concern that, in connection with a
    request for waiver filed by WCSW, this streamlining and
    harmonization proceeding might be used "as a vehicle for revisiting
    . . . Section 27.50(a) . . . ."[^161] Section 27.50(a) specifies a
    limit of 2000 watts "peak EIRP" for stations operating in the
    2305-2320 and the 2345-2360 MHz bands. Recognizing that the *Further
    Notice* did not specifically invite comment on the radiated power
    rules for WCS at 2.3 GHz or for BRS and EBS at 2.1 GHz and 2.5
    GHz,[^162] WCA nonetheless cautions that any changes we make to the
    Part 27 rules "could affect BRS and EBS unless carefully crafted to
    preserve the *status quo.*"[^163] Sirius opposes the WCSW/XM
    proposal to permit licensees in the WCS band to measure power in
    terms of average rather than peak values on grounds that any such
    change must take into account the harmful impact on the adjacent
    satellite digital audio radio service ("Satellite DARS").[^164] Such
    changes in WCS emission rules should, Sirius argues, be deferred
    "\[a\]t least until terrestrial repeater rules are final."[^165]

48. *Discussion*. We conclude that the record does not support
    application of the CTIA Proposal to other bands at this time. While
    we acknowledge the value of consistency and regulatory parity
    generally in our rules, we cannot disregard the interference
    environment surrounding each service. Certain factors at issue with
    one service may not be present or relevant with other services. In a
    separate proceeding, for example, we carefully considered the
    implications of extending the CTIA Proposal to services operating in
    the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands. Only after taking into account
    the unique features of such services, we decided to implement the
    PSD model in our radiated power rules and apply average power limits
    for operations in those bands, while declining to extend CTIA's
    proposed further radiated power increases.[^166]

49. With respect to the 2.3 GHz WCS band, we agree with WCA that there
    is "no 'one size fits all' power limitation that will prove optimum
    for every situation."[^167] WCA, which represents numerous WCS
    licensees, opposes application of PSD and average versus peak power
    limits to the band. WCA urges us to "refrain from utilizing this
    proceeding as a vehicle for revisiting the maximum EIRP at which a
    WCS base station operating in the 2305-2320 MHz or 2345-2360 MHz
    bands may transmit."[^168] According to WCA, "WCS licensees are
    deploying low powered cellular wireless broadband services utilizing
    their spectrum and would be subject to increased interference" and
    "there is no public interest basis to support revising the WCS
    maximum power limit."[^169]

50. Moreover, only one WCS licensee, WCSW (joined by XM), supported
    application of the CTIA Proposal to the 2.3 GHz band. WCSW had
    previously sought a waiver to use average rather than peak power
    limits in the band,[^170] and had filed an application seeking
    Commission approval to be acquired by XM, an adjacent band Satellite
    DARS licensee.[^171] On May 19, 2006, WCSW/XM jointly withdrew their
    transfer of control application.[^172] WCSW then withdrew its waiver
    request several days later on May 25, 2006.[^173] In view of the
    foregoing, we find that the record before us does not support
    extension of the CTIA Proposal to the 2.3 GHz band at this
    time.[^174]

51. Also, because frequencies immediately adjacent to the 800 MHz
    cellular band and the 2500 MHz BRS/EBS band are still undergoing
    significant restructuring to support a mixture of technologies and
    services, we decide to maintain the radiated power limits set forth
    in the current rules for BRS and EBS stations operating in the 2500
    MHz bands, as well as stations operating in the 800 MHz or other
    bands \-- at least until we can better assess the impact of
    additional power limit changes. We also conclude that this
    proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to consider
    TerreStar's concerns about safeguards for the AWS H-Block systems,
    as those concerns are more appropriately resolved in the ongoing
    relevant proceeding.[^175] Accordingly, the rule changes we adopt
    today are limited to those governing PCS and AWS stations, as
    defined at the outset of this *Third Report and Order.*[^176]

52. [1670-1675 MHz Band]{.underline}. *Background.* Section 27.50(f)(1)
    of the Commission's rules specifies a peak 2 kW EIRP limit for fixed
    and base station operations in the 1670-1675 MHz band.[^177] In the
    *Further Notice*, we sought comment on Crown Castle's request to
    apply PSD to the 1670-1675 MHz band,[^178] as well as its request to
    double the 2 kW power limit for rural markets to 4 kW EIRP.[^179] On
    the same date on which the Commission released the *Further Notice*
    (August 9, 2005), Crown Castle separately filed a request for waiver
    of the 2 kW EIRP limit for the 1670-1675 MHz band and requested
    authority to operate on a PSD basis at 4 kW EIRP/MHz in non-rural
    areas and 8 kW EIRP/MHz in rural areas.[^180] Crown Castle argued
    that the public interest would be served by granting such relief,
    which would enable it to launch a new one-way (base-to-mobile)
    nationwide service (called Modeo) to wireless handsets with at least
    10 video and 24 audio channels using the new Digital Video
    Broadcasting\--Transmission System for Handheld Terminals
    (DVB-H)[^181] standard.[^182] Crown Castle later limited its request
    to thirty initial markets[^183] and stated that it would operate
    using a 5-MHz carrier bandwidth at each base station.[^184]

53. In February 2007, we conditionally granted Crown Castle authority to
    deploy its proposed system using PSD at 4 kW/MHz and 8 kW/MHz for
    non-rural and rural areas, respectively, which we limited to thirty
    markets and the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona, for
    which Crown Castle had been the recipient of a tribal lands bidding
    credit in the Commission's 2003 Auction No. 46.[^185] More
    importantly, in order to limit interference, we expanded the
    geographic area currently set forth in our Part 1 rules within which
    Crown Castle must coordinate its 1670-1675 MHz band operations with
    certain incumbent federal government users.[^186] We also adopted
    detailed coordination and consultation conditions to protect vital
    National Weather Service and radio astronomy facilities from harmful
    interference.[^187] The waiver grant was subject to several other
    conditions, including that waiver relief was "subject to any future
    Commission action in WT Docket 03-264 \[the instant
    proceeding\]."[^188]

