**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 03-103         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Part 22 of the      | ) |                              |
| Commission's Rules To Benefit    | * |                              |
| the Consumers of Air-Ground      | * |                              |
| Telecommunications Services      |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Biennial Regulatory              | * |                              |
| Review---Amendment of Parts 1,   | ) |                              |
| 22, and 90 of the Commission's   | * |                              |
| Rules                            | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: April 17, 2003 Released: April 28, 2003**

By the Commission:

**Comment Date: \[60 days after Federal Register Publication\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[90 days after Federal Register Publication\]**

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. Introduction 1

II\. discussion 5

A. Overview 5

B. Reexamination of Rules Relating to Commercial Air-Ground Service 7

1\. Background 8

2\. Discussion 17

C. Scope and Authority 24

D. Licensing Requirements and Procedures 31

E. Operational and Technical Requirements 36

F. Developmental Authorizations 46

G. Paging and Radiotelephone Service Rules 51

H. Rural Radiotelephone Service Rules 71

I. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service Rules 72

J. Offshore Radiotelephone Service Rules 77

III\. Procedural Matters 78

A. Form of Comments 78

B. Comment Filing Procedures 79

C. Ex Parte Presentations 83

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 84

E. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 85

F. Contact Information 86

IV\. Ordering Clauses 87

Appendix A, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix B, Proposed Rule Changes

# Introduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we undertake a
    reexamination of our rules governing the provision of air-ground
    telecommunications services on commercial airplanes in order to
    enhance the options available to the public. We also propose, partly
    in fulfillment of our biennial review responsibilities, to revise or
    eliminate certain Part 22 Public Mobile Services (PMS) rules that
    have become obsolete as the result of technological change,
    increased competition in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services
    (CMRS), supervening changes to related Commission rules, or a
    combination of these factors.[^1] This Notice in addition proposes
    to recodify certain Part 22 PMS rules to Part 1 of our rules,[^2]
    amend several of our Part 1 rules, and make several conforming
    amendments to our Part 90 rules.[^3] We also seek comment on
    providing licensees of nationwide paging channels flexibility to
    provide other services and on whether our rules limiting the
    provision of dispatch service by paging licensees are too
    restrictive. Adoption of this Notice is one step in achieving one of
    our key strategic goals---to "\[e\]ncourage the highest and best use
    of spectrum domestically and internationally in order to encourage
    the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient
    communications technologies and services."[^4]

2.  We initiate this proceeding partly in furtherance of our biennial
    review of regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended.[^5] Section 11 requires us to review our
    regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications service
    and to "determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary
    in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic
    competition between providers of such service," and to repeal or
    modify any regulation that we find no longer necessary in the public
    interest.[^6] This Notice, in part, is one of the steps in our
    implementation of staff recommendations[^7] under Section 11 for
    deleting or modifying various Part 22 rules. In addition, the Notice
    considers other proposals submitted to the Commission by members of
    the public regarding changes to the Part 22 regulations, including
    those that do not fall within the scope of Section 11. We
    accordingly seek comment below on changes to rules for each of the
    Part 22 services other than cellular as well as our rules governing
    developmental authorizations.[^8] In addition to eliminating
    unnecessary regulatory hurdles, many of these proposals provide
    licensees with greater flexibility regarding the use of their
    spectrum, which in turn leads to greater technical, economic, and
    marketplace efficiency.[^9]

3.  Most importantly, we are here initiating a reexamination of our
    rules that affect the provision of commercial air-ground service to
    consumers. It appears to us that existing rules and regulations
    regarding the use of the commercial air-ground spectrum[^10]---as
    well as rules governing the use of other wireless services for such
    transmissions---may be impeding the efficient, competitive provision
    of services to the public. We thus request parties to assess our
    current rules and policies affecting air-ground services---both with
    respect to the commercial air-ground spectrum itself and in other
    wireless services---and identify restrictions or policies that
    impede the competitive provision of services designed to meet
    consumers' needs, as well as make suggestions for rules and policies
    that would achieve more effective consumer choice and efficient
    spectrum use. This reexamination is intended to be expansive, and we
    welcome the ideas of all interested parties, specifically including
    airlines and airline passengers.[^11]

4.  At the conclusion of this rulemaking, we anticipate that the
    non-cellular Part 22 rules will be substantially abbreviated with
    the elimination of as many as 40 rules. While such rules may have
    had a role to play when adopted, many today serve merely as
    reminders of outmoded policies and technical concerns or
    unnecessarily limit the flexibility of Part 22 licensees to respond
    to the marketplace and meet the needs of consumers. These potential
    limitations on responding to public needs for service may be
    particularly true for the rules and policies affecting air-ground
    telecommunications services. Elimination or revision of many of the
    Part 22 and related rules to align them with the current technical
    and operational environment, and to allow for future technological
    innovation, will thus serve the public interest.

# discussion

## Overview

5.  We first address the opportunities for modifying our rules affecting
    commercial air-ground services and for promoting innovative
    offerings in dedicated commercial air-ground, as well as other,
    spectrum to meet the needs of consumers traveling on commercial
    aircraft for readily available wireless telecommunications services.
    Following that discussion, additional proposals to modify or
    eliminate certain Part 22 rules in this Notice are organized by the
    order in which the particular rule sections appear in Part 22. Many
    of the proposals below seek to eliminate rules that appear to have
    become obsolete as a result of meaningful economic competition among
    providers of wireless services or technological developments. In
    addition, some of the proposals in this Notice are intended to
    harmonize the regulatory scheme applicable to wireless service
    providers under Part 22 as well as other provisions of our rules.
    For example, we propose to consolidate into Part 1 both the method
    for calculating distance and the method for calculating terrain
    elevation applicable to wireless service providers.[^12] We also
    seek comment regarding how any of our Part 22 rules governing
    developmental authorizations can be improved and whether certain of
    these rules should be eliminated.[^13]

6.  We propose to ease regulatory requirements wherever appropriate. For
    example, we propose to eliminate the requirement to file FCC Form
    409 (Airborne Mobile Radio Telephone License Application) to apply
    for authority to operate a general aviation airborne station.[^14]
    We also propose to amend section 1.929(c)(1) to specify that certain
    expansions over water of a composite interference contour (CIC) of a
    site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, as
    well as in the Rural Radiotelephone and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile
    Radio Services, on a secondary, non‑interference basis are not a
    major modification of license.[^15] We also seek comment on whether
    licensees of frequencies designated for nationwide network paging
    service should be permitted to use these channels to provide service
    other than nationwide network paging,[^16] and whether the
    limitations placed on the provision of dispatch service by paging
    and radiotelephone service licensees should be revised or
    eliminated.[^17]

## Reexamination of Rules Relating to Commercial Air-Ground Service

7.  We are initiating in this proceeding a reexamination of our rules
    that may affect the provision of commercial air-ground service,
    *i.e.*, those rules affecting the availability of wireless services
    to passengers on commercial aviation aircraft. Pursuant to section
    22.925 of our rules and Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA")
    rules as supplemented by an advisory circular,[^18] passengers
    generally have been unable to use their terrestrial wireless
    handsets while in flight. Instead, passengers often have had access
    to a specialized air-ground service provided by the airline.
    Although the Commission allocated spectrum in the 800 MHz band for
    this commercial air-ground service and initially licensed six
    competing licensees, only one such licensee is still providing this
    service.[^19] This situation causes us to question whether the
    existing rules are inhibiting the viability of commercial air-ground
    operations on dedicated spectrum. At the same time, we have seen
    increased interest from a number of airlines in the possible
    liberalization of the Commission's rules in this area. Accordingly,
    the time is ripe for a fundamental reexamination of the Commission's
    rules.

### Background

8.  *[Commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service]{.underline}*. The
    Commission expressly provided for a commercial air-ground service by
    allocating four MHz of spectrum for commercial air-ground
    radiotelephone service in 1990,[^20] authorizing operation at
    849-851 MHz (ground stations) and 894-896 MHz (airborne mobile
    stations). This spectrum is divided into ten channel blocks, each of
    which is further subdivided into six control channels (P1-P6) and 29
    communications channels (C1-C29).[^21] Licensees in this service
    generally must locate their ground stations within 1.6 kilometers of
    the 97 site locations identified by coordinates in section 22.859 of
    our rules.[^22] One of the ten blocks of channels is allotted to
    each of these geographic site locations. Each of the six possible
    commercial air-ground licensees has access to an exclusive
    nationwide control channel in each channel block; communications
    channels are shared among all licensees. Each of the six licensees
    must provide nationwide service.

9.  The operations of commercial air-ground licensees are subject to
    certain practical limitations in light of the existing regulatory
    regime. To promote interoperable communications and to manage
    interference, some of the ground station locations in North America
    have been predetermined consistent with bilateral agreements with
    Mexico and with Canada. The number of communications channels limits
    the number of voice calls that can be simultaneously handled in a
    particular area. The specified narrow bandwidth (6 kHz) of the
    communications channels limits a service provider's ability to
    provide services other than voice and low-speed data services.[^23]

10. *[Limitations on Use of Wireless Devices on Commercial
    Aircraft]{.underline}*. Limitations on the use of wireless devices
    on commercial airborne aircraft derive from two sources, with
    separate justifications. Initially, the FAA adopted the predecessor
    to its current rule in 1961, to prohibit the operation of portable
    frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard U.S. aircraft when the
    very high frequency omnidirectional range was being used for
    navigation purposes.[^24] The FAA subsequently added other "personal
    electronic devices" (which includes wireless phones) to this
    prohibition. Specifically, the FAA generally prohibits the use of
    personal electronic devices on airplanes unless "the operator of the
    aircraft has determined \[the portable electronic device\] will not
    cause interference with the navigation or communication system of
    the aircraft on which it is to be used."[^25] The FAA has recently
    explained that it adopted these restrictions because of "the
    potential for portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with
    aircraft communications and navigation equipment."[^26]

11. Separately, the Commission adopted section 22.925 of its rules in
    1991 to prohibit airborne use of cellular telephones.[^27] The
    Commission imposed this limitation in order to guard against harmful
    interference to terrestrial cellular operations.[^28] There is no
    comparable rule governing use of PCS phones on airborne
    aircraft.[^29] However, the Commission has recognized that, even in
    the absence of specific FCC regulations governing airborne use, "the
    FAA has joint jurisdiction with the FCC regarding the use of
    telecommunications devices on airplanes."[^30] Indeed, the
    Commission has pointed out that its rules "with regard to the use of
    cellular telephones on board aircraft are subject to FAA guidelines.
    Therefore, neither cellular carriers nor their subscribers can
    demand to use cellular service aboard aircraft if the FAA has
    proscribed such use, and any use is specifically subject to all FAA
    regulations."[^31] The FAA has requested that RTCA, Inc., an
    industry consensus organization under the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act,[^32] form an advisory committee of government, industry and
    academic experts to specifically address the risks associated with
    use of portable wireless devices on aircraft. This RTCA advisory
    committee is expected to complete its task in late 2005. FAA
    regulations and guidance related to the use of portable electronic
    devices on board aircraft are not expected to change significantly
    until this advisory committee completes its studies and provides
    recommendations back to the FAA. Therefore, regardless of changes to
    Part 22 of our rules,[^33] FAA regulations will continue to regulate
    the use of all portable wireless devices, including cellular
    telephones, on board aircraft.

12. *[Recent Developments]{.underline}*. Current market and technical
    developments strongly suggest there may be significant consumer
    benefits from changing our existing regulatory framework. At
    present, there is only one commercial air-ground radiotelephone
    licensee with an active license---Verizon Airfone---and, according
    to reports, it intends to continue to provide commercial air-ground
    service.[^34] Another commercial air-ground licensee---AT&T
    Wireless---discontinued operations on September 1, 2002,[^35] and
    recently cancelled its license.[^36] Four other nationwide licenses
    have been unassigned for some time, but no one has formally
    requested that the Commission open another application filing
    window.[^37]

13. The price of the wireless service available to commercial airline
    passengers has traditionally been high when compared to terrestrial
    wireless service pricing. For instance, consistent with the
    customary pricing for air-ground service, Verizon Airfone today
    generally charges a connection fee of \$3.99 for each voice call,
    plus \$3.99 per minute of air time.[^38] A recent *USA Today*
    article notes that average calls per flight on the commercial
    air-ground spectrum have fallen from four to one and one-half,[^39]
    and both that story and a recent *Wall Street Journal* article
    attribute limited usage of the commercial air-ground service to the
    high price.[^40]

14. Some parties are working to expand and improve the services
    available to airline passengers. Verizon Airfone has taken a number
    of steps to enhance its services, with voice, data, and fax
    communications capability now found on all its phones.[^41] The
    company also launched an in-flight data service called
    JetConnect(SM) in September 2002 on some commercial U.S. flights,
    including planes operated by Continental Airlines, Inc.[^42] One
    report indicates that Verizon Airfone hoped to have the JetConnect
    service available on over 100 airplanes by the end of 2002.[^43] The
    service includes instant messaging, online games, and current news,
    priced at \$5.99 for an entire flight.[^44] Verizon Airfone also has
    indicated that, in order to meet the needs of consumers on
    commercial aircraft, it "plans solutions that would use other
    frequencies, such as the 2.4 GHz band used by the unlicensed
    Bluetooth and 802.11b technologies that are already available in
    many portable devices and are expected to be integrated into some
    cellular handsets soon."[^45] A Verizon Airfone representative
    explained that "\[p\]assengers would use their personal cell phones
    to connect to the onboard phone system through a Bluetooth access
    point, so that the onboard phone system would be the bearer system
    to the ground."[^46]

15. Another party significantly interested in providing commercial
    air-ground service to airline passengers is AirCell, Inc. Through
    its cellular licensee partners, AirCell provides, pursuant to
    waiver, air-ground services to general aviation aircraft using
    traditional cellular networks and frequencies.[^47] The AirCell
    system connects to existing ground-based cellular networks pursuant
    to agreements with 24 cellular providers.[^48] While, to date,
    AirCell has provided air-ground service only to general aviation
    aircraft over its network, it has announced plans to begin testing
    the service in commercial aircraft.[^49]

16. Certain commercial airlines also have recently expressed significant
    interest in reforms that would allow improvement in service to their
    passengers. Delta Air Lines, for example, recently stated to the
    Commission that it believes that its "passengers also want to use
    their cell phones during flight if they would be permitted to do so.
    . . . If this technology can be applied to commercial passenger
    aircraft so that passengers can use their own cell phones, this
    would be a major benefit to our airline and passengers, including
    our many frequent travelers whose convenience and productivity would
    be increased by the availability of these communications."[^50] A
    recent *Wall Street* *Journal* article indicates that a number of
    airlines are exploring a variety of technologies for enhancing
    communications (including surfing the Internet) by passengers during
    flight, from Verizon Airfone's updated air-ground service to
    satellite technology, such as Connexion by Boeing.[^51] Frontier
    Airlines, Inc. and AirCell have announced plans for a trial of
    AirCell's airborne cellular telephone system on one of Frontier's
    aircraft.[^52]

### Discussion

17. Given the limitations on commercial air-ground operations described
    above, the current state of the marketplace for commercial
    air-ground spectrum, and the amount of spectrum involved, we are
    initiating this reexamination of our rules. We seek comment
    regarding whether the commercial air-ground spectrum is being
    efficiently used, since there is now only one operating licensee in
    a regulatory plan that originally contemplated six competing service
    providers. To this end, we are open to all possible suggestions for
    fundamental reform of our spectrum policy in this band. We seek
    comment on whether any changes to our rules could provide greater
    opportunities for the competitive provision of air-ground services,
    leading to lower prices to consumers and increased choices in
    wireless services and enhancements while traveling by commercial
    airliner. In addition, we seek comment regarding whether this
    spectrum should be limited to air-ground use, or whether we should
    allow for more flexible use.[^53] Our goal is to promote the highest
    valued use of this spectrum, with service provision that better
    meets the needs of the public for wireless communications services.
    We also seek comment regarding possible changes to our rules that
    would encourage the use of innovative, spectrum-efficient
    technologies in this spectrum.