54. In July 2007, Crown Castle announced that it would not deploy a
    nationwide DVB-H system to provide Modeo service for which it had
    sought increased power levels.[^189] Rather, effective July 23,
    2007, Crown Castle leased, via a *de facto* transfer lease,[^190]
    its spectrum in the 1670-1675 MHz band to TVCC One Six Holdings, LLC
    (TVCC). The Crown Castle/TVCC lease arrangement provides that it
    "will enable \[TVCC\] to provide a variety of fixed and/or mobile
    services nationwide, including broadband services, consistent with
    the Commission's rules for the 1670-1675 MHz band."[^191]

55. *Discussion.* Based on the record before us and for the reasons
    stated below, we decline to apply the PSD model by rule to the
    entire 1670-1675 MHz band as Crown Castle requests. In the *Crown
    Castle Waiver Order*, we reasoned that the grant of relief should be
    limited to 30 markets to enable the Commission to "assess whether
    there are any unanticipated issues associated with Crown Castle\'s
    proposed use of higher power limits in the 1670-1675 MHz
    band."[^192] Because Crown Castle has chosen not to deploy a DVB-H
    system in the band,[^193] the record before us is insufficient to
    determine whether the public interest would be served by granting
    additional power for other markets for the 1670-1675 MHz band. We
    continue to believe that it would be prudent for the Commission to
    have actual operational data to evaluate the potential consequences
    of applying the PSD model to other markets in this band. Thus, our
    action today leaves intact the relief afforded previously to Crown
    Castle. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we decline to amend
    our rules to permit use of the PSD model nationwide in this band.
    TVCC is entitled to avail itself of the relief granted through
    waiver for the 30 markets specified in Crown Castle's Initial Market
    Deployment Plan, subject to the conditions in the *Crown Castle
    Waiver Order*. In addition, TVCC may submit a waiver request, with
    appropriate justification, for similar relief in additional markets.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

## Congressional Review Act 

56. The Commission will send a copy of the *Third Report and Order*,
    including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a
    report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^194]
    In addition, this *Third Report and Order* (including the Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification) will be sent to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the
    Federal Register.[^195]

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

57. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^196]
    requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
    notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^197] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity"
    as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^198] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^199] A
    "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned
    and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^200]

58. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Further Notice* in this
    proceeding,[^201] which the Commission launched in 2004 to fulfill
    its Section 11 mandate to conduct biennial reviews.[^202] With the
    goal of streamlining and harmonizing certain WRS licensing
    provisions, the Commission sought written comment, as explained
    above in more detail, on certain proposed amendments to its radiated
    power rules.[^203] The Commission also requested written comment on
    whether changes to other technical rules might be warranted in
    conjunction with changes to the radiated power rules.[^204]
    Additionally, the Commission sought written public comment on the
    IRFA.[^205] No comments specifically addressed the IRFA. This Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification conforms to the RFA.[^206]

59. In this *Third Report and Order*, the Commission takes further steps
    to streamline and harmonize its rules related to WRS by adopting
    modifications to the rules governing radiated power limits for PCS
    and AWS (as defined above). Specifically, whereas the existing rules
    set the radiated power limits in terms of watts-per-emission
    regardless of bandwidth size, the Commission will now permit use of
    a PSD model, with radiated power levels calculated on a
    watts-per-megahertz basis, when operating with greater than 1 MHz
    bandwidth.[^207] The PSD approach offers more flexibility, is more
    technologically neutral, and will better accommodate newer
    technologies employing wider bandwidths. Also, the PSD model will
    potentially reduce infrastructure costs, thus enabling rural service
    providers to offer enhanced service in these areas. The Commission
    also will now permit PCS and AWS licensees to measure and express
    radiated power on an average rather than peak basis.[^208] This
    approach is more realistic and more appropriate for newer wireless
    technologies producing emissions with sub-microsecond power spikes.

60. Because of interference concerns, the Commission is declining to
    double the baseline radiated power limits for PCS/AWS. In addition,
    to mitigate the potential for increased interference to other
    licensees that could result from measuring average (rather than
    peak) radiated power, the Commission is adopting a PAR limit of 13
    dB.[^209] At this time, the Commission is not adopting similar
    changes to the radiated power rules for other services,[^210] but
    maintains the February, 2007 waiver relief granted to Crown Castle
    in the 1670-1675 MHz band.[^211] As Crown Castle is the sole
    national licensee of spectrum in that band, the waiver relief does
    not directly affect any other licensees.

61. The above-described rule changes we adopt today are generally
    supported by the commenting parties. None of the modifications
    imposes increased reporting burdens on PCS or AWS licensees, nor do
    we expect the rule changes to result in increased costs for such
    licensees. As noted above, infrastructure costs potentially will be
    reduced, particularly in rural areas. The changes are designed to
    improve flexibility for licensees employing wideband technologies
    used to provide advanced, high speed services, while maintaining
    interference control. We believe they will prove beneficial to such
    PCS and AWS licensees and not have any adverse economic impact on
    them. Therefore, we certify that the rule changes adopted in this
    *Third Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact
    on a substantial number of small entities.

## Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

62. This document does not contain any proposed, new, or modified
    information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not
    contain any new or modified "information collection burden for small
    business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the
    Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
    107-198.[^212]

## Contact Information

63. The primary Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contact for this
    proceeding is Nina Shafran of the Mobility Division (202-418-0620).
    Press inquiries should be directed to Chelsea Fallon, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7991, TTY at (202) 418-7233,
    or e-mail at
    [Chelsea.Fallon@fcc.gov](mailto:Lauren.Patrich@fcc.gov).

# Ordering Clauses

64. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 7,
    11, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c), 303(f),
    303(g), 303(r), and 332, the rule changes specified in Appendix A
    ARE ADOPTED.

65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix A
    WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the *Federal
    Register*.

66. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau SHALL SEND a copy of this *Third Report
    and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Rule Changes**

**Part 24 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

1.  Section 24.232 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 24.232 Power and antenna height limits.**

> \(a\) (1) Base stations with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less
> are limited to 1640 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power
> (EIRP) with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT, except as
> described in paragraph (b) below.
>
> \(2\) Base stations with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz are
> limited to 1640 watts/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power
> (EIRP) with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT, except as
> described in paragraph (b) below.
>
> \(3\) Base station antenna heights may exceed 300 meters HAAT with a
> corresponding reduction in power; *see* Tables 1 and 2 of this
> section.

(4) The service area boundary limit and microwave protection criteria
    specified in Sec. 24.236 and Sec. 24.237 apply.

Table 1\--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300
Meters, With Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less.

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  HAAT in meters                     Maximum EIRP watts

  ≤300                               1640

  ≤500                               1070

  ≤1000                              490

  ≤1500                              270

  ≤2000                              160
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

Table 2\--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300
Meters, With Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1 MHz.

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  HAAT in meters                     Maximum EIRP watts/MHz

  ≤300                               1640

  ≤500                               1070

  ≤1000                              490

  ≤1500                              270

  ≤2000                              160
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

> \(b\) (1) Base stations that are located in counties with population
> densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less are limited to
> 3280 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with an
> antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT.
>
> \(2\) Base stations that are located in counties with population
> densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz are limited to
> 3280 watts/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with an
> antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT.
>
> \(3\) Base station antenna heights may exceed 300 meters HAAT with a
> corresponding reduction in power; *see* Tables 3 and 4 of this
> section.
>
> \(4\) The service area boundary limit and microwave protection
> criteria specified in Sec. 24.236 and Sec. 24.237 apply.
>
> \(5\) Operation under this paragraph (b) at power limits greater than
> permitted under paragraph (a) of this section must be coordinated in
> advance with all broadband PCS licensees authorized to operate on
> adjacent frequency blocks within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base
> station and is limited to base stations located more than 120
> kilometers (75 miles) from the Canadian border and more than 75
> kilometers (45 miles) from the Mexican border.

Table 3 \--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300
Meters, With Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less.

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  HAAT in meters                     Maximum EIRP watts

  ≤300                               3280

  ≤500                               2140

  ≤1000                              980

  ≤1500                              540

  ≤2000                              320
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

Table 4 \--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300
Meters, With Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1 MHz.

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  HAAT in meters                     Maximum EIRP watts/MHz

  ≤300                               3280

  ≤500                               2140

  ≤1000                              980

  ≤1500                              540

  ≤2000                              320
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

> \(c\) Mobile and portable stations are limited to 2 watts EIRP and the
> equipment must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum
> necessary for successful communications.
>
> \(d\) Power measurements for transmissions by stations authorized
> under this section may be made either in accordance with a
> Commission-approved average power technique or in compliance with
> paragraph (e) of this section. In both instances, equipment employed
> must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 24.51. In
> measuring transmissions in this band using an average power technique,
> the peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the transmission may not exceed 13
> dB.
>
> \(e\) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of
> continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of
> an rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
> adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
> times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
> emission bandwidth, sensitivity, *etc.*, so as to obtain a true peak
> measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of
> the channel.

Note to § 24.232: Height above average terrain (HAAT) is to be
calculated using the method set forth in § 24.53 of this Part.

\* \* \* \* \* \*

**Part 27 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

2.  The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY**:**  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and
337 unless otherwise noted.

3.  Section 27.50(d) is revised to read as follows:

**§ 27.50 Power and antenna height limits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

> \(d\) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
> stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands:
>
> \(1\) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
> 2110-2155 MHz band and located in any county with population density
> of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
> available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is
> limited to:
>
> \(A\) an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 3280 watts
> when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;\
> \
> (B) an EIRP of 3280 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission
> bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.
>
> \(2\) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
> 2110-2155 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than
> that described in paragraph (d)(1) is limited to:\
> \
> (A) an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 1640 watts
> when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;\
> \
> (B) an EIRP of 1640 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission
> bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.

(3) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2110-2155 MHz
    band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than
    1640 watts/MHz EIRP must coordinate such operations in advance with
    all Government and non-Government satellite entities in the
    2025-2110 MHz band. Operations with power greater than 1640 watts
    EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in
    advance with the following licensees authorized to operate within
    120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station operating in
    this band: all Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees authorized
    under Part 27 in the 2155-2160 MHz band and all advanced wireless
    services (AWS) licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency
    blocks in the 2110-2155 MHz band.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the
    1710-1755 MHz band are limited to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed stations
    operating in this band are limited to a maximum antenna height of 10
    meters above ground. Mobile and portable stations operating in this
    band must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary
    for successful communications.

(5) Equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the
    provisions of Sec. 24.51. Power measurements for transmissions by
    stations authorized under this section may be made either in
    accordance with a Commission-approved average power technique or in
    compliance with paragraph (d)(6) of this section. In measuring
    transmissions in this band using an average power technique, the
    peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the transmission may not exceed 13
    dB.

(6) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of continuous
    transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an
    rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
    adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
    times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
    emission bandwidth, sensitivity, *etc*., so as to obtain a true peak
    measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of
    the channel.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  **APPENDIX B**

    **List of Commenters**

#  {#section .unnumbered}

**I.** **Comments**

> Crown Castle International Corp.
>
> CTIA -- The Wireless Association
>
> Ericsson, Inc.
>
> Motorola, Inc.
>
> National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
>
> Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated

TerreStar Networks Inc.

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

#  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

**II. Reply Comments**

> Crown Castle International Corp.
>
> Ericsson, Inc.
>
> Motorola, Inc.
>
> National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
>
> Sprint Nextel Corporation
>
> WCS Wireless, LLC, jointly with
>
> XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc.

**III. Ex Parte Filings**

> Aloha Partners, L.P.
>
> Crown Castle International Corp.
>
> CTIA -- The Wireless Association
>
> Ericsson, Inc.

Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

[^1]: *See* The Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22,
    24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting
    Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 20 FCC Rcd 13900 (2005)
    (*Further Notice)*. *See also* *Further Notice*, *Erratum*, 20 FCC
    Rcd 16293 (2005).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.907. WRS is defined in the Commission's rules as
    "\[a\]ll radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27,
    74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 . . . whether commercial or private
    in nature." *Id*.

[^3]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13923-32.