18. *[Air-Ground Spectrum]{.underline}*. As noted above, there is
    limited competition in the commercial air-ground spectrum, despite
    Commission licensing of six operators in this band. We are concerned
    that there is only one licensee remaining in this service, which
    suggests that reforms may be needed to the original structure. To
    what extent does the lack of competition stem from our rigid
    structure for licensing service providers? Is this a situation where
    our detailed regulatory scheme adopted in 1991 is hindering
    achievement of public interest benefits that could be better
    attained through deregulatory steps that promote flexibility and
    technical innovation? In light of experience gained since the
    commercial air-ground service was established, rigid service rules
    adopted to promote six licensees and that significantly delimit the
    permissible spectrum usage seem at least suspect when significantly
    fewer than six service providers appear viable. To what extent are
    there economic or related factors limiting marketplace competition?
    For example, to what extent is the number of active air-ground
    service providers determined by the nature of the relationships
    these providers must have with the airlines in the provision of
    air-ground service (*e.g.*, the need for commercial air-ground
    licensees to establish a relationship with each airline in order to
    place its phones on planes, as well as the generally exclusive
    nature of agreements entered into by individual airlines and
    air-ground licensees)?

19. In evaluating the provision of commercial air-ground service, we
    also seek comment on whether there are other steps we should
    consider to reform our commercial air-ground spectrum rules to
    permit more efficient use of this spectrum. Is there more
    innovative, spectrum-efficient technology available that could be
    used in this spectrum? If so, how best can we promote deployment of
    such technology? Should we increase the operational flexibility
    afforded to air-ground licensees to determine how best to meet the
    wireless service needs of commercial passengers while airborne? If
    we do so, should we retain the current structure in the 800 MHz band
    providing for six commercial air-ground licenses, with flexible
    rights granted to the existing licensee, or should we introduce a
    new licensing scheme?

20. We also seek comment on whether the choices available to consumers
    would be enhanced by granting flexibility to provide both air-ground
    and terrestrial wireless services in this spectrum. Would increased
    flexibility of this type provide benefits to consumers of air-ground
    and other wireless services? Would this expanded flexibility raise
    any co-channel, adjacent channel, or other interference issues,
    *e.g.*, with respect to existing or future services in the 800 MHz
    band?[^54] What other considerations should we take into account in
    assessing this possible option?

21. We note, for example, that allowing flexibility in the
    849-851/894-896 MHz band to provide terrestrial as well as airborne
    services would require a change to the current domestic allocation
    for the band, which is for aeronautical mobile services. We also
    note that current bilateral agreements between the United States,
    Canada, and Mexico provide for coordinated use of air-ground
    frequencies over North American airspace, and therefore could limit
    the potential for more flexible use of this spectrum. Because we
    recognize that any change to the current allocation of this band to
    allow greater flexibility raises a host of legal, policy, and
    implementation issues, we request parties wishing us to consider
    these options to address such implications.

22. *[Possible Use of Other Spectrum To Provide Commercial Air-Ground
    Service]{.underline}*. In light of the marketplace developments
    noted above, we also wish to consider alternative sources of
    air-ground service in addition to operators using the spectrum
    specifically allocated for such service. Should we change our rules
    for cellular spectrum, or any other CMRS spectrum, to permit
    licensees greater freedom to provide various air-ground services?
    Should we repeal or modify our prohibition against the use of
    cellular equipment while airborne?[^55] There clearly are
    significant technological developments that may facilitate the use
    of such equipment on airborne aircraft without causing interference
    to terrestrial operations or posing aeronautical risks, as well as
    heightened interest from the airline industry in permitting such
    use. For example, an airplane passenger might be able to rely on his
    or her CMRS handset to send and receive data or voice
    communications, at low power, to a special transceiver located on
    the airplane itself. This transceiver then could communicate with
    terrestrial locations. Of course, even if the Commission were to
    repeal its airborne cellular prohibition, we note that FAA rules and
    advisories or the determinations of individual airlines may continue
    to define permissible use of wireless devices on airborne commercial
    airplanes due to concerns about possible interference to the
    aircraft's own systems. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether
    allowing for greater flexibility in our own rules would be
    beneficial in encouraging the development of innovative airborne
    technologies that would be compatible with FAA rules and directives
    governing aircraft safety. We seek comment on whether we should
    consider any other changes to our rules to facilitate the provision
    of commercial air-ground service by licensees of other spectrum.

23. The subsequent sections address the various subparts of Part 22 in
    order, omitting, as previously noted, the rules concerning cellular
    service and implementation of CALEA.

## Scope and Authority

24. *[Authorization required]{.underline}*. Section 22.3(b) provides
    that, except for certain stations in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service and the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, subscribers'
    operation of mobile or fixed stations in the Public Mobile Services
    is covered by "the authorization held by the common carrier
    providing service to them."[^56] As discussed in paragraph 28 below,
    we are proposing to eliminate the restriction that license holders
    in Part 22 may only be current or future "common carriers." We
    therefore tentatively conclude that the term "common carrier" in
    this section can be replaced with the term "licensee," and that end
    users could continue to rely on the operating authority granted by
    the Commission to their service provider.

25. *[Form 409, Airborne Mobile Radio Telephone License
    Application]{.underline}*. In contrast to most Part 22 services,
    section 22.3(b)(1) requires an individual authorization to operate a
    general aviation airborne mobile station---an end user unit---in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.[^57] This requirement is also
    reflected in section 1.903(c) of our rules.[^58] Individuals must
    file FCC Form 409 (Airborne Mobile Radio Telephone License
    Application) to apply for authority to operate an airborne
    station,[^59] and must file FCC Form 409 to modify or renew an
    existing license. For the reasons stated below, we tentatively
    conclude that this individual licensing requirement should be
    eliminated.

26. In 1980, the Commission abolished licensing of individual mobile
    units in most public land mobile services.[^60] The Commission
    reasoned that individual land mobile units served by a base station
    are associated with the blanket authorization of that station, and
    thus subject to that licensee's exercise of effective operational
    control.[^61] The Commission did not abolish airborne station
    licensing at that time on the grounds that such licensees are not
    subject to the operational control of a single carrier in the way
    individual land mobile units are.[^62] In 1986, however, the
    Commission found that "the fact that no licensed common carrier
    exercises operating control over \[airborne stations\] has had
    little apparent effect on compliance with Commission rules."[^63]
    The Commission noted that it had received few complaints regarding
    airborne stations, and that no user license had ever been revoked or
    subject to forfeiture.[^64] In light of this record, the Commission
    simplified airborne station licensing by making licenses effective
    upon mailing of the application to the Commission and eliminating
    the requirement to submit a letter of intent to provide service from
    a local wireline carrier with the form.[^65] The Commission also
    eliminated the assignment of individual call signs and, instead,
    prescribed that airborne stations identify themselves by the FAA
    registration number of the aircraft in which they are located.[^66]

27. In the 16-year period following the Commission's simplification of
    airborne station licensing procedures, the Commission has received
    few complaints regarding such stations. We note that such equipment
    is used to communicate with ground facilities that are otherwise
    licensed by the Commission. Moreover, the requirement to file Form
    409 appears to impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on end users
    because it involves preparation of a form as well as payment of a
    \$50 fee for each subscriber unit. In view of the foregoing, we
    tentatively conclude that individual licensing of general aviation
    airborne mobile stations should be eliminated. We ask, however,
    whether there might be any other reasons for retaining this
    requirement or adopting a streamlined version of this requirement
    (*e.g.*, the need for aircraft flown to other countries to provide
    documentation that the airborne station is properly licensed in the
    United States). If we eliminate licensing of individual airborne
    mobile stations in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, we also
    will eliminate FCC Form 409.[^67]

28. *[General eligibility]{.underline}*. Section 22.7 states in its
    first sentence: "Except as otherwise provided in this part, existing
    and proposed common carriers are eligible to hold authorizations in
    the Public Mobile Services."[^68] In order to bring Part 22
    licensing policies into conformance with wireless regulatory parity
    policies and in light of the significant competition among PMS
    providers, we propose to delete this limitation. As we have stated
    in GN Docket No. 93-252, the Commission, "\[p\]ursuant to
    Congressional mandate, . . . adopted changes to its technical,
    operational, and licensing rules for common carrier and private
    mobile radio services that were necessary to implement the statute
    and to establish regulatory symmetry among similar mobile
    services."[^69] For example, in Part 24, governing Personal
    Communications Services (PCS), we do not limit license holders to
    entities that already are or plan to become common carriers.[^70]
    Part 27 also lacks such a limitation.[^71] Rather, these Parts
    generally prescribe that "\[a\]ny entity, other than those precluded
    by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. 310, . . . is eligible to hold a license under this
    part."[^72] We thus propose to eliminate the first sentence of
    section 22.7 and replace it with similar language defining
    eligibility consistent with the requirements of Section 310
    regarding foreign ownership.[^73] At the same time, we seek comment
    regarding whether elimination of the common carrier eligibility
    requirement in Part 22 could have any detrimental effect for Part 22
    licensees. In this regard, we note that section 20.9(a)[^74]
    explicitly finds that Part 22 Paging and Radiotelephone, Cellular
    Radiotelephone, Air-Ground Radiotelephone and Offshore
    Radiotelephone Services are CMRS, the offering of which is in turn
    subject to various rights and responsibilities set forth in Part 20
    of the Commission's rules.[^75]

29. *[Definitions]{.underline}*. Section 22.99 defines certain terms
    used in Part 22.[^76] The term "Radio Common Carrier" is defined as
    "\[a\] telecommunications common carrier that provides radio
    communications services but is not engaged in the business of
    providing landline local exchange telephone service."[^77] The term
    "Wireline Common Carrier" is defined as "\[a\] telecommunications
    common carrier that is also engaged in the business of providing
    landline local exchange telephone service."[^78] We note that these
    terms are no longer used in Part 22, and that the distinctions
    previously drawn between a radio common carrier and a wireline
    common carrier under these rules are obsolete.[^79] We therefore
    tentatively conclude that these definitions should be eliminated
    from section 22.99.

30. In addition, section 22.99 sets forth a number of definitions that
    incorporate the term "common carrier." The items using the common
    carrier term include "Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service," "Cellular
    Radiotelephone Service," "Offshore Radiotelephone Service," "Public
    Mobile Services," and "Rural Radiotelephone Service." In all cases,
    consistent with the assessment set forth in paragraph 28 above, we
    propose to replace the term "common carrier" in those definitions
    with the term "licensee." We note that we do not propose to alter
    the inclusion of "telecommunications common carrier" as a defined
    term in section 22.99.[^80]

## Licensing Requirements and Procedures

31. *[Construction Prior to Grant of Application]{.underline}*. Section
    22.143(d)(4) provides that for any pre-grant construction or
    alteration that would exceed the requirements of section 17.7,[^81]
    the licensee must notify the FAA and file "a request for antenna
    height clearance and obstruction and marking specifications (FCC
    Form 854) with the FCC, PRB, Support Services Branch, Gettysburg, PA
    17325."[^82] We propose to make an editorial correction to the Form
    854 filing location to "WTB, Database Management Division, Analysis
    and Development Branch, 1120 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325."
    We also propose to amend section 22.143(d)(4) to specify that Form
    854 may be filed electronically by accessing the FCC's Antenna
    Structure Registration home page at wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/.

32. *[Computation of Distance]{.underline}*. Section 22.157 provides the
    method for computing the distance between two locations, except for
    stations in Canada and Mexico, which must be computed under the
    applicable international agreement, if any.[^83] Section 22.157
    requires that the result of a distance calculation be rounded to the
    nearest whole kilometer.[^84] By contrast, section 90.309(a)(1) of
    our rules (the distance calculation rule under Subpart L of Part 90
    for Private Mobile Services authorized in the 470-512 MHz band)[^85]
    incorporates the calculation method from section 73.611 (the
    Broadcast TV distance calculation rule). Section 73.611(d), in turn,
    incorporates the calculation method from section 73.208(c) (the FM
    Broadcast Station distance calculation rule), but provides that the
    result of that calculation shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1
    kilometer. The section 73.208(c) and section 22.157 calculation
    methods are identical. Parts 20, 21, 24, 27, 80, 87, 95, 97 and 101,
    and other Subparts of Part 90 currently do not specify a distance
    calculation method.