[^4]: *See* CTIA *Ex Parte* Letter filed October 20, 2004; CTIA *Ex
    Parte* Letter filed February 7, 2005. Throughout this *Third Report
    and Order,* we will refer to CTIA's request for relief, as set forth
    in its February 7, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, as the "CTIA Proposal."

[^5]: This AWS spectrum block (for fixed and base stations) together
    with the AWS 1710-1755 MHz block (for fixed, mobile and portable
    stations) is commonly referred to as AWS-1. Throughout this *Third
    Report and Order*, we use the term AWS to mean only stations
    operating in the 2110-2155 MHz AWS-1 band, except in the context of
    permitting use of "average" rather than "peak" values, discussed
    below in Section III.C, where we also include the 1710-1755 MHz
    AWS-1 band in the definition of AWS. We do not address herein
    changes to rules for the distinct "AWS-2" spectrum blocks (*i.e*.*,*
    1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz) or
    "AWS-3" spectrum block (*i.e.*, 2155-2175 MHz), which are also
    governed by Part 27 of the Commission's rules.

[^6]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13924-25.

[^7]: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT
    Docket No. 06-150, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd 8064 (2007) (*April 700 MHz Order*). *See
    also* *April 700 MHz Order*, *Erratum*, 22 FCC Rcd 18907 (2007).

[^8]: This approach to radiated power limits is based on "watts per
    megahertz of spectrum bandwidth," rather than on a "watts per
    emission," basis. In sum, maximum power levels increase
    proportionately with increased bandwidth.

[^9]: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT
    Docket No. 06-150, *Second Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 15289,
    15417 (2007) (*August 700 MHz Order*).

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: 47 U.S.C. § 161 (requiring the Commission to review biennially
    its regulations that are applicable to providers of
    telecommunications service in order to determine whether any rule is
    "no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of
    meaningful economic competition").

[^12]: *See* discussion *infra* ¶¶ 52-55.

[^13]: *See* The 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, CC Docket No. 00-175,
    *Report*, 16 FCC Rcd 1207 (2001) (*2000* *Biennial Review Report*);
    s*ee also* Biennial Regulatory Review 2000, *Updated Staff Report*
    (rel. concurrently with the *2000 Biennial Review Report*); *id*. at
    Appendix IV: Rule Part Analysis.

[^14]: *See* The 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, GC Docket No. 02-390,
    *Report*, 18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003) (*2002 Biennial Review Report*);
    *see also* 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, WT Docket No. 02-310,
    *Staff Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau* (rel.
    concurrently with the *2002 Biennial Review Report*); *id*. at
    Appendix IV: Rule Part Analysis.

[^15]: In its *2002 Biennial Review Report,* the Commission clarified
    the scope and standard of review for future proceedings conducted
    pursuant to Section 11, acknowledging that it has broad discretion
    to review the continued need for any rule even in the absence of a
    congressional mandate such as Section 11. *See* *2002 Biennial
    Review Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4737.

[^16]: *See Streamlining R&O,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13901, 13904-23.

[^17]: *Id.* at 13904.

[^18]: The Commission eliminated the transmitter output power limits for
    broadband PCS systems, *see Streamlining R&O, id.* at 13910, while
    leaving intact the maximum EIRP limitations set forth in Section
    24.232 of the Commission's rules, *see* *id.* at 13911. The
    Commission subsequently eliminated the transmitter output power
    limits for AWS systems in a separate proceeding. *See* Service Rules
    for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT
    Docket No. 02-353, *Order on Reconsideration*, 20 FCC Rcd 14058,
    14080-81 (2005).

[^19]: *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13923.

[^20]: *See* generally CTIA Proposal.

[^21]: *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13924.

[^22]: *Id.* (citing CTIA Proposal at 2).

[^23]: *Id.* (citing CTIA Proposal at 5).

[^24]: *Id.* at 13928-29.

[^25]: *Id.* at 13924-25.

[^26]: As indicated above, *see supra* ¶ 2, we have adopted certain
    changes to the radiated power rules for the Lower and Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services bands and, accordingly, we do not address the
    700 MHz bands in this *Third Report and Order*, nor do we list in
    Appendix B hereto submissions in the instant Docket (WT Docket No.
    03-264) where parties limited their comments to the rules for the
    700 MHz bands.

[^27]: Crown Castle had pointed out that the 1670-1675 MHz band was not
    afforded relief in the Commission's 2004 decision to amend the
    radiated power rule for PCS, AWS and Cellular Radiotelephone Service
    to allow twice as much radiated power (3280 watts EIRP) for
    operations in rural areas. *See* Facilitating the Provision of
    Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities
    for Rural Telephone Companies to Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT
    Docket No. 02-381, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 19078 (2004) (*Rural R&O*) (*cited in* Crown
    Castle *Ex Parte* Letter dated May 16, 2005 (Crown Castle 2005
    Letter)). Rural areas are defined as those counties (or equivalent)
    with a population density of 100 persons per square mile or less,
    based upon the most recent available Census data. *See Rural R&O,*
    19 FCC Rcd at 19087-88. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(b) (PCS),
    27.50(d)(1) (AWS) (permitting rural PCS and AWS stations to operate
    at higher power levels, subject to certain coordination
    requirements).

[^28]: *See* Comments filed Dec. 19, 2005, by: Crown Castle; CTIA;
    Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson); Motorola, Inc. (Motorola); the National
    Pubic Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC); Powerwave
    Technologies, Inc. (Powerwave); QUALCOMM Incorporated (Qualcomm);
    TerreStar Networks Inc. (TerreStar); and Wireless Communications
    Association International, Inc. (WCA).

[^29]: *See* Reply Comments filed Jan. 17, 2006, by: Crown Castle;
    Motorola; NPSTC; Qualcomm; Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint
    Nextel); and WCS Wireless, LLC jointly with XM Satellite Radio
    Holdings, Inc. (WCSW/XM).

[^30]: *See ex parte* submissions filed by: Aloha Partners, L.P.
    (Aloha); CTIA; Crown Castle; Ericsson; Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.
    (Sirius); and WCA.

[^31]: *See generally* Aloha *Ex Parte* Letter filed Jul. 18, 2006
    (Aloha Letter); Crown Castle Comments; CTIA Comments; Ericsson
    Comments; Motorola Comments; Powerwave Comments. *See also* Qualcomm
    Comments (supporting use of PSD model and average measurement of
    power); Sprint Nextel Reply Comments (same); WCSW/XM Comments
    (same).

[^32]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232 (PCS), 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(d) (AWS). For
    antennas at HAATs greater than 300 meters, the maximum allowable
    EIRP for PCS stations is lower in accordance with tables found in
    Section 24.232 of our rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.232, Tables 1 and
    2. With respect to AWS stations, there are no reductions in power
    limits for antennas with HAATs greater than 300 meters. As noted
    above, radiated power limits are higher in rural areas for PCS and
    AWS (among other services). *See Rural R&O, supra* note 27.

[^33]: CTIA Proposal at 2.

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: The Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) is a narrowband
    cellular network technology that employs 200 kHz channels, each
    divided into 8 distinct time slots, thus shared by 8 users. *See
    also infra* note 38.

[^36]: Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is a wideband
    spread-spectrum technology that employs a special coding scheme,
    with each signal assigned a digital code. *See also infra* note 38.

[^37]: Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is a digital
    multi-carrier modulation scheme in which each signal is split into
    multiple smaller sub-signals that are then transmitted
    simultaneously at different frequencies to the receiver.

[^38]: CTIA Proposal at 2. The existing narrowband technologies -- GSM
    and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) (which, like GSM, divides
    channels into time slots) \-- carry 8 and 3 voice conversations,
    respectively, per emission, compared to wideband technologies such
    as CDMA, which carry as many as 20 to 40 voice conversations per
    emission. *See Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13927. Under the
    current rule, therefore, assuming systems are fully loaded and
    operating at the maximum power permitted by rule, wideband emission
    systems can only provide about one-fifth of the radiated power per
    voice conversation, as compared to narrowband emission systems.
    Hence, as stated in the *Further Notice,* "the average voice
    conversation on the wide emission system would have a lower
    signal-to-noise ratio, which, despite the partially compensating
    processing gain provided by signal spreading, would reduce the
    coverage range." *Id.* For data transmissions, a reduced
    signal-to-noise ratio could result in a lower data throughput. *See*
    *id.* (citing Qualcomm White Paper, "*1xEV: 1x Evolution IS-856
    TIA/EIA Standard, Airlink Overview,"* dated Nov. 7, 2001, at 10).

[^39]: As discussed in the *Further Notice*, in the context of achieving
    a more technology neutral transmitter power output rule, the
    Commission had asked for comments on a PSD limit in the *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* issued in 2004 in the instant Docket (WT Docket
    No. 03-264). *See* The Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of
    Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various
    Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 709 (2004) (*2004
    Streamlining NPRM)*. In response, the Commission received comments
    not only from CTIA, but also from certain individual companies. *See
    Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13926-27 (discussing comments filed
    in response to the *2004 Streamlining NPRM*).

[^40]: *See* CTIA Proposal at 1.

[^41]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13926.

[^42]: Applying the PSD calculation to narrowband operations would in
    some cases yield EIRP limits lower than the current EIRP rule's
    limits. *See,* *e.g.*, Ericsson Comments at 11.

[^43]: *See* *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13927 (not taking into
    account CTIA's proposal to double the current base station power
    limits).

[^44]: *See id.*

[^45]: *See id.* at 13924-25.

[^46]: *Id.* at 13924.

[^47]: *Id.* at 13926 (recognizing that it may not always be possible to
    avoid a rule that, because of the technological circumstances at the
    time, may cause harmful interference or otherwise adversely affect
    "new and evolving technologies unequally").

[^48]: *Id.* at 13928.

[^49]: *Id.*

[^50]: *See id.*

[^51]: *Id.* at 13927 (noting that radiated power is calculated by
    measuring the radiofrequency (RF) power at a convenient point in the
    transmission line between the transmitter and the antenna feed line,
    subtracting the specified system losses, and adding the specified
    maximum antenna gain).

[^52]: We suggested that the stepped approach could be set forth in a
    table to make clear what limit is applicable in any given instance,
    and we provided possible scenarios depicted in table format, noting
    the difficulties presented by use of graphical curves (*e.g.,* for
    antenna height power reduction). *See Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at
    13927. In suggesting a simpler alternative, we analogized to highway
    speed limits: rather than adopting a "mph per ton of vehicle" ratio
    that would likely result in a different individual speed limit being
    applicable to each model of car or truck in accordance with weight,
    two speed limits might be posted \-- one for automobiles and another
    for heavier vehicles such as trucks -- in the interest of highway
    safety. *See id.* at 13928-29*.*

[^53]: *Id.* at 13929.

[^54]: CTIA Comments at 1. *See, e.g.,* Motorola Comments at 2-3;
    Qualcomm Comments at 2, and its Reply Comments at 1-2; Ericsson
    Comments at 12; Aloha Letter at 1; Crown Castle Reply Comments at 2
    (reiterating its specific request that the Commission adopt PSD
    limits also for the 1670-1675 MHz band, discussed further in Section
    III.D, *infra*).

[^55]: Qualcomm Comments at 8.

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 5.

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: Powerwave Comments at 2-3.

[^60]: *Id.* at 4.

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: CTIA Comments at 2, 5.

[^63]: *Id.* at 5.

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: *Id.* at 9.

[^66]: Ericsson Comments at 12.

[^67]: CTIA Comments at 8.

[^68]: *Id.* at 9.

[^69]: *Id.*

[^70]: *See, e.g.,* Crown Castle Comments at 5; Ericsson Comments at 11,
    13; Powerwave Comments at 2; Sprint Nextel Reply comments at 4 n.10.

[^71]: Ericsson Comments at 11.

[^72]: Ericsson *Ex Parte* Letter dated Mar. 29, 2006 (Ericsson Letter)
    at 2.

[^73]: *See* Powerwave Comments at 4; Motorola Comments at 3 (noting it
    had previously recommended that the PSD formula be applied to
    emissions exceeding 1 MHz, but that a 500 kHz cut-off is also
    acceptable).

[^74]: CTIA Comments at 8-9.