33. Applying a single distance calculation method to all Wireless Radio
    Services should provide regulatory certainty and consistency to
    service providers licensed under these rule parts. We therefore
    tentatively conclude that section 22.157 should be recodified to
    Part 1, Subpart F, as new section 1.958, and that the reference to
    section 73.611 in section 90.309(a)(1) should be deleted and
    replaced by a reference to new section 1.958. The recodification of
    section 22.157 to Part 1, Subpart F, will make this distance
    calculation method applicable to all Wireless Radio Services
    described in Parts 1 (except Parts 21 and 101 as explained below),
    20, 22, 24, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, and 97,[^86] and supersede any
    conflicting regulations in these Parts.[^87] We note that software
    used by the Commission to process applications for Parts 21
    (Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services) and 101 (Fixed Microwave
    Services) is programmed to round the result of a distance
    calculation to the nearest tenth of a kilometer. We therefore
    tentatively conclude that new section 1.958 should state that the
    result of a distance calculation under Parts 21 and 101 must be
    rounded to the nearest tenth of a kilometer.

34. *[Computation of Terrain Elevation]{.underline}*. Section 22.159
    sets forth the method for computation of average terrain elevation
    for Part 22 services.[^88] Section 22.159 requires terrain
    elevations to be calculated as specified, except that in cases of
    dispute, manual methods may also be used.[^89] Section 90.309(a)(4)
    sets forth the method for computation of average terrain elevation
    for Part 90 services in the 470-512 MHz band. Parts 20, 21, 24, 27,
    80, 87, 95, 97, and 101 generally do not specify a terrain elevation
    calculation method.[^90] We propose to recodify section 22.159 to
    Part 1, Subpart F, as new section 1.959.[^91] We also propose to
    retain the section 90.309(a)(4) method for computation of average
    terrain elevation, which is unique to the licensing of the 470-512
    MHz band under Part 90,[^92] and cross reference it in new section
    1.959. The recodification of section 22.159 to Part 1, Subpart F,
    will make this terrain elevation calculation method applicable to
    all Wireless Radio Services described in Parts 1, 20, 22, 24, 27,
    80, 87, 90 (except the 470-512 MHz band), 95, 97 and 101,[^93] and
    supersede any conflicting regulations in these Parts.[^94]

35. *[ASSB]{.underline}*. Section 22.161 sets forth application
    requirements for base stations in the Paging and Radiotelephone
    Service, Rural Radiotelephone Service, and Offshore Radiotelephone
    Service for which the applicant proposes to employ amplitude
    compandored single sideband modulation (ASSB).[^95] This rule
    section appears to be obsolete in light of section 22.357, which
    permits Part 22 licensees to use any emission type that complies
    with applicable emission limits.[^96] Under section 22.357, Part 22
    licensees may change emission types without seeking prior
    approval.[^97] We tentatively conclude that section 22.161 should be
    eliminated.[^98]

## Operational and Technical Requirements

36. *[Channel Assignment Policy]{.underline}*. Section 22.351 sets forth
    the general policy for the assignment of PMS channels.[^99] The
    third sentence of this section uses the term "common carrier."[^100]
    Consistent with the approach taken above,[^101] we propose to
    replace the term "common carrier" with the term "licensee."

37. *[Interference Protection]{.underline}*. Section 22.352 provides, in
    pertinent part, that PMS licensees shall be considered
    non-interfering if they operate in accordance "with FCC rules that
    provide technical channel assignment criteria for the radio service
    or channels involved, all other applicable FCC rules, and the terms
    and conditions of their authorizations . . . ."[^102] This rule
    helps to alleviate the administrative burden on the Commission of
    resolving interference complaints by creating a presumption that
    operations consistent with our rules and the applicable
    authorization are non-interfering. We tentatively conclude that this
    provision in the rule section can be streamlined to provide that
    "PMS stations operating in accordance with applicable FCC rules and
    the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally
    considered to be non-interfering" without sacrificing any element of
    the Commission's intent in adopting this rule. References to
    technical channel assignment rules are most relevant to site-by-site
    licenses, and by abbreviating the explicit language, we make clear
    that operation consistent with Commission rules and the applicable
    authorization---whether on a site-by-site basis or on a geographic
    area basis---creates a presumption of non-interfering operation. We
    note that the Commission has relied in recent years on a system of
    voluntary cooperation and coordination between licensees, which has
    proven very successful in addressing interference concerns. We note
    that the proposed amendment would result in a rule that more
    accurately reflects how the Commission currently addresses
    interference issues.

38. *[Emission Types and Emission Masks]{.underline}*. An emission mask
    is defined as "\[t\]he design limits imposed, as a condition or
    certification, on the mean power of emissions as a function of
    frequency both within the authorized bandwidth and in the adjacent
    spectrum."[^103] Section 22.357 provides that any authorized PMS
    station may use any type of emission provided that it complies with
    the appropriate emission mask. Section 22.359 is the general
    emission mask rule.[^104] Section 22.861 is the emission limitations
    and mask rule for the air-ground radiotelephone service. At the time
    the Commission adopted the Part 22 rules, it generally used the
    emission mask approach to regulate in-band energy distribution.
    Recently, however, the Commission has been decreasing its reliance
    on the use of emission masks as a means to limit interference and,
    instead, increased its reliance on the use of out-of-band emission
    (OOBE) limits.[^105] OOBE limits are intended to limit emissions
    outside of the authorized bandwidth.[^106] We note that in the
    Cellular Biennial Review proceeding, the Commission recently amended
    sections 22.917 and 24.238 to specify OOBE limits for cellular and
    broadband PCS, respectively.[^107] We seek comment on possible
    revision or elimination of sections 22.357, 22.359, and 22.861 in
    light of the trend towards use of OOBE limits. We also seek comment
    on whether we should adopt OOBE limits for the Part 22 services that
    are the subject of this proceeding.

39. *[Standby Facilities]{.underline}*. Section 22.361 permits PMS
    licensees to install standby transmitters, without separate
    authorization, to continue service in the event of transmitter
    failure or during transmitter maintenance.[^108] We believe that it
    is now universally understood in the wireless industry that
    licensees are not required to obtain a separate authorization to
    install standby transmitters. We therefore tentatively conclude that
    section 22.361 should be eliminated.

40. *[Directional Antennas]{.underline}*. Section 22.363 and Table C-2
    to section 22.361 set forth directional antenna technical
    requirements.[^109] These requirements were adopted at a time when
    the Commission generally considered fixed wireless operations to be
    secondary to mobile operations. These regulations appear to be no
    longer necessary because, when the Commission licenses spectrum
    today, it provides greater flexibility to licensees to use the
    spectrum for mobile or fixed operations. Accordingly, we tentatively
    conclude that section 22.363 and Table C-2 to section 22.361 should
    be eliminated.

41. *[Wave Polarization]{.underline}*. Section 22.367 sets forth
    polarization requirements for the electromagnetic waves radiated by
    PMS providers.[^110] Section 22.367 specifies when vertical,
    horizontal, or circular polarization may be used for Part 22
    Services. In today's regulatory environment, where we allow fixed
    and mobile services to operate on a co-channel basis, the
    polarization restrictions may no longer be necessary or effective in
    reducing interference. We note that other providers of commercial
    mobile radio service, such as PCS and SMR providers, are not subject
    to a wave polarization requirement. We also note that the Commission
    recently eliminated the vertical wave polarization requirement for
    base, mobile, and auxiliary test transmitters in the Cellular
    Radiotelephone Service (former section 22.367(a)(4)).[^111] In doing
    so, the Commission reasoned that allowing cellular carriers to
    deploy non-vertically polarized antennas would promote regulatory
    parity and flexibility.[^112] We seek comment on eliminating section
    22.367.

42. *[Access to Transmitters]{.underline}*. Section 22.373 generally
    requires PMS transmitters to be accessible only to persons
    authorized by the licensee.[^113] This rule appears unnecessary
    because licensees have an economic self-interest to safeguard their
    transmitters from unauthorized access and because unauthorized
    access to transmitters can be limited pursuant to state and local
    trespass laws. We therefore tentatively conclude that section 22.373
    should be eliminated.

43. *[Replacement of Equipment]{.underline}*. Section 22.379 permits PMS
    licensees to replace equipment without notifying the FCC, provided
    that such equipment meets certain technical requirements.[^114] In
    the past, PMS licensees had to file an application with the
    Commission to deploy replacement equipment. Section 22.379, adopted
    in 1994,[^115] was intended to advise the public that such
    applications were no longer required provided that certain technical
    requirements were met. We believe that it is now universally
    understood in the wireless industry that licensees are not required
    to file an application in order to deploy replacement equipment,
    provided that such equipment meets the technical requirements for
    the service involved. We therefore tentatively conclude that section
    22.379 should be eliminated.

44. *[Auxiliary Test Transmitters]{.underline}*. Section 22.381 limits
    the use of auxiliary test transmitters to testing the performance of
    fixed receiving equipment located remotely from the control
    point.[^116] Section 22.381 further provides that such transmitters
    may only transmit on channels designated for mobile
    transmitters.[^117] We are aware of no harm that would arise from
    operating auxiliary test transmitters on any authorized channel,
    whether base or mobile. Section 22.381 appears unnecessarily to
    restrict the use of test equipment, and we therefore tentatively
    conclude that it should be eliminated.[^118]

45. *[In-building Radiation Systems]{.underline}*. Section 22.99 defines
    "in-building radiation systems" as "\[s\]upplementary systems
    comprising low power transmitters, receivers, indoor antennas and/or
    leaky coaxial cable radiators, designed to improve service
    reliability inside buildings or structures located within the
    service areas of stations in the Public Mobile Services."[^119]
    Section 22.383 provides that PMS licensees may install in-building
    radiation systems, without prior FCC approval, within their
    "protected service area."[^120] Section 22.352(c)(7), which contains
    a cross reference to section 22.383, provides that no interference
    protection is afforded to in-building radiation systems.[^121]
    In-building radiation systems are exempted from FAA notification
    under section 17.14(a)[^122] and, under section 22.377, transmitters
    used with in-building radiation systems must be certificated for use
    in the radio services regulated under Part 22.[^123] We believe that
    it is now universally understood in the wireless industry that PMS
    licensees may operate in-building radiation systems within their
    licensed geographic areas without prior FCC approval. In view of the
    foregoing, we tentatively conclude that section 22.383 should be
    eliminated and that the cross reference to this section in section
    22.352(c)(7) should be eliminated.

## Developmental Authorizations 

46. *[Developmental Authorizations]{.underline}*. Part 22, Subpart
    D---which includes sections 22.401, 22.403, 22.409, 22.411, 22.413,
    22.415 and 22.417---governs grant of developmental authorizations in
    the PMS.[^124] A review of Commission records indicates that these
    rules are seldom used and, instead, parties frequently file waiver
    requests that are tantamount to requests for developmental
    authorizations. We seek comment regarding how any of our Part 22
    rules governing developmental authorizations can be improved and
    whether certain of these rules should be eliminated.

47. *[Developmental Authorization of 43 MHz Paging
    Transmitters]{.underline}*. Sections 22.411 and 22.531(a) provide
    that 43 MHz channels can be initially assigned only as developmental
    authorizations.[^125] The requirements of sections 22.411 and
    22.531(a) are intended to mitigate interference with the
    intermediate frequency stages of receivers in television sets and
    video recorders. We note that, in recent years, there have been
    significant technical improvements in television and video recorder
    receivers. We seek comment on whether such technical improvements
    obviate the need for the requirements of sections 22.411 and
    22.531(a). If the record in this proceeding demonstrates that
    sections 22.411 and 22.531(a) are no longer required, we intend to
    eliminate these rules.

48. *[Developmental Authorization of 928-960 MHz Fixed
    Transmitters]{.underline}*. Section 22.415 provides that channels in
    the 928-931 and 952-960 MHz ranges may be assigned to fixed
    transmitters in point-to-multipoint systems at short-spaced
    locations (*i.e.*, those that do not meet the 70-mile separation
    requirement of section 22.625(a)).[^126] Section 22.625(a) governs
    where transmitters may be located on the channels listed in section
    22.621.[^127] In the *Multiple Address Systems Order,* the
    Commission amended section 22.621 to prohibit the issuance of new
    licenses for any 900 MHz frequencies listed in that section.[^128]
    The Commission therefore cannot issue any developmental
    authorizations under section 22.415 for these channels unless it
    waives the licensing prohibition of section 22.621. We therefore
    tentatively conclude that section 22.415 should be eliminated. We
    also tentatively conclude that section 22.625(a) should be revised
    by eliminating all text following the first sentence. The text we
    propose to eliminate pertains to short-spaced developmental
    authorizations under section 22.415, and thus would no longer be
    necessary if we adopt our proposal to eliminate section 22.415.

49. *[Developmental Authorization of Meteor Burst Systems]{.underline}*.
    Section 22.417 provides that Rural Radiotelephone Service (RRS)
    central office and rural subscriber stations in Alaska may use
    "meteor burst" propagation modes.[^129] Meteor burst systems bounce
    radio signals off the ionized trails of evaporating space rocks to
    receivers up to 1,000 miles away. Meteor burst technology, however,
    only works in brief spurts because a typical meteor trail has an
    average duration of a few hundred milliseconds, while wait times
    between suitable trails can range from a few seconds to minutes. As
    such, the technology is well-suited for bursty data transmissions
    but not suitable for a continuous voice call. Section 22.725(c)
    provides that channels 42.40, 44.10, 44.20 and 45.90 MHz may be used
    for such purposes in Alaska.[^130] Section 22.729 governs station
    operations using meteor burst propagation modes on these
    channels.[^131] Commission records indicate that there are no Part
    22 licensees on these channels in Alaska.[^132] The 44.20 MHz
    channel, moreover, is only available under Part 22 on a secondary
    basis to operations authorized under Part 90.[^133] Finally, as a
    practical matter and as noted above, meteor burst propagation cannot
    be used to transmit voice calls, which is at the core of the RRS.

50. In view of the foregoing, we ask whether sections 22.417, 22.725(c),
    and 22.729 should be eliminated. We note that if these sections were
    deleted, it would no longer be possible for entities to apply for a
    license to use meteor burst propagation mode in the RRS.[^134] We
    seek comment whether we should retain these rule sections in order
    to maintain this licensing option for RRS licenses or whether we
    should delete these rule sections in light of the apparent
    inappropriateness of this technology for the RRS. (If these rule
    sections are eliminated, we intend to delete the definition of
    "meteor burst propagation mode" in section 22.99,[^135] the section
    22.313(a)(3) station identification requirements for Rural
    Radiotelephone Service subscriber stations using meteor burst
    propagation,[^136] and the section 22.727(f) limits on transmitter
    output power for meteor burst stations.[^137])

## Paging and Radiotelephone Service Rules

51. *[Composite Interference Contour Over Water]{.underline}*. Under
    section 1.929(c)(1), any increase in the composite interference
    contour (CIC)[^138] of a site-based licensee in the Paging and
    Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone Service, or 800 MHz
    Specialized Mobile Radio Service is a major modification of license
    that requires prior Commission approval.[^139] On March 15, 2001,
    the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice in
    which it sought comment on a Request for Rule Change (Request) filed
    by the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). In its
    Request, PCIA sought amendment of section 1.929(c)(1) to treat as
    minor modifications those expansions of paging CICs that occur
    solely (1) beyond the land border of the United States or (2) over
    large bodies of water (oceans, gulfs, sounds, bays, and the Great
    Lakes, but not rivers). In its Request, PCIA argued that a
    significant number of paging licensees have considered all
    extensions over water to be minor and have not filed major
    modification applications for such extensions. PCIA's Request was
    precipitated by the *Rinker* decision, which concluded that any CIC
    increase, including an extension over water, should be treated as a
    major filing under section 1.929(c)(1).[^140] PCIA claimed that the
    *Rinker* decision has caused uncertainty about whether prior
    expansions over water that licensees implemented on a permissive
    basis are in compliance with Commission rules, and about what
    procedures should apply to similar future expansions. In that same
    Public Notice, the Bureau conditionally waived section 1.929(c)(1)
    to permit expansion of paging CICs over water on a secondary basis
    while PCIA's Request was pending.[^141]

52. No comments were filed in response to PCIA's Request. Commission
    records indicate that we have not received any interference
    complaints arising from the conditional waiver of section
    1.929(c)(1). In view of the foregoing and in light of the
    competitive provision of PMS, we tentatively conclude that section
    1.929(c)(1) should be amended to specify that expansion of the CIC
    of a site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone
    Service---as well as the Rural Radiotelephone Service and 800 MHz
    Specialized Mobile Radio Service---over water, on a secondary,
    non‑interference basis to any geographic area licensee in the same
    area, is not a major modification of license. We also tentatively
    conclude that the term "over water" should be defined as over bodies
    of water that extend beyond county boundaries including, but not
    limited to, oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. We note
    that, under this proposal, any site-based licensee in these three
    services that seeks a CIC expansion over land must continue to
    obtain prior Commission approval. In addition, if a CIC expansion
    over water requires frequency coordination pursuant to international
    treaty or agreement, then such an extension would be classified as
    major under section 1.929(a)(5) and require prior Commission
    approval.[^142]

53. We further propose that a site-based licensee expanding its CIC over
    water as defined above could do so on a permissive basis, with no
    notification to the Commission required. At the same time, however,
    we believe that the incumbent licensee in the same geographic area
    should have technical and engineering information regarding the
    site-based licensee's operations over water in order to guard
    against unacceptable interference to its own operations.
    Accordingly, we propose that the site-based licensee be required to
    provide to the geographic area licensee on the same frequency the
    technical and engineering information necessary for the latter
    entity to understand and evaluate the site-based licensee's
    operations over water. We request comment on the contents of such
    notification, the timing of making such a notification, whether such
    a requirement is necessary or excessively burdensome, and whether,
    instead, any filing with the Commission should be required.

54. If we were to require a Commission filing, we point out that section
    22.503(f) provides that "\[d\]uring the term of a paging geographic
    area authorization, the FCC does not accept, from anyone other than
    the paging geographic area licensee, any major application for
    authorization to operate a facility that would serve unserved area
    within the paging geographic area specified in that paging
    geographic area authorization, on the channel specified in that
    paging geographic area authorization, unless any extension of the
    interfering contour of the proposed facility falls: (1) Within the
    composite interfering contour of another licensee; or, (2) Into
    unserved area and the paging geographic area licensee consents to
    such extension."[^143] (Part 90 applicants should be aware of and
    seek possible waiver of similar restrictions that may be applicable
    to them.) If we were to require a Commission filing, site-based
    licensees in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service would have to
    request a waiver of this rule (to the extent applicable) to file
    such an application. Such waiver requests, however, would pose an
    unnecessary burden for licensees as well as FCC staff. We therefore
    tentatively conclude that, if we require any Commission filing
    regarding an expansion of CIC over water, section 22.503(f) should
    be revised to permit the filing of such applications. We believe
    that such a narrow exception to 22.503(f), if adopted, would not
    undermine the policy underlying this rule to protect the exclusive
    right of the geographic licensee to expand within the defined
    service area.[^144]

55. Finally, we seek comment on whether extensions over water are an
    issue in any of our other wireless services and whether we should
    revise our rules to address any such circumstances.

56. *[Nationwide Network Paging Channels]{.underline}*. Section
    22.531(b) provides that frequencies 931.8875, 931.9125, and 931.9375
    MHz may only be used for nationwide network paging service.[^145]
    Section 22.551 specifies the application process for such channels
    in the event one should become available for licensing, and provides
    additional rules for nationwide network paging service.[^146] We
    have licensed three nationwide paging providers pursuant to these
    rules. In light of our policy to facilitate flexible service
    offerings,[^147] our attempts to achieve regulatory parity among
    competing wireless services, and the highly competitive state of the
    paging industry, we seek comment on whether we should amend our
    rules to allow licensees on these channels to provide services other
    than nationwide network paging. In addition, we request comment on
    whether the specific application processing rule for these channels
    remains necessary, or whether we should apply our general paging
    licensing rules to license these channels in the event that one of
    them (or a partitioned or disaggregated portion thereof) were to
    become available for re-licensing.

57. *[Additional Channel Policies]{.underline}*. Section 22.539 governs
    the processing of applications for paging channels when an applicant
    has applied for or been granted another paging channel in the same
    geographic service area.[^148] Section 22.569 governs the processing
    of applications for a mobile channel when the applicant has applied
    for or been granted other mobile channels in the same geographic
    area.[^149] Section 22.569 applies to applications proposing to use
    the channels listed in section 22.561 (one-way or two-way mobile
    operations),[^150] except applications that propose to use these
    channels to provide paging service only, which are subject to
    section 22.539. Sections 22.539 and 22.569 were adopted at a time
    when the Commission assigned the subject paging channels on a
    site-by-site basis and gave close consideration to the amount of
    paging spectrum held by a single entity in a particular geographic
    area. Today, these Part 22 paging channels are licensed on a
    geographic area basis rather than assigned on a site-by-site basis.
    Incumbents operating on a site-by-site basis may expand their
    systems by assignment or transfer of a license or by participating
    in a spectrum auction. In addition, under our current licensing
    scheme for paging channels, we place no blanket restrictions on the
    number of overlapping Part 22 paging channels that a particular
    entity may hold in one area. We therefore tentatively conclude that
    sections 22.539 and 22.569 should be eliminated.[^151]

58. *[Provision of Rural Radiotelephone Service on Paging
    Channels]{.underline}*. Rural Radiotelephone Service is a fixed
    radio service using wireless technology to provide telephone service
    to subscribers in remote areas, particularly areas where wired
    access is limited. Section 22.561 provides that channels in
    frequency ranges 152.03-152.81, 157.77-158.67, 454.025-454.650 and
    459.025-459.650 MHz are allocated for paired assignment to
    transmitters in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service.[^152] These
    channels also are allocated for paired assignment to transmitters
    that provide Rural Radiotelephone Service (RRS),[^153] including
    both conventional RRS stations and Basic Exchange Telephone Radio
    Systems.[^154]

59. Section 22.563 specifies that providers of [two-way public mobile
    service]{.underline} in these frequency ranges---*i.e.*, Paging and
    Radiotelephone Service licensees---must also provide RRS [upon
    request from a subscriber]{.underline}.[^155] These channels,
    however, are now predominantly assigned for use by [one-way
    paging]{.underline} systems that are technically incapable of
    providing RRS.[^156] Because the majority of systems operating on
    these shared channels are technically incapable of providing RRS,
    they are exempt from the access requirement by the very terms of the
    rule section.

60. In addition, there are now a number of wireless service alternatives
    to RRS that are capable of providing the functionality of basic
    telephone service to customers in rural areas (*e.g.*, cellular,
    PCS, and some SMR). Indeed, FCC rules provide that cellular and PCS
    licensees may provide fixed services on a co-primary basis.[^157]
    Moreover, consumers in many areas---including rural areas--- have
    begun to substitute cellular, PCS, and some SMR service for landline
    service. This nascent trend is driven in part by wireless service
    plans that include the price of long distance service that may
    reduce a consumer's aggregate charges for local and toll service. In
    view of all of the foregoing, we tentatively conclude that the
    requirement contained in section 22.563 is no longer necessary and
    should be eliminated.[^158]

61. *[Transmission Power Limits]{.underline}*. Section 22.565(g) limits
    the effective radiated power (ERP) of dispatch and auxiliary test
    transmitters to 100 watts.[^159] We seek comment on whether the
    100-watt limit should be revised or eliminated. If section 22.565(g)
    were eliminated, then the maximum ERP for dispatch and auxiliary
    test transmitters would be governed by section 22.565(a). Under
    section 22.565(a), fixed stations (such as dispatch and auxiliary
    test transmitters) operating on mobile frequencies may have a
    maximum ERP of 150 watts. Comments on revision or elimination of the
    ERP limit should take into account our seeking comment on the
    permissible uses of auxiliary test transmitters.[^160] If we permit
    auxiliary test transmitters to operate on base frequencies, then the
    higher limits applicable to such frequencies under section 22.565(a)
    would apply.

62. *[Dispatch Service]{.underline}*. Section 22.577 governs the
    provision of dispatch service.[^161] The limitations placed on the
    provision of dispatch service contained in section 22.577 may be
    unduly restrictive in light of the Commission's flexible service
    offering policies[^162] and given the meaningful economic
    competition among PMS providers. AMTA stated in its 2002 Biennial
    Review reply comments that the limitations in section 22.577 "no
    longer serve any useful technical, operational or competitive
    purpose and should be eliminated."[^163] We therefore seek comment
    on whether section 22.577 should be revised or eliminated.

63. *[Hawaiian UHF Channels for Point-to-Point Operation]{.underline}*.
    Section 22.591 includes a table of channels allocated to fixed
    transmitters that support other transmitters that provide PMS.[^164]
    This table includes six UHF channel pairs designated for fixed use
    in the State of Hawaii.[^165] Commission records indicate that only
    one of these 6 UHF channel pairs has been assigned in Hawaii under
    Part 22.[^166] In light of the very limited usage of these channels,
    we seek comment on possible alternative uses of this spectrum in
    Hawaii. We do not propose any alternative use of this spectrum
    outside of Hawaii, as this band is allotted as broadcast channel 17
    throughout the remainder of the United States.[^167]

64. *[Channels for Point-to-Point Operation -- Microwave
    Channels]{.underline}*. Section 22.591 also includes a table of
    2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz microwave channels.[^168] In 1992, the
    Commission allocated these bands for use by emerging technologies
    (ET) services and no new systems may be authorized on these channels
    under Part 22.[^169] Recently, the Commission allocated, *inter
    alia*, the 2110-2130 MHz band for Advanced Wireless Services
    (AWS).[^170] At present, both the 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 bands are
    widely used for common carrier fixed microwave service.[^171] In
    light of the foregoing, we tentatively conclude that these microwave
    channels should be deleted from the section 22.591 table and that
    section 22.591(b) regarding assignment of such channels should be
    deleted.[^172] If we eliminate the microwave channels listed in
    section 22.591, we intend to delete the cross-reference to section
    22.591 in section 22.601 and, instead, reference the 2110-2130 and
    2160-2180 MHz channels.

65. Section 22.601 specifies rules for modification of previously
    authorized Part 22 stations on the 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz
    channels. Commission records indicate that 30 licensees collectively
    hold 57 licenses on these channels. We seek comment on the use of
    these licenses and whether section 22.601 should be revised at this
    time. For example, would it be appropriate to specify that this
    section sunsets one year after the Commission completes licensing of
    this spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services?

66. Section 22.602 sets forth rules governing a transition period for
    Paging and Radiotelephone Service licensees on the microwave
    channels listed in section 22.591 to relocate to other
    frequencies.[^173] If we eliminate the microwave channels listed in
    section 22.591, we intend to delete the cross-reference to section
    22.591 in section 22.602 and, instead, reference the 2110-2130 and
    2160-2180 MHz channels. We also seek comment on whether section
    22.602 should be revised at this time in light of the fact that
    Commission records indicate that 30 licensees collectively hold 53
    licenses on these channels. Similarly, should we specify that this
    section, in addition to section 22.601, sunsets one year after
    completion of licensing of this spectrum for Advanced Wireless
    Services?

67. *[Effective Radiated Power Limits]{.underline}*. Section 22.593
    specifies power limits for the channels enumerated in section
    22.591.[^174] As noted above, we propose to delete the microwave
    channels listed in section 22.591.[^175] If we eliminate these
    channels from section 22.591, we intend to make a conforming
    revision to section 22.593[^176] by deleting the second sentence,
    which specifies the EIRP of the microwave channels listed in section
    22.591.