[^75]: *Id.*

[^76]: *Id.*

[^77]: Motorola Comments at 3. *See also* Powerwave Comments at 6.
    Motorola asserts that establishing a series of fixed EIRP maximums
    "would, inevitably, handicap some future technology designs with
    bandwidths on the 'wrong-side' of the demarcation lines," and would
    require modifications as broader band technologies emerge. Motorola
    Comments at 3.

[^78]: Ericsson Comments at 14.

[^79]: *Id.* at 2, 13.

[^80]: *Id.* at 14. Powerwave states that, over time, the list of fixed
    power limits corresponding to some known emission bandwidths "may
    also become infinite as technologies evolve," and states that the
    Commission's suggested stepped approach is "inherently less
    flexible" and "becomes inherently arbitrary." Powerwave Comments at
    3, 6.

[^81]: *See April 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8098-99 (stating that a
    power limit that is construed to apply on a per-emission basis
    "could allow licensees employing multiple emissions to transmit more
    total energy in their authorized spectrum blocks than licensees with
    only one emission in their spectrum blocks").

[^82]: *See id.* at 8099.

[^83]: *August 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 15417. We recently sought
    comment in the pending AWS-3 proceeding on whether to apply PSD to
    radiated power limits in that spectrum block. *See* Service Rules
    for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175 MHz Band, WT Docket
    No. 07-195, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd 17035, 17064
    (2007).

[^84]: *April 700 MHz Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 8099.

[^85]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(b), 27.50(d)(1). As discussed above,
    these rules were amended in 2004 to provide significant relief to
    rural licensees operating in various bands. *See* *Rural R&O*,
    *supra* note 27.

[^86]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(b) (PCS), 27.50(d)(1) (AWS). *See also
    Rural R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19134.

[^87]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(b) (PCS), § 25.50(d) (AWS).

[^88]: CTIA Proposal at 2. CTIA's proposal for increased power would
    only apply to stations operating with antennas at an HAAT of up to
    300 meters; the reduced EIRP levels for stations with antennas at
    HAATs greater than 300 meters would continue to be calculated based
    on current EIRP limits, *i.e.*, 1640 watts in non-rural areas, and
    3280 watts in rural areas. *Id.*

[^89]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13930.

[^90]: *Id.*

[^91]: *Id.*

[^92]: *Id.* at 13930-31.

[^93]: *See, e.g.,* Motorola Comments at 2-3; Ericsson Comments at 6-7;
    Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 2; Powerwave Comments at 3-4. We
    note that TerreStar urged that "if the Commission decides to
    increase permitted power in the H-block, it should correspondingly
    increase the size of the guard band" to protect TerreStar's planned
    service in the 2 GHz band. TerreStar Comments at 2-3. This *Third
    Report and Order* does not address the H-Block, and hence
    TerreStar's concerns are better considered in a separate proceeding.
    *See also* discussion *infra* ¶ 51. We also note that NPSTC raises
    concerns about public safety, but states that its concerns "relate
    not to the broadband PCS and other bands where there are no adjacent
    public safety operations . . . ." NPSTC Comments at 4.

[^94]: Motorola Comments at 2-3. *See also* Powerwave Comments at 3
    (stating that the CTIA Proposal "constitutes a balanced approach
    that is technologically neutral").

[^95]: CTIA Comments at 6.

[^96]: *See* Ericsson Comments at 6.

[^97]: *Id*.

[^98]: *Id.* (claiming also that higher EIRP limits will benefit
    operators and consumers in urban areas through improved coverage in
    hard to reach areas, such as the lower and inner reaches of
    buildings, parking garages, subway systems, and other subterranean
    or dense construction).

[^99]: Powerwave Comments at 6.

[^100]: Except for Crown Castle, commenters also did not address our
    inquiries about potentially increased burdens regarding compliance
    with the Commission's environmental regulations. *See* discussion
    *supra* ¶ 29. CTIA had stated its belief that there would be no
    significant increase in the number of facilities requiring full
    evaluation, and Crown Castle agrees. *See* CTIA Proposal at 11;
    Crown Castle Reply Comments at 4-5. We are not changing our
    environmental regulations in conjunction with the EIRP rule changes
    we adopt today. Licensees will remain subject to the current
    evaluation and filing requirements. *See also* *infra* note 143 and
    accompanying text.

[^101]: *See supra* note 27.

[^102]: Under our existing rules, licensees deploying WCDMA systems are
    limited to 1640 watts EIRP (non-rural) and 3280 watts EIRP (rural).

[^103]: *See, e.g.,* Ericsson Comments at 7-8.

[^104]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13912.

[^105]: In implementing a PSD model for 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    radiated power, we stated that CTIA "provides no justification for
    permitting an unrestricted doubling of power levels for the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band, and we find no basis for adopting such
    limits for the band." *See April 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8103.

[^106]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.232 (PCS power limits); 47 C.F.R. §
    27.50(d) (AWS power limits). Peak power, also known as "peak
    envelope power," is defined as "\[t\]he average power supplied to
    the antenna transmission line by a transmitter during one radio
    frequency cycle at the crest of the modulation envelope taken under
    normal operating conditions." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^107]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.232(a).

[^108]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(d)(1).

[^109]: *See* CTIA Proposal at 5. Average power, also known as "mean
    power," is defined as "\[t\]he average power supplied to the antenna
    transmission line by a transmitter during an interval of time
    sufficiently long compared with the lowest frequency encountered in
    the modulation taken under normal operating conditions." *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^110]: *See* CTIA Proposal at 5. Alternatively, CTIA argues that we
    should eliminate the term "peak" from the PCS and AWS base station
    power rules to achieve the same ends. *Id.*

[^111]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13931-32.

[^112]: A waveform with a constant envelope has no peaks or valleys.

[^113]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13931. Because peak and average
    power were equal, it was unnecessary for the Commission to specify
    average or peak power in the related rules. *See id*.