68. *[Channel Usage Reports]{.underline}*. Section 22.655 requires a
    subcategory of paging licensees -- 470-512 MHz band licensees -- to
    submit defined channel usage reports every three months. In comments
    filed with the Commission concerning the 2002 Biennial Review,
    Westel Communications, Inc. (Westel) recommends that the Commission
    eliminate this quarterly filing requirement.[^177] As explained by
    the rule itself, the reporting requirement was adopted as part of
    the Commission's redesignation of the public mobile channels in the
    470-512 MHz band from trunked mobile operation to
    point-to-multipoint operation as the demand for trunked mobile
    service decreased. Only licensees in this band providing trunked
    mobile service are required to submit reports, based on the premise
    that the reports would enable the Commission to have the information
    necessary to know when it may redesignate the channels to
    point-to-multipoint operation. Only this category of PMS licensees
    must file channel usage reports. Our records indicate that only two
    licensees remain subject to this requirement---Westel and one other
    licensee.

69. The Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) has questioned Westel's
    proposal to eliminate this reporting requirement.[^178] According to
    APCO, "\[t\]hese reports are necessary to determine where spectrum
    in the 470-512 MHz band is underutilized, and could be made
    available for other uses."[^179] We note, however, that the majority
    of CMRS licensees using the 470-512 MHz band do not have to submit
    these quarterly reports. We encourage the parties to work together
    to determine what, if any, continuing purpose these reports serve.

70. Given that only two carriers must still file these reports, and they
    have maintained mobile usage of the channels for some time, and
    because we have eliminated loading reporting requirements for other
    paging operators, we tentatively conclude that we should eliminate
    section 22.655. At the same time, we seek comment on APCO's concerns
    about the loss of the reports. It is possible that a quarterly
    reporting requirement in the current environment is no longer
    necessary. Alternatively, should some commenters identify a
    continuing value in the reports, we could consider reducing the
    frequency to a yearly submission. We request comment on our proposal
    and any alternative considerations.

## Rural Radiotelephone Service Rules

71. *[Channels for Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems]{.underline}.*
    Section 22.757 specifies channels (in addition to those listed in
    section 22.725) in the frequency ranges 816.0125 to 820.2375 MHz and
    861.0125 to 865.2375 MHz that are allocated for paired assignment to
    basic exchange telephone radio systems (BETRS).[^180] The Commission
    auctioned these channels on a geographic area basis in Auction 16
    and they are no longer available for assignment to BETRS. We
    therefore tentatively conclude that section 22.757 should be
    eliminated and that the first sentence of section 22.725 should be
    amended to provide that the channels listed therein are available
    for paired assignment to BETRS.

## Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service Rules

72. Subpart G of Part 22 sets forth regulations for general aviation (or
    private aircraft) air-ground service and commercial air-ground
    service. In this section, we address three separate requirements now
    applicable to general aviation air-ground service and one
    requirement applicable to commercial air-ground service that should
    be addressed regardless of the outcome of our reexamination of the
    provision of wireless services to members on the public on airborne
    commercial airplanes.

73. *[Idle Tone]{.underline}*. Section 22.811 provides that when a
    ground station transmitter authorized to transmit on any Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service (AG) channel listed in section 22.805 is
    available for service but idle, it must continuously transmit a
    modulated signal on that channel with a power between 10 and 20 dB
    lower than the normal transmitting power.[^181] All U.S. AG stations
    are currently required to operate using Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Automated Service (AGRAS). As a result, the idle tone rule, which
    was intended to facilitate manual AG service, appears to have become
    obsolete. We tentatively conclude that section 22.805 should be
    eliminated.

74. *[Construction Period for General Aviation Ground
    Stations]{.underline}*. Section 22.815 provides that "\[t\]he
    construction period (see § 22.142) for general aviation ground
    stations is 12 months."[^182] Former section 22.142[^183] was
    consolidated into current section 1.946[^184] as part of the
    implementation of the Universal Licensing System rules.[^185] Former
    section 22.142 and current section 1.946 provide that if a licensee
    fails to commence service by the expiration of its construction
    period, its license terminates automatically, without specific
    Commission action. We therefore tentatively conclude that the
    reference to former section 22.142 in section 22.815 should be
    eliminated and replaced with a reference to section 1.946.

75. *[AGRAS]{.underline}*. Section 22.819 provides that, after January
    1, 1996, stations transmitting on the general aviation air-ground
    service channels must operate in compliance with the requirements
    set forth in the document, \"Technical Reference, Air-ground
    Radiotelephone Automated Service (AGRAS), System Operation and
    Equipment Characteristics,\" dated April 12, 1985.[^186] We
    understand that the industry is currently developing a new operating
    technology that may be superior to AGRAS. We wish to facilitate such
    technical innovation and request comment on the best means for doing
    so. Should the Commission eliminate section 22.819 at this time or
    after the new standard is ready for implementation? What, if
    anything, should the Commission do to facilitate technical
    compatibility and interoperability using this, or any other, new
    technology developed to provide this service?

76. *[Control Channel Transition Period]{.underline}*. Section 22.871
    provides that the experimental air-ground system operating on the
    channels listed in section 22.857 may use a 3.2 kHz control channel
    on channel C-2 of each channel block until September 9, 1996.[^187]
    This date has long passed, so the rule appears unnecessary. We
    tentatively conclude that section 22.871 should be eliminated.

## Offshore Radiotelephone Service Rules

77. Subpart I of Part 22---which includes sections 22.1001, 22.1003,
    22.1005, 22.1007, 22.1009, 22.1011, 22.1013, 22.1015, 22.1025,
    22.1031, 22.1035, and 22.1037---governs the licensing and operation
    of Offshore Radiotelephone Service (ORS) stations. These stations
    provide telephone service to subscribers located on oil exploration
    and productions platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. To date, we have
    received no requests for revising the rules governing ORS to provide
    increased flexibility. In this Notice, we specifically request
    comment whether any of the Subpart I rules warrant review at this
    time as a result of meaningful economic competition among providers
    of wireless services, or on any other basis. In any event, we
    propose to revise section 22.1003,[^188] to revise the eligibility
    requirements to eliminate references to "common carriers" and
    instead to rely on language similar to that used in Parts 24 and 27
    ("\[a\]ny entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, . . . is
    eligible to hold a license under this part"). This proposal is
    consistent with similar proposals contained in this Notice.[^189]

#  Procedural Matters

## Form of Comments

78. In order to facilitate staff review of the record in this
    proceeding, parties that submit comments or reply comments in this
    proceeding are requested to provide a table of contents with their
    comments. Such a table of contents should, where applicable,
    parallel the table of contents of this *Notice.*

## Comment Filing Procedures

79. *[Comments and Reply Comments]{.underline}*. Pursuant to applicable
    procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission\'s rules,[^190] interested parties may file comments on
    this notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 03-103 on or
    before 60 days after the date of publication of a summary of this
    Notice in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 90
    days after the date of publication of a summary of this Notice in
    the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
    copies.[^191] Given recent changes in the Commission\'s mail
    delivery system, parties are strongly urged to use the ECFS to file
    their pleadings. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an
    electronic file via the Internet to
    \<<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>\>. Only one copy of an
    electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal
    screen, electronic filers should include their full name, Postal
    Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
    number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet
    e-mail. To receive filing instructions for e-mail comments,
    commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include
    the following words in the body of the message, \"get form \<your
    e-mail address\>.\" A sample form and directions will be sent in
    reply.

80. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing in WT Docket No. 03-103. If parties want each
    Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an
    original plus nine copies must be filed. All filings by mail
    (including U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, Priority Mail and First
    Class Mail) must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary, Marlene H.
    Dortch, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
    445 12th Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20054. All filings sent to
    the Commission by overnight delivery (*e.g.*, Federal Express,
    except by U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to the Commission\'s
    Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission,
    Office of the Secretary, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
    MD 20743. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings must be
    delivered to the Commission\'s filing location at 236 Massachusetts
    Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002-4913.[^192] The
    filing hours at this facility are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Parties
    must also serve the following with either one copy of each filing
    via e-mail or two paper copies: (1) Qualex International, Portals
    II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C., 20554,
    telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or e-mail at
    qualexint@aol.com; and (2) Richard Arsenault, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,
    20554, <rarsenau@fcc.gov>.

81. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette to: Richard Arsenault, Attorney Advisor,
    Commercial Wireless Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The required diskette
    copies of submissions should be on 3.5-inch diskettes formatted in
    an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible software. Each
    diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
    submitted in \"read only\" mode. The diskette should be clearly
    labeled with the commenter\'s name, proceeding (WT Docket No.
    03-103), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
    submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The
    label should also include the following phrase \"Disk Copy - Not an
    Original.\" Each diskette should contain only one party\'s
    pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.

82. *[Availability of Documents]{.underline}*. Comments, reply comments,
    and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. Persons with disabilities who need
    assistance in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline
    at (202) 418-0267, (202) 418-7365 TTY, or <bcline@fcc.gov>. These
    documents also will be available electronically at the Commission\'s
    Disabilities Issues Task Force web site,
    [www.fcc.gov/dtf](http://www.fcc.gov/dtf), and from the
    Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System. Documents are
    available electronically in ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe Acrobat.
    Copies of filings in this proceeding may be obtained from Qualex
    International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402,
    Washington, D.C., 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202)
    863-2898, or via e-mail at <qualexint@aol.com>. This document is
    also available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large
    print, audio cassette, and Braille). Persons who need documents in
    such formats may contact Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202)
    418-7365, or send an e-mail to access@fcc.gov.

## Ex Parte Presentations

83. This is a permit-but-disclose rulemaking proceeding, subject to the
    \"permit-but-disclose\" requirements under section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission\'s rules.[^193] Ex parte presentations are permissible if
    disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the
    Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise,
    are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations
    are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must
    contain a summary of the substance and not merely a listing of the
    subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of
    the views and arguments presented is generally required.[^194]
    Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are
    set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission\'s rules. Parties
    submitting written ex parte presentations or summaries of oral ex
    parte presentations are urged to use the ECFS in accordance with the
    Commission rules discussed above. Parties filing paper ex parte
    submissions must file an original and one copy of each submission
    with the Commission\'s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, at the
    appropriate address as shown above for filings sent by either U.S.
    mail, overnight delivery, or hand or messenger delivery. Parties
    must also serve the following with either one copy of each ex parte
    filing via e-mail or two paper copies: (1) Qualex International,
    Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C.,
    20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or e-mail
    at qualexint@aol.com; and (2) Richard Arsenault, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554, <rarsenau@fcc.gov>.

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

84. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,[^195] the Commission
    has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of
    the possible impact on small entities of the proposals in this
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.
    Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments
    must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for
    comments on the NPRM, and they must have a separate and distinct
    heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's
    Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information
    Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
    Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in
    accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.[^196]

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

85. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
    collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
    information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public, agency,
    and OMB comments are due at the same time as other comments on this
    NPRM (which are due 60 days from the date of publication of this
    NPRM in the Federal Register). Comments should address: (a) whether
    the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
    the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of technology.

86. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections are due 60 days after the date of
    publication of a summary of this Notice in the Federal Register.
    Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections
    on or before 60 days after the date of publication of a summary of
    this Notice in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments
    with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information(s)
    contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
    Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
    Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to <jboley@fcc.gov>, and
    to Kim Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street,
    N.W., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to
    Kim_A.\_Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

## Contact Information

87. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contact for this proceeding
    is Richard Arsenault at (202) 418-0920, <rarsenau@fcc.gov>. Press
    inquiries should be directed to Meribeth McCarrick, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0654, TTY at (202) 418-
    7233, or e-mail at mmccarri@fcc.gov.

# Ordering Clauses

88. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 1, 4(i), 11, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 161, and 303(r), this
    NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED.

89. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**APPENDIX A**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^197] the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice"), WT Docket No.
03-103. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Notice, provided in paragraph 79 of the
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).[^198] In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^199]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

In the Notice, we undertake a fundamental reexamination of our rules
governing the provision of air-ground telecommunications services on
commercial airplanes (*i.e.*, those rules affecting the availability of
wireless services to passengers on commercial aircraft) in order to
enhance the options available to the public.[^200] Our goal is to
promote service provision that better meets the needs of the public for
wireless air-ground communications services. At present, only one of the
six available licenses in this service is used to serve the public. In
the Notice, we seek comment on whether any changes to our rules could
provide greater opportunities for the competitive provision of these
services, leading to lower prices to consumers and increased choices in
wireless services and enhancements while traveling by commercial
airliner.[^201] To this end, we are open to all possible suggestions for
fundamental reform. In addition, in this context, we seek comment
regarding whether the commercial air-ground spectrum is being
efficiently used, since there is now only one operating licensee in a
regulatory plan that originally contemplated six competing service
providers. We also seek comment on possible amendment of rules for other
wireless services to permit the provision of commercial air-ground
service by licensees of such spectrum.[^202]

We initiate this proceeding partly in furtherance of our biennial review
of regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended.[^203] Section 11 requires us to review our regulations
applicable to providers of telecommunications service and to "determine
whether any such regulation is no longer necessary in the public
interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between
providers of such service," and to repeal or modify any regulation that
we find no longer necessary in the public interest.[^204] This Notice,
in part, is one of the steps in our implementation of staff
recommendations[^205] under Section 11 for deleting or modifying various
Part 22 rules. In addition, the Notice considers other proposals
submitted to the Commission by members of the public regarding changes
to the Part 22 regulations, including those that do not fall within the
scope of Section 11. We accordingly seek comment on changes to rules for
each of the Part 22 services---Paging and Radiotelephone, Rural
Radiotelephone, Air-Ground Radiotelephone, and Offshore
Radiotelephone---other than cellular as well as our rules governing
developmental authorizations.[^206] In addition to eliminating
unnecessary regulatory hurdles, many of these proposals provide
licensees with greater flexibility regarding the use of their spectrum,
which in turn leads to greater technical, economic, and marketplace
efficiency.[^207]

In the Notice, we also propose to revise or eliminate certain Part 22
Public Mobile Services (PMS) rules that may have become obsolete as the
result of technological change, increased competition in the Commercial
Mobile Radio Services (CMRS), supervening changes to related Commission
rules, or a combination of these factors. This Notice in addition
proposes to recodify certain Part 22 PMS rules to Part 1 of our rules,
amend several of our Part 1 rules, and make several conforming
amendments to our Part 90 rules.

In the Notice, we also seek comment on ways to increase flexibility to
enable licensees to better serve the public. For example, we seek
comment on providing licensees of nationwide paging channels flexibility
to provide other services[^208] and on whether our rules limiting the
provision of dispatch service by paging licensees are too
restrictive.[^209]

Specifically, to illustrate the proposals outlined above, the Notice
seeks comment on elimination or modification of numerous Part 22
technical, operational and service rules.[^210] For example, the Notice
tentatively concludes that the directional antenna requirements set
forth in section 22.363 and Table C-2 to section 22.361 should be
eliminated.[^211] In addition to these rule changes, the Notice seeks
comment on elimination of the requirement to file FCC Form 409 (Airborne
Mobile RadioTelephone License Application) to apply for authority to
operate an airborne station.[^212] The Notice also seeks comment
regarding whether 47 C.F.R. § 1.929(c)(1) of our rules should be amended
to specify that expansion of a composite interference contour (CIC) of a
site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service---as well
as the Rural Radiotelephone Service and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio
Service---over water, on a secondary, non‑interference basis, should be
classified as a minor (rather than major) modification of license.[^213]
Such reclassification would substantially reduce the filing requirements
associated with these license modifications. Finally, the Notice seeks
comment on recodification of section 22.157 (computation of distance)
and section 22.159 (computation of terrain elevation) to Part 1 of the
Commission's rules.[^214] Subject to several exceptions, recodification
of these rules to Part 1 would harmonize the methods for computing
distance and terrain elevation applicable to Wireless Radio Services
described in Parts 1, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 so
that they are subject to the same requirements.

## Legal Basis

The potential actions on which comment is sought in this Notice would be
authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 11, and 303(r) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 161, and 303(r).

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Subject to the Rules 

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^215] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^216] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^217] 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 SBA.[^218]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^219] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^220] "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally
means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000."[^221] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.[^222] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
populations of fewer than 50,000.[^223] The Census Bureau estimates that
this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96
percent) are small entities. In the following paragraphs, we further
describe and estimate the number of small-entity licensees that may be
affected if the proposals in this Notice are adopted. We enumerate the
types of small entities described in this paragraph because many such
entities use such services and, in some cases, are licensees.

This Notice could result in rule changes that, if adopted, would affect
small businesses that currently are or may become Paging and
Radiotelephone, Rural Radiotelephone, Air-Ground Radiotelephone, or
Offshore Radiotelephone service providers regulated under Subparts E, F,
G, and I of Part 22 of the Commission's rules, respectively. The
proposed changes to Section 22.7 of the Commission's rules would, if
adopted, affect Cellular Radiotelephone Service providers that are
regulated under Subpart H of Part 22 of the Commission's rules.[^224] In
addition, pursuant to Section 90.493(b) of the Commission's rules,
paging licensees on exclusive channels in the 929-930 MHz bands are
subject to the licensing, construction, and operation rules set forth in
Part 22.[^225] As this rulemaking proceeding applies to multiple
services, we will analyze the number of small entities affected on a
service-by-service basis. In addition to service providers, some of the
proposed rule changes may also affect manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment. We will include a separate discussion
regarding the number of small equipment manufacturing entities that are
potentially affected by the proposed rule changes.

**Cellular Radiotelephone Service**. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular
licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the
definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless)
companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^226] We note that there are 1,758
cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several
licenses. According to the most recent *Trends in Telephone Service*
data, 858 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
cellular service, PCS, or SMR telephony, which are grouped together in
the data.[^227] Of these, 567 have more than 1,500 employees; the
remaining 291 are small business concerns under the SBA's definition.
However, because data for cellular service, PCS, and SMR telephony are
reported collectively, we are unable at this time to estimate how many
of the 291 small business concerns are cellular service carriers.
Consequently, we estimate that there are 291 or fewer small cellular
service carriers that may be affected by the proposal to amend Section
22.7, if adopted.[^228]

**Paging and Radiotelephone Service**. In the *Paging Second Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we adopted criteria
for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits and installment payments.[^229] We have defined a "small
business" as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three
preceding years of not more than \$15 million. A "very small business"
is defined as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar
years of not more than \$3 million. The SBA has approved these
definitions.[^230] An auction of MEA licenses commenced on February 24,
2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440
were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won
licenses. An auction of MEA and EA paging licenses commenced on October
30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses
auctioned, 5323 were sold. In this auction, high bids were placed by 130
entities that qualify as small businesses under the Commission\'s
definition. Licenses have been granted to 128 of these entities, and the
applications of the other entities remain pending. Thus, in addition to
existing licensees, should the Commission adopt the rule changes
proposed in the Notice, 130 license winners in the recent auction would
be affected small entities.

In addition, the SBA defines small paging companies as an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^231] At present, there are
approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier
Paging licenses. According to the most recent *Trends in Telephone
Service* data, 576 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of paging and messaging service.[^232] Only 19 of the 576
carriers have more than 1,500 employees; the remaining 557 are small
business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate
that there are 557 small paging carriers that may be affected by the
proposed rules, if adopted. We estimate that the majority of private and
common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.

**Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small business specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service.[^233] Accordingly, we use the SBA definition applicable to
cellular and other wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^234] There are
approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service,
and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition.

**Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on several
ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not used for
TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this
service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business
specific to the Offshore Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly, we use the
SBA definition applicable to cellular and other wireless
telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons.[^235] The Commission is unable at this time to estimate
the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that
all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by
the SBA.

**Rural Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^236] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).[^237] We
therefore use the SBA definition applicable to cellular and other
wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons.[^238] There are approximately 1000 licensees in
the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that
almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

**Equipment Manufacturers***.* Some of the proposed actions in the
Notice could also affect equipment manufacturers. The Commission does
not know how many equipment manufacturers are in the current market. The
1994 County Business Patterns Report of the Bureau of the Census
estimates that there are 920 companies that make communications
subscriber equipment. This category includes not only cellular, paging,
air-ground, offshore, and rural radiotelephone equipment manufacturers,
but television and AM/FM radio manufacturers as well. Thus, the number
of cellular, paging, air-ground, offshore, and rural radiotelephone
equipment manufacturers is lower than 920. Under SBA regulations, a
"communications equipment manufacturer" must have a total of 1000 or
fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.[^239]
Census Bureau data from 1992 indicate that at that time there were an
estimated 858 such U.S. manufacturers and that 778 (91 percent) of these
firms had 750 or fewer employees and would therefore be classified as
small entities.[^240] Using our current estimate of equipment
manufacturers and the previous percentage estimate of small entities, we
estimate that our current action may affect approximately 837 small
equipment manufacturers.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

This Notice neither proposes nor anticipates any additional reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance measures. If certain of the proposals
in the Notice (*e.g.*, eliminating the section 22.655 requirement that
certain paging licensees file channel usage reports,[^241] or
elimination of the requirement to file FCC Form 409 (Airborne Mobile
Radiotelephone License Application) to apply for authority to operate an
airborne station)[^242] are adopted as a result of this proceeding, then
we contemplate a reduction in these requirements. The reduction would be
the same for all entities.

In addition to these rule changes, the Notice also seeks comment
regarding whether section 1.929(c)(1) of our rules should be amended to
specify that expansion of a composite interference contour (CIC) of a
site-based licensee in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service---as well
as the Rural Radiotelephone Service and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio
Service---over water on a secondary, non‑interference basis should be
classified as a minor (rather than major) modification of license.[^243]
Such reclassification, if adopted, would substantially reduce the filing
requirements associated with these license modifications.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^244]

As stated earlier, a number of the Commission's Part 22 technical,
operational and service rules may be determined to be outdated.
Therefore, modifying or eliminating these rules should decrease the
costs associated with regulatory compliance for service providers,
provide additional flexibility in the provision of service and
manufacturing of equipment, and enhance the market demand for some
services. We therefore anticipate that, although it seems likely that
there will be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, there will be no adverse economic impact on small
entities. In fact, certain of the proposed rule changes may particularly
benefit small entities. For example, the Notice proposes that section
1.929(c)(1) should be amended to specify that expansion of the composite
interference contour (CIC) of a site-based licensee in the Paging and
Radiotelephone Service---as well as the Rural Radiotelephone Service and
800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service---over water, on a secondary,
non‑interference basis to any geographic area licensee in the same area,
is a minor, not a major, modification of license.[^245] Although
adoption of such an amendment would benefit both small and large
entities (because minor modifications are self-effectuating, while major
modifications require FCC approval), the majority of businesses in these
three radio services are small entities. The Notice further proposes
that a site-based licensee expanding its CIC over water as defined above
could do so on a permissive basis, with no notification to the
Commission required. Many licensees in these services are small entities
that could benefit from this rule change.

In the Notice, then, the Commission has set forth various options it is
considering for each rule, from modifying rules to eliminating them
altogether. As discussed in the Notice, the effect of any rule change on
the regulatory burden of licensees will be a significant criterion in
determining appropriate Commission action.[^246] We note that, with the
exception of our reexamination of our rules governing the provision of
air-ground telecommunications services on commercial airplanes in order
to enhance the options available to the public,[^247] the entire intent
underlying our actions here is to lessen the levels of regulation,
consistent with our mandate for undertaking biennial reviews. We seek
comment on any additional appropriate alternatives and especially
alternatives that may further reduce economic impacts on small entities.

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

None.

**APPENDIX B**

**PROPOSED RULE CHANGES**

**Title 47, Part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 47 CFR Part 1, is
amended as follows:**

1.  The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

[Authority]{.smallcaps}: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225,
303(r), 309 and 325(e).

2.  Section 1.903(c) is amended to read as follows:

*(c) Subscribers.* Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed
stations in the Wireless Radio Services, except for certain stations in
the Rural Radiotelephone Service, is included in the authorization held
by the licensee providing service to them. Subscribers are not required
to apply for, and the Commission does not accept, applications from
subscribers for individual mobile or fixed station authorizations in the
Wireless Radio Services. Individual authorizations are required to
operate rural subscriber stations in the Rural Radiotelephone Service,
except as provided in § 22.703 of this chapter. Individual
authorizations are required for end users of certain Specialized Mobile
Radio Systems as provided in § 90.655 of this chapter. In addition,
certain ships and aircraft are required to be individually licensed
under Parts 80 and 87 of this chapter. *See* §§ 80.13, 87.18 of this
chapter.

3.  Section 1.929(c)(1) is amended to read as follows:

    \(1\) In the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone
    Service and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (SMR), any
    change that would increase or expand the applicant\'s existing
    composite interference contour, except extensions of a composite
    interference contour over bodies of water that extend beyond county
    boundaries (i.e., including but not limited to oceans, the Gulf of
    Mexico, and the Great Lakes) on a secondary basis.

4.  New Section 1.958 is added to Subpart F of Part 1 as follows:

§ 1.958 Distance computation.

The method given in this section must be used to compute the distance
between any two locations, except that, for computation of distance
involving stations in Canada and Mexico, methods for distance
computation specified in the applicable international agreement, if any,
must be used instead. The result of a distance calculation under Parts
21 and 101 of this chapter must be rounded to the nearest tenth of a
kilometer. The method set forth in this paragraph is considered to be
sufficiently accurate for distances not exceeding 475 km (295 miles).

\(a\) Convert the latitudes and longitudes of each reference point from
degree- minute-second format to degree-decimal format by dividing
minutes by 60 and seconds by 3600, then adding the results to degrees.

![](media/image1.png){width="2.020138888888889in"
height="0.9798611111111111in"}

\(b\) Calculate the mean geodetic latitude between the two reference
points by averaging the two latitudes:

![](media/image2.png){width="1.8in" height="0.44027777777777777in"}

\(c\) Calculate the number of kilometers per degree latitude difference
for the mean geodetic latitude calculated in paragraph (b) of this
section as follows:

KPD sublat = 111.13209 - 0.56605 cos 2ML

> \+ 0.00120 cos 4ML

\(d\) Calculate the number of kilometers per degree of longitude
difference for the mean geodetic latitude calculated in paragraph (b) of
this section as follows:

> KPD sublon = 111.41513 cos ML - 0.09455 cos 3ML
>
> \+ 0.00012 cos 5ML

\(e\) Calculate the North-South distance in kilometers as follows:

NS = KPD sublat x (LAT1 subdd - LAT2 subdd )

\(f\) Calculate the East-West distance in kilometers as follows:

EW = KPD sublon x (LON1 subdd - LON2 subdd )

\(g\) Calculate the distance between the locations by taking the square
root of the sum of the squares of the East-West and North-South
distances:

![](media/image3.png){width="1.320138888888889in" height="0.3in"}

\(h\) Terms used in this section are defined as follows:

\(1\) LAT1 subdd and LON1 subdd are the coordinates of the first
location in degree-decimal format.

\(2\) LAT2 subdd and LON2 subdd are the coordinates of the second
location in degree-decimal format.

\(3\) ML is the mean geodetic latitude in degree-decimal format.

\(4\) KPD sublat is the number of kilometers per degree of latitude at a
given mean geodetic latitude.

\(5\) KPD sublon is the number of kilometers per degree of longitude at
a given mean geodetic latitude.

\(6\) NS is the North-South distance in kilometers.

\(7\) DIST is the distance between the two locations, in kilometers.

5.  New Section 1.959 is added to Subpart F of Part 1 as follows:

§ 1.959 Computation of average terrain elevation.

Except as otherwise specified in § 90.309(a)(4) of this chapter, average
terrain elevation must be calculated by computer using elevations from a
30 second point or better topographic data file. The file must be
identified. If a 30 second point data file is used, the elevation data
must be processed for intermediate points using interpolation
techniques; otherwise, the nearest point may be used. In cases of
dispute, average terrain elevation determinations can also be done
manually, if the results differ significantly from the computer derived
averages.

\(a\) Radial average terrain elevation is calculated as the average of
the elevation along a straight line path from 3 to 16 kilometers (2 and
10 miles) extending radially from the antenna site. If a portion of the
radial path extends over foreign territory or water, such portion must
not be included in the computation of average elevation unless the
radial path again passes over United States land between 16 and 134
kilometers (10 and 83 miles) away from the station. At least 50 evenly
spaced data points for each radial should be used in the computation.