[^114]: *Id.*

[^115]: *Id.*

[^116]: *Id.*

[^117]: *See, e.g.,* Ericsson Comments at 14-19; Motorola Comments at 4
    (describing average output power approach as "consistent with most
    standards specifications used to determine interoperability between
    various technologies to ensure co-existence"); Qualcomm Reply
    Comments at 4. CTIA reiterates that this modification would keep the
    rules "in step with developments in technology and industry
    practice." CTIA Comments at 9. *See also* Aloha Letter at 1-2. *But
    cf.* WCA Comments at 3-4 (opposing application of average power
    limits to BRS and EBS because the Commission has adopted rules under
    which the maximum average EIRP varies with channel bandwidth and
    antenna beamwidth).

[^118]: Motorola Comments at 4.

[^119]: Ericsson Comments at 16.

[^120]: *Id.*

[^121]: Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 5 (*but see infra* notes 136-137
    and accompanying text).

[^122]: Ericsson Comments at 16.

[^123]: *Id.* at 17.

[^124]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.232(a).

[^125]: *See* Ericsson Comments at 17.

[^126]: *See id.* at 18 (noting equipment specifications based on
    average power).

[^127]: *Id. See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(c) (stating that
    "\[m\]obile/portable stations are limited to 2 watts EIRP peak power
    . . . .) (for PCS); 27.50(d)(2) (stating that "\[f\]ixed, mobile and
    portable (handheld) stations operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band are
    limited to a peak EIRP of 1 watt.") (for AWS).

[^128]: Ericsson Comments at 22.

[^129]: *Id.* (adding that industry deploys hand-held units widely using
    non-constant envelope technologies "and, consistent with industry
    standards, measures EIRP limits based on average power without any
    evidence of harmful interference").

[^130]: Motorola Reply Comments at 3, n.10.

[^131]: Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 5.

[^132]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Comments at 10 (claiming that a PAR limit is
    unnecessary for modern multicarrier systems, such as OFDM and CDMA);
    Ericsson Comments at 19 (arguing that "PAR is directly correlated to
    equipment and deployment cost, and is thus kept to a minimum in
    practice") and at 22 (same regarding PAR for hand-held units);
    WCSW/XM Reply Comments at 7 (arguing that the Commission should
    adopt average power limits "without a limit on PAR").

[^133]: *See* Qualcomm Comments at 10 (arguing that where PAR "is high
    for a given air interface, a base station employing that air
    interface would need to reduce its average power" to meet OOBE
    limits). Commenting parties also note that non-constant envelope
    technologies currently co-exist with nearby operations without any
    significant interference problems. *See* Ericsson Comments at 19-20;
    Qualcomm Comments at 3, 9.

[^134]: CTIA Comments at 10; CTIA *Ex Parte* Letter filed February 6,
    2007 (CTIA 2007 Letter) at 2.

[^135]: CTIA 2007 Letter at 2.

[^136]: Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 5.

[^137]: *Id.*

[^138]: *April 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8103-04.

[^139]: *August 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 15417-18.

[^140]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Comments at 10.

[^141]: *April 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8103; *see also* *August
    700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 15417-18.

[^142]: *See, e.g., April* *700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8103.

[^143]: As we explain above (*see supra* note 100)**,** licensees will
    remain subject to our existing environmental regulations. *See,
    e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307 and 1.1310; *id.* § 2.1091 (governing RF
    radiation exposure evaluation specifically for mobile devices);
    *id.* § 2.1093 (governing RF radiation exposure evaluation
    specifically for portable devices).

[^144]: This requirement applies to PCS/AWS base stations and
    mobile/portable units alike. We also clarify that the calculation
    method that AWS licensees must use if they choose to continue
    measuring power in terms of peak values rather than average is the
    same method currently specified for PCS licensees. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    24.232(d).

[^145]: *See April 700 MHz Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8104. As noted above,
    CTIA indicates that a 13 dB PAR limit is the appropriate limit in
    the event the Commission determines that a PAR limit is warranted.
    *See supra* ¶ 39.

[^146]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13923, 13925.

[^147]: *Id.* at 13925.

[^148]: *See* Crown Castle 2005 Letter.

[^149]: In 2003, OP Corporation, which is another subsidiary of Crown
    Castle, won the license in FCC Auction No. 46. *See* "1670-1675 MHz
    Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 9089 (WTB 2003).
    In 2004, OP Corporation assigned (*pro forma*) the license to OP
    LLC. *See* ULS File No. 0001988324 (filed Dec. 29, 2004). The
    license has a 10-year term, expiring on October 1, 2013. Section
    27.902 authorizes licensees in this band "to provide fixed or mobile
    service, except aeronautical mobile service," pursuant to technical
    requirements specified in Subpart J, Part 27 of the Commission's
    rules. 47 C.F.R. § 27.902.

[^150]: *See infra* ¶¶ 52-55.

[^151]: *See* CTIA Comments at 5.

[^152]: *See id.*

[^153]: *See* Aloha Letter at 1; Crown Castle Comments at 1; Ericsson
    Comments at 23; Motorola Comments at 3; Powerwave Comments at 7;
    Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 1-2.

[^154]: *See* Motorola Comments at 4; Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at
    2-3; WCA Comments at 2-3. NPSTC specifically opposes comparable
    changes to the radiated power rules for services in the 800 MHz
    band, as discussed *infra* ¶ 46. *See also infra* ¶ 47.

[^155]: WCSW/XM Reply Comments at i (emphasis added); *see also id.* at
    1-2 (referencing WCSW's waiver request submitted in May 2005
    requesting authority to measure its power in the 2.3 GHz band at
    average rather than peak).

[^156]: WCSW/XM Reply Comments at 9 (specifically proposing adoption of
    a PSD limit of 4000 watts/MHz for 2.3 GHz WCS base stations).

[^157]: *See* WCSW/XM Reply Comments at 10-11 (adding that the
    flexibility to operate using a PSD model is "particularly
    appropriate" for the 2.3 GHz WCS band, "which the Commission
    intended to be used for a wide variety of services that could be
    provided using both narrowband and wideband technologies," and that
    failure to apply the rule change to this band "would create a
    regulatory bias in favor of low-powered cellular systems that use
    exclusively narrowband technologies").

[^158]: NPSTC Comments at 1, 6 (stating also that "the Commission's 800
    MHz decision is too far reaching and its technical underpinnings too
    reliant on current rules addressing power levels to change either
    the standard by which power is measured or to increase the power of
    a transmitter until reconfiguration is completed"). NPSTC further
    asserts that "the history of the 800 MHz band . . . reconfiguration
    is a caution to proposals of higher power levels and revised
    measurement standards promoting such in a spectrum environment where
    various technologies must coexist." *Id.* at 6.

[^159]: *See* Motorola Comments at 4.

[^160]: Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 3.

[^161]: WCA Comments at 4 (referencing WCSW\'s May 2005 waiver request
    ).

[^162]: *Id.* at 1.

[^163]: *Id.* at 2-3 (citing to the Commission's BRS and EBS rulemaking
    proceeding, WT Docket No. 03-66, and the resulting decision).

[^164]: *See generally* Sirius *Ex Parte* Letter filed Feb. 13, 2006
    (Sirius Letter).

[^165]: *Id.* at 6.

[^166]: *April 700 MHz Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 8098-99, 8103-04.

[^167]: WCA Comments at 2.

[^168]: *Id.* at 4.

[^169]: *Id.*

[^170]: *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on WCS
    Wireless, LLC Request For Waiver of Section 27.50(a)," *Public
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd 10714 (WTB 2005).

[^171]: *See* ULS File No. 0002240823.

[^172]: *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Assignment of License
    Authorization Applications, Transfer of Control of Licensee
    Applications, De Facto Transfer Lease Applications And Spectrum
    Manager Lease Notifications Action," *Public Notice*, 2006 WL
    1491482 (F.C.C.), Report No. 2526 (WTB May 31, 2006) (noting
    withdrawal of the application).

[^173]: "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications
    Action," *Public Notice*, 2006 WL 1491479 (F.C.C.), Report No. 2519
    (WTB May 31, 2006) (noting withdrawal of the waiver request).

[^174]: In another proceeding, the Commission has invited comment on
    whether to adopt a Power Flux Density limit for DARS terrestrial
    repeaters and for wireless operations in the 2305-2320 MHz or
    2345-2360 MHz frequency band, and whether the limit should be
    measured on a peak or average basis. *See* Amendment of Part 27 of
    the Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless
    Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz band; Establishment of Rules
    and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the
    2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No.
    95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, RM No. 8610, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 22 FCC
    Rcd 22123 (2007).

[^175]: *See supra* note 93.

[^176]: *See supra* ¶ 1. We discuss the 1670-1765 MHz band *infra* ¶¶
    52-55.

[^177]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(f)(1).

[^178]: *Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13925.

[^179]: *Id.*

[^180]: *See* OP LLC, Licensee of WPYQ831, Request for Waiver, Statement
    in Support of Request of OP LLC and Crown Castle International Corp.
    for Waiver of Section 27.50(f)(1) of the Commission's Rules (Crown
    Castle Petition), ULS File No. 0002271317, at 1-5. *See also* Crown
    Castle Comments at 3-5, 7-8.

[^181]: Additional information regarding DVB-H technology is available
    at <http://www.dvb-h.org/technology.htm>.

[^182]: See Presentation to the FCC on the use of the 1670-1675 MHz Band
    at 3 (September 28, 2006), filed with Letter dated September 29,
    2006, from Ari Q. Fitzgerald, counsel to Crown Castle, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 03-264 (Crown Castle September
    28, 2006 Presentation).

[^183]: *See* Letter dated October 4, 2006, from Ari Q. Fitzgerald,
    counsel to Crown Castle, to Fred Campbell, Legal Advisor to FCC
    Chairman Kevin Martin, Attachment A (Initial Market Deployment Plan)
    (requesting relief in thirty markets corresponding to CMAs 1-20, 22,
    24, 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 72, 75, and 93).

[^184]: Crown Castle Petition at 2.

[^185]: OP LLC (Crown Castle International Corp.), Licensee of WPYQ831,
    Petition for Waiver of Section 27.50(f)(1) of the Commission's
    Rules, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 4322 (2007)
    (*Crown Castle Waiver Order*).

[^186]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(g)(1). The expanded coordination zones
    were the result of discussions between Crown Castle and NTIA as
    reflected in the exhibit attached in support of Crown Castle's
    waiver filing. *See* Department of Defense Joint Spectrum Center,
    *NOAA GOES Sensor Data Downlink Coordination Zones for Proposed
    Transmitters in the 1670 to 1675 MHz Frequency Band (JSC report),*
    attachment to ULS File No. 00022271317. The expanded zones were also
    approved by the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC).
    *See* <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/irac.html>.

[^187]: *Crown Castle Waiver Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 4329-30, and at 4332,
    Appendix.

[^188]: *Id.* at 4329-30.

[^189]: *See* "Crown Castle Announces Long-Term Modeo Spectrum Lease,"
    available at
    <http://investor.crowncastle.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=255947>
    (Crown Castle Press Release).

[^190]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.9030 (long term *de facto* transfer leasing
    arrangements).

[^191]: *See* ULS File No. 0003108073 (filed July 17, 2007) (Lease ID
    L000002305).

[^192]: *Crown Castle Waiver Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 4328.

[^193]: On August 31, 2007, OP LLC (the subsidiary of Crown Castle that
    holds the license) filed a "Tribal Land Construction Certification
    and Demonstration," which states that a DVB-H "network and service
    offering has been launched and is operating that covers 86% of the
    population" of the White Mountain Apache Reservation. See ULS File
    No. 0003160142. This certification is currently pending before the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

[^194]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^195]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^196]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601--612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^197]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^198]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^199]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^200]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^201]: *See Further Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd at 13948, Appendix B.

[^202]: *See supra* note 11 and accompanying text.

[^203]: *See supra* ¶ 1.

[^204]: *See id*.

[^205]: *See Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13935.

[^206]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^207]: *See supra* Section III.A.

[^208]: *See supra* Section III.C.

[^209]: *See supra* ¶ 42.

[^210]: *See supra* ¶ 48 (explaining, however, that similar changes have
    already been adopted for operations in the Upper and Lower 700 MHz
    bands).

[^211]: *See supra* ¶¶ 52-55.

[^212]: *See* 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).