\(b\) Average terrain elevation is the average of the eight radial
average terrain elevations (for the eight cardinal radials).

\(c\) For locations in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, the method
prescribed above may be used or average terrain elevation may be assumed
to be 3 meters (10 feet).

6.  Section 1.1102(16)(h) is removed.

7.  Section 1.2003 is amended by deleting the phrase "FCC 409 Airborne
    Mobile Radio Telephone License Application;"

    **Title 47, Part 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
    47 CFR Part 22, is amended as follows:**

8.  The authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as follows:

[Authority]{.smallcaps}: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

9.  Section 22.1(b) is amended by revising it to read as follows:

\(b\) *Purpose.* The purpose of these rules is to establish the
requirements and conditions under which domestic radio stations may be
licensed and used in the Public Mobile Services.

10. Section 22.3(b) is amended by revising it to read as follows:

    \(b\) Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed stations
    in the Public Mobile Services, except for certain stations in the
    Rural Radiotelephone Service, is included in the authorization held
    by the licensee providing service to them. Subscribers are not
    required to apply for, and the FCC does not accept applications from
    subscribers for, individual mobile or fixed station authorizations
    in the Public Mobile Services, except that individual authorizations
    are required to operate rural subscriber stations in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, except as provided in § 22.703.

11. Sections 22.3(b)(1) and (2) are removed.

12. Section 22.7 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

§ 22.7 General eligibility.

Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
hold a license under this part. Applications are granted only if the
applicant is legally, financially, technically and otherwise qualified
to render the proposed service.

13. Section 22.99 is amended by removing the definitions of "Meteor
    burst propagation mode," "Radio Common Carrier," and Wireline Common
    Carrier".

14. Section 22.99 is amended by eliminating the sentence "See, for
    example, § 22.161." in the definition of "Channel."

15. Section 22.99 is amended by replacing the term "common carrier" with
    the term "licensee" in the definitions of "Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Service," "Cellular Radiotelephone Service," "Offshore
    Radiotelephone Service," "Public Mobile Services," and "Rural
    Radiotelephone Service."

16. Section 22.99 also is amended by correcting the term "Air-ground
    Radiotelephone Service" to the term "Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Service" in the definitions of "Communications channel," "Control
    channel," and "Ground station."

17. Section 22.143(d)(4) is amended to read as follows:

\(4\) For any construction or alteration that would exceed the
requirements of § 17.7 of this chapter, the

licensee has notified the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA Form

7460-1), filed a request for antenna height clearance and obstruction
marking and lighting specifications (FCC Form 854) with the FCC at WTB,
Database Management Division, Analysis and Development Branch, 1120
Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325 or electronically via the FCC
Antenna Structure Registration homepage, wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/;

18. Section 22.157 is removed.

19. Section 22.159 is removed.

20. Section 22.161 is removed.

21. Section 22.351 is amended to read as follows:

§ 22.351 Channel assignment policy.

The channels allocated for use in the Public Mobile Services are listed
in the applicable subparts of this part. Channels and channel blocks are
assigned in such a manner as to facilitate the rendition of service on
an interference-free basis in each service area. Except as otherwise
provided in this part, each channel or channel block is assigned
exclusively to one licensee in each service area. All applicants for,
and licensees of, stations in the Public Mobile Services shall cooperate
in the selection and use of channels in order to minimize interference
and obtain the most efficient use of the allocated spectrum.

22. Section 22.352 is amended by revising the first sentence of this
    section to read as follows:

Public Mobile Service stations operating in accordance with applicable
FCC rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are
normally considered to be non-interfering.

23. Section 22.352(c)(7) is revised to read as follows:

\(4\) *In-building radiation systems.* No protection is provided against
interference to the service of in-building radiation systems.

24. Section 22.361 and Table C-2 thereto are removed.

25. Section 22.363 is removed.

26. Section 22.373 is removed.

27. Section 22.379 is removed.

28. Section 22.381 is removed.

29. Section 22.383 is removed.

30. Section 22.415 is removed.

31. Section 22.503(g) is amended by adding new subsection (4) to read as
    follows:

\(4\) The application is for a minor modification of license to expand a
licensee's composite interference contour over water on a secondary,
non‑interference basis under section 1.929(c)(1) of this chapter.

32. Section 22.539 is removed.

33. Section 22.563 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

§ 22.563 Provision of rural radiotelephone service.

Channels in the frequency ranges 152.03-152.81, 157.77-158.67,
454.025-454.650 and 459.025-459.650 MHz, inclusive, are also allocated
for assignment in the Rural Radiotelephone Service.

34. Section 22.569 is removed.

35. Section 22.591 is amended by removing the chart entitled "Microwave
    channels."

36. Section 22.591(b) is removed and reserved

37. Section 22.593 is revised to read in its entirety as follows:

§ 22.593 Effective radiated power limits.

The effective radiated power of fixed stations operating on the channels
listed in § 22.591 must not exceed 150 Watts.

38. The introductory paragraph of Section 22.601 is amended to read as
    follows:

§ 22.601 Assignment of microwave channels.

Assignment of the 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz channels (formerly listed
in § 22.591) is subject to the transition rules in § 22.602. No new
systems will be authorized under this part.

\* \* \*

39. The introductory paragraph of Section 22.602 is amended to read as
    follows:

§ 22.602 Transition of the 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz channels to
emerging technologies.\
\
The 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz microwave channels (formerly listed in §
22.591) have been allocated for use by emerging technologies (ET)
services. No new systems will be authorized under this part. The rules
in this section provide for a transition period during which existing
Paging and Radiotelephone Service (PARS) licensees using these channels
may relocate operations to other media or to other fixed channels,
including those in other microwave bands. For PARS licensees relocating
operations to other microwave bands, authorization must be obtained
under Part 101 of this chapter.

\* \* \*

40. Section 22.625(a) is amended to read as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(a) *928-960 MHz*. In this frequency range, the required minimum
    distance separation between co-channel fixed transmitters is 113
    kilometers (70 miles).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
41. Section 22.655(a) and (b) are removed, and Section 22.655(c) is
    renumbered 22.655(a).

42. The title of Section 22.725 is amended to read as follows:

§ 22.725 Channels for conventional rural radiotelephone stations and
basic exchange telephone radio systems.

43. The first sentence of the introductory paragraph of Section 22.725
    is amended to read as follows:

The following channels are allocated for paired assignment to
transmitters that provide conventional rural radiotelephone service and
to transmitters in basic exchange telephone radio systems.

44. Section 22.757 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

§ 22.757 Channels for basic exchange telephone radio systems.

The channels listed in § 22.725 are also allocated for paired assignment
to transmitters in basic exchange telephone radio systems.

45. Section 22.805 is removed.

46. Section 22.815 is revised to read in its entirety as follows:

§ 22.815 Construction period for general aviation ground stations.

The construction period (see § 1.946) for general aviation ground
stations is 12 months.

47. Section 22.871 is removed.

48. Section 22.1003 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

§ 22.1003 General eligibility.

Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
hold a license under this subpart. Applications are granted only if the
applicant is legally, financially, technically and otherwise qualified
to render the proposed service.

**Title 47, Part 90 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 47 CFR Part 90,
is amended as follows:**

49. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

[Authority]{.smallcaps}: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and
332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

50. Section 90.309(a)(1) is amended to read as follows:

    § 90.309 Tables and figures.

    \(a\) Directions for using the tables.

    \(1\) Using the method specified in § 1.958 of this chapter,
    determine the distances (i) between the proposed land mobile base
    station and the protected cochannel television station and (ii)
    between the proposed land mobile base station and the protected
    adjacent channel television station. If the exact mileage does not
    appear in table A for protected cochannel television stations (or
    table B for channel 15 in New York and Cleveland and channel 16 in
    Detroit) or table E for protected adjacent channel television
    stations, the next lower mileage separation figure is to be used.

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. Pt. 22. Part 22 contains 10 subparts. The first three
    subparts---Subparts A (Scope and Authority), B (Licensing
    Requirements and Procedures) and C (Operational and Technical
    Requirements)---apply generally to all Part 22 licenses. The fourth
    subpart, Subpart D, contains rules for developmental authorizations.
    Each of the next five Subparts (E through I) contain rules
    applicable to one of the five Part 22 services: (1) Paging and
    Radiotelephone; (2) Cellular Radiotelephone; (3) Rural
    Radiotelephone; (4) Air-Ground Radiotelephone; and (5) Offshore
    Radiotelephone. Finally, Subpart J implements the Communications
    Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) as it applies to Part 22
    services. *See* Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified
    as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C. §§ 229,
    1001-1010, 1021).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Pt. 1 (Practice and Procedure).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Pt. 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services).

[^4]: Federal Communications Commission, Strategic Plan FY 2003-FY 2008
    at 5 (2002)

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2)&(b). In our *Cellular Year 2000 Biennial
    Report and Order,* we stated that "section 11 places the burden on
    the Commission to make the requisite determinations; no particular
    burden is placed on the opponents or proponents of a given rule."
    Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting
    the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and Other Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services, *Report and Order*, FCC 02-229, at ¶4 (rel. Sept.
    24, 2002) (*Cellular Year 2000 Biennial Report and Order*), citing
    In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Spectrum
    Aggregation Limits for Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Dkt. No.
    01-14, *Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22628, 22679 ¶25 (2001); *see
    also Second Report and Order*, FCC 02-247 (rel. Sept. 24, 2002);
    *Erratum*, DA 02-2969 (rel. Nov. 4, 2002).

[^7]: *See* Biennial Regulatory Review, CC Docket No. 00-175, *Report*,
    FCC 00-456 (adopted Dec. 29, 2000; rel. Jan. 17, 2001) (*2000
    Biennial Review Report*); Biennial Regulatory Review 2000 Updated
    Staff Report (rel. Jan. 17, 2001) (Staff Report); 2002 Biennial
    Regulatory Review, *Report*, FCC 02-342, 2003 WESTLAW (FEDCOM FCC)
    1192543 (adopted Dec. 31, 2002; rel. March 14, 2003); The Commission
    Seeks Public Comment in the 2002 Biennial Review of
    Telecommunications Regulations Within the Purview of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, *Public Notice*, FCC 02-264 (rel. Sept.
    26, 2002).

[^8]: We are not here addressing the specific rules contained in Subpart
    J regarding the implementation of CALEA for Part 22 services. We are
    addressing implementation of CALEA in CC Docket No. 97-213. *See* In
    The Matter of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,
    *Order on Remand*, 2002 WESTLAW (FEDCOM FCC) 534605.

[^9]: *See* FCC Staff Report, *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report,* ET
    Dkt. No. 02-135 (rel. Nov. 2002).

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.857-22.875.

[^11]: We note, however, that use of cellular telephones and other
    wireless devices on commercial aircraft will continue to be
    regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regardless
    of the action we take in this proceeding.

[^12]: *See* paras. 32-34, *infra*.

[^13]: *See* paras. 46-50, *infra.*

[^14]: *See* paras. 25-27, *infra.*

[^15]: *See* paras. 51-55, *infra.*

[^16]: *See* para. 56, *infra.*

[^17]: *See* para. 62, *infra.*

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.925; 14 C.F.R. § 91.21; Federal Aviation
    Administration Advisory Circular No. 91.21-1A, "Use of Portable
    Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft" (Oct. 2, 2000).

[^19]: Of the six originally licensed entities, only three constructed
    and operated systems; now, only one remains in operation.

[^20]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Relative to Allocation
    of the 849-851/894-896 MHz Bands, *Report and Order*, 5 FCC Rcd 3861
    (1990).

[^21]: In 2001, at the request of the only two licensees then active,
    the Commercial Wireless Division of the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau granted a waiver of section 22.857, which provides each
    air-ground radiotelephone licensee with an exclusive control
    channel. Pursuant to this decision, two unassigned control channels
    (P-5 and P-6) may be used as an additional communications channel
    (C-30) and the guardband between control channel P-4 and
    communications channel C-30 has been increased from 3.2 kHz to 3.6
    kHz. See Claircom Licensee Corporation and GTE Airfone Incorporated
    Requests for Waivers of Air-ground Radiotelephone Service Rules,
    *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 17959 (WTB, CWD, rel. Oct. 9, 2001)
    ("Claircom/Airfone Waiver Order"). The Waiver Order provides for
    modification of the waiver grant in the event the Commission were to
    decide to assign this spectrum to another air-ground radiotelephone
    licensee or to use it for another purpose. Claircom/Airfone Waiver
    Order at ¶7.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.859. The purpose of using the specified site
    locations and frequency blocks is to minimize interference due to
    Doppler frequency shift. Because the air-ground channels are narrow
    (6 kHz), the relative motion of the aircraft and the ground station
    cause the frequency received to be shifted from its transmitted
    value. Because the channels are all used and adjacent to one
    another, they must all shift together by the same amount, or the
    signals will overlap and result in unacceptable interference.

    In certain instances, the rules permit stations at locations that
    are more than 1.6 kilometers from the specified locations. For
    example, pursuant to section 22.859(b), a ground station may be
    located at a distance greater than 1.6 kilometers from all of the
    locations listed in the geographical channel block layout, provided
    that it also is located at a minimum distance of 855 kilometers (550
    miles) from all antenna locations of ground stations using the same
    channel block. Pursuant to section 22.859(a), commercial air-ground
    licensees may construct and operate low power ground stations at
    additional locations on a non-interfering basis. 47 C.F.R. §
    22.859(a).

[^23]: When the Commission adopted the rules for this service, it
    implemented policies and technical constraints consistent with the
    experimental air-ground system licensed to Airfone, Inc. (now
    Verizon Airfone) six years prior to the order establishing the
    service in Part 22. In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Relative to Allocation of the 849-851/894-896 MHz Bands, FCC
    90-140, *Report and Order* (rel. June 15, 1990). The Commission
    sought to promote open entry, which required that the licensees be
    technically compatible and coordinate with one another.

[^24]: Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91.21-1A,
    "Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft," at 1 (Oct. 2,
    2000) (FAA PED Advisory Circular).

[^25]: 14 C.F.R. § 91.21. *See also* 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.306, 125.204,
    135.144. These rules exempt portable voice recorders, hearing aids,
    heart pacemakers, and electric shavers from the prohibition.

[^26]: FAA PED Advisory Circular at 1.

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.925. This section provides: "Cellular telephones
    installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type
    of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne
    (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all
    cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The
    following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone
    installed in any aircraft: 'The use of cellular telephones while
    this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the
    violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or
    a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the
    ground is subject to FAA regulations.'" This rule was adopted in
    Amendment of Sections of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules in the
    Matter of Airborne Use of Cellular Telephones and the Use of Cell
    Enhancers in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Service, *Report and
    Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 23 (1991) (Airborne Use of Cellular Telephones).
    The prohibition originally was adopted as section 22.911 but was
    subsequently renumbered section 22.925.

[^28]: Airborne Use of Cellular Telephones, 7 FCC Rcd at 23-24.

[^29]: Part 90 land mobile operations, which include Specialized Mobile
    Radio, are permitted aboard aircraft so long as: (1) the aircraft is
    regularly flown at altitudes of less than 1.6 km above the earth's
    surface; (2) the transmitter output power does not exceed ten watts;
    (3) the operations are secondary to land-based systems; and (4) any
    other steps necessary to minimize interference to land-based systems
    are implemented. 47 C.F.R. § 90.423(a).

[^30]: Airborne Use of Cellular Telephones, 7 FCC Rcd at 24. The
    Commission specifically noted: "Because the FAA has raised concerns
    that cellular telephones may, under certain circumstances, cause
    interference with aircraft systems and there is a need for further
    testing in this area to assess this potential risk, we will defer to
    the FAA on aircraft operations to establish regulations for use of
    cellular telephones on aircraft on the ground. The FAA is addressing
    this issue by developing operational guidelines to restrict cellular
    telephones to use at the gate and during extended waits on the
    ground when authorized by the captain. We applaud these efforts to
    establish reasonable guidelines to protect airline safety while
    permitting some uses of cellular telephones on aircraft while on the
    ground." *Id*.

[^31]: *Id*.

[^32]: 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2. In addition, the FAA charters RTCA, Inc.,
    as a Federal Advisory Committee under FAA Order 1110.77, as amended.

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. Part 22.

[^34]: *See, e.g.*, Paul Davidson, "In-flight Cellphone Use Might Become
    a Reality," *USA Today* (Oct. 23. 2002) at A1; Ron Liefer and J.
    Lynn Lumsford, "Totally Wired at 32,000 Feet," *Wall Street Journal*
    (Oct. 24, 2002) at D1; Welcome to Airfone web site,
    www22.verizon.com/airfone and
    www.22.verizon.com/airfone/service/af_service.htm.

[^35]: *See* Paul Davidson, "In-flight Cellphone Use Might Become a
    Reality," *USA Today* (Oct. 23, 2002) at A1.

[^36]: *See* Claircom Licensee Corporation Application for Cancellation
    of License, Call Sign KNKG801, File No. 0001161399 (filed Jan. 16,
    2003).

[^37]: Pursuant to section 22.875 of our rules, applications for
    authorization in this service may only be filed during window filing
    periods announced in public notices. 47 C.F.R. § 22.875.

[^38]: *See* Paul Davidson, "In-flight Cellphone Use Might Become a
    Reality," *USA Today* (Oct. 23, 2002) at A1;
    www22.verizon.com/airfone/service/af_service_genrates.htm.

[^39]: Paul Davidson, "In-flight Cellphone Use Might Become a Reality,"
    *USA Today* (Oct. 23, 2002) at A1.

[^40]: *See id*.; Ron Liefer and J. Lynn Lumsford, "Totally Wired at
    32,000 Feet," *Wall Street Journal* (Oct. 24, 2002) at D1.

[^41]: *See* Welcome to Airfone web site,
    http://www22.verizon.com/airfone and
    www.22.verizon.com/airfone/service/af_service.htm.

[^42]: *See* Ron Liefer and J. Lynn Lumsford, "Totally Wired at 32,000
    Feet," *Wall Street Journal* (Oct. 24, 2002) at D1; Bob Woods,
    "IM'ing at 30,00 Feet," Instant Messaging Planet (Sept. 24, 2002),
    available at
    www.instantmessagingplanet.com/public/article/0,10817_1469141,00.htm.

[^43]: Bob Woods, "IM'ing at 30,00 Feet," Instant Messaging Planet
    (Sept. 24, 2002), available at
    www.instantmessagingplanet.com/public/article/0,10817_1469141,00.htm.

[^44]: *See* Ron Liefer and J. Lynn Lumsford, "Totally Wired at 32,000
    Feet," *Wall Street Journal* (Oct. 24, 2002) at D1.

[^45]: Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, from L. Andrew Tollin, Douglas I. Brandon, J.R.
    Carbonnell, and John T. Scott, III, at 2 (dated Sept. 23, 2002).

[^46]: "Inflight Cell-Phone Tests Challenged," *WAEA Industry News*
    (Sept. 16, 2002) at 3.

[^47]: AirCell and its partners have been granted waivers of the
    Commission's rule, 47 C.F.R. § 22.925, prohibiting the use of
    cellular phones on planes in order to implement an air-ground
    service. AirCell\'s system uses specially designed mobile units and
    ground equipment to allow users to access the existing networks of
    AirCell\'s cellular licensee partners without causing the harmful
    interference against which section 22.925 was designed to protect.
    *See* In the Matter of AirCell, Inc., Petition, Pursuant to Section
    7 of the Act, For a Waiver of the Airborne Cellular Rule, Or, in the
    Alternative, for a Declaratory Ruling, *Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 806 (WTB
    1998), reconsideration granted in part, denied in part, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 19430 (WTB 1999), application for
    review denied, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 9622
    (2000), affirmed in part and remanded in part, *AT&T Wireless
    Services, Inc., et al., v. FCC*, 270 F.3d 959, 968 (D.C. Cir. 2001),
    *Order on Remand*, FCC 02-324 (rel. Feb. 10, 2003), petition for
    review filed (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2003).

[^48]: Press Release, "Frontier Airlines to Participate in Trial of
    AirCell, Inc.'s Cellular Airborne Telephones" (Sept. 25, 2002),
    located at www.Aircell.com/news/PressReleases/Frontier.htm.

[^49]: *See id.* AirCell has indicated that, to the extent any
    additional or modified waiver authority or experimental license is
    required in order to conduct the desired tests on commercial
    aircraft, it will obtain such necessary authorization. Nothing in
    AirCell's current waiver prohibits operation on commercial, as
    opposed to general aviation, aircraft.

[^50]: Letter to Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission, from Timothy W. Mapes, Managing Director, Customer
    Products and Services, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (dated Oct. 2, 2002).

[^51]: Ron Liefer and J. Lynn Lumsford, "Totally Wired at 32,000 Feet,"
    *Wall Street Journal* (Oct. 24, 2002) at D1; Susan Stellin, "A
    Networked World's Final Frontier: the Airplane," *New York Times*
    (Nov. 12, 2002) at C9.

[^52]: Press Release, "Frontier Airlines to Participate in Trial of
    AirCell, Inc.'s Cellular Airborne Telephones" (Sept. 25, 2002),
    located at
    [www.Aircell.com/news/PressReleases/Frontier.htm](http://www.Aircell.com/news/PressReleases/Frontier.htm).

[^53]: *See* para 21, *infra* (discussing potential limitations on
    flexible use).

[^54]: We note that the 849-851 MHz air-ground band is immediately
    adjacent to 800 MHz General Category land mobile channels at
    851-854.75 MHz that are used by both public safety and commercial
    SMR systems and that are discussed in our pending proceeding on 800
    MHz public safety interference issues. *See* Improving Public Safety
    Communications in the 800 MHz Band; Consolidating the 900 MHz
    Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Pool Channels, WT Docket
    No. 02-55, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 17 FCC Rcd 4873 (2002),
    *Erratum*, 17 FCC Rcd 7169 (2002). Some proposals in that docket
    contemplate the possible relocation of public safety users to the
    851-854 MHz band, adjacent to the 849-851 MHz air-ground band,
    raising additional questions about possible interference to be
    considered in evaluating any proposals regarding use of the Part 22
    commercial air-ground frequencies. Thus, our consideration of
    possible flexibility in the 800 MHz air-to-ground spectrum may be
    affected by the outcome of that proceeding.

[^55]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.925.

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.3(b).

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.3(b)(1).

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.903(c).

[^59]: FCC Form 409 was adopted in 1976. *See* Amendment of Part 21,
    Domestic Public Radio Services (Other than Maritime Mobile) and
    Adoption of FCC Form 409, *Order*, 63 FCC 2d 228 (1976).

[^60]: Individual Licensing Procedures, *Report and Order*, 77 FCC 2d 84
    (1980). In 1983, the Commission abolished individual licensing of
    subscriber units in the rural radio service for which the effective
    radiated power does not exceed 60 watts. *See* Public Mobile Radio
    Services, *Report and Order*, 95 FCC 2d 769, 828-29 (1983); 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.903(c), 22.3(b)(2), 22.703.

[^61]: Individual Licensing Procedures, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    44 Fed. Reg. 58929 (Oct. 12, 1979).

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: In the Matter of Amendment of Sections of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Simplify Individual Licensing Procedures in
    the Domestic Public Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 1986 Westlaw 29201113 (FEDCOM FCC library).

[^64]: *Id.* at ¶6.

[^65]: In the Matter of Amendment of Sections of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Simplify Individual Licensing Procedures in
    the Domestic Public Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, *Report and
    Order*, 1 FCC Rcd 163 (1986).

[^66]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.313(c)(2).

[^67]: If we eliminate Form 409, we will delete references to it in
    sections 1.1102 and 1.2003 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1102,
    1.2003.

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.7.

[^69]: In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act -- Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd 6341,
    6341 ¶1 (2000).

[^70]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.12.

[^71]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.12.

[^72]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.12.

[^73]: Likewise, we propose to eliminate the phrase "common carrier"
    from section 22.1(b), 47 C.F.R. § 22.1(b). In recent reply comments
    concerning our 2002 Biennial Review, the American Mobile
    Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA) recommended that we take
    similar action to delete the reference to "common carrier" and
    instead use the term "telecommunications carrier." Reply Comments of
    the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc., WT Dkt.
    No. 02-310, at 8-9 (filed Nov. 4, 2002). We think that our proposed
    revision to section 22.7 achieves the same goal and may provide even
    greater flexibility.

[^74]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.9(a).

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. Pt. 20 (Commercial Mobile Radio Services).

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^77]: *Id.*

[^78]: *Id.*

[^79]: The distinctions previously drawn between a radio common carrier
    and a wireline common carrier under Part 22 date back to 1949 when
    nearly all common carrier mobile allocations were separated into
    discrete bands for radio common carriers and wireline common
    carriers. This separate allocation scheme was eliminated in 1984.
    *See* In the Matter of Elimination of the Separate Frequency
    Allocation Structure in the Public Land Mobile Service (Rules
    Section 22.501); In the Matter of Revision and Update of Part 22 of
    the Public Mobile Radio Service Rules, *Report and Order and Order
    on Reconsideration*, 99 FCC 2d 311, 317 (1984).

[^80]: We also propose to make an editorial correction to the
    definitions for the terms "Communications channel," "Control
    channel," and "Ground station" in section 22.99 to change
    "Air-ground Radiotelephone Service" to "Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Service." *Id.*

[^81]: 47 C.F.R. § 17.7 (antenna structures requiring notification to
    the FAA).

[^82]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.143(d)(4).

[^83]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.157.

[^84]: *Id.*

[^85]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.309(a)(1).

[^86]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.901.

[^87]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.902.

[^88]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.159.

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: Parts 20, 21, 87, 95 and 97 have no height above average terrain
    ("HAAT") rules. Section 24.53, 47 C.F.R. § 24.53, is generally the
    same as section 22.159. Part 27 defines \"average terrain
    elevation\" in section 27.4, 47 C.F.R. § 27.4, and uses HAAT in
    27.50, 47 C.F.R. § 27.50, but does not specify how to calculate it.
    Section 80.757, 47 C.F.R. § 80.757, provides that both methods may
    be used. Section 80.759, 47 C.F.R. § 80.759, provides details of the
    manual method. Part 101 refers to \"AAT\" in sections 101.105 and
    101.333, 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.105 and 101.333, but does not specify how
    it shall be calculated.

[^91]: RadioSoft filed comments concerning our 2002 Biennial Review
    urging the Commission to adopt a single standard for all services
    subject to HAAT analysis above 30 MHz. Comments of RadioSoft, WT
    Dkt. No. 02-310, at 1 (filed Oct. 18, 2002). This proposal partially
    responds to RadioSoft's proposal by seeking to consolidate and make
    uniform the procedures for HAAT calculation for wireless services to
    the extent possible.

[^92]: Distinct rules are imposed for 470-512 MHz licensing because of
    the unique issues raised by this band regarding land mobile and UHF
    TV station operation. The specific instructions relate to
    construction of radials in connection with coordination with
    co-channel and adjacent channel UHF TV stations.

[^93]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.901.

[^94]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.902.

[^95]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.161.

[^96]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.357.

[^97]: *Id.*

[^98]: If we eliminate section 22.161, we also would eliminate the
    reference to this section in the definition of "Channel" in section
    22.99. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^99]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.351.

[^100]: This sentence provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this
    part, each channel or channel block is assigned exclusively to one
    common carrier in each service area." 47 C.F.R. § 22.351.

[^101]: *See* para. 28, *supra*.

[^102]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.352.

[^103]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^104]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.359.

[^105]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(10) (Wireless Communications
    Services OOBE limits).

[^106]: OOBE interference results from emissions on frequencies outside
    a licensee\'s authorized band that fall within the passband of an
    adjacent licensee\'s receiver(s). A passband is the range of
    frequencies within which fall the desired signals (*i.e.*, the
    signals intended to be received by the receiver). OOBE interference
    cannot be mitigated through receiver filtering, and differs from the
    type of adjacent channel interference that results from emissions
    that are contained within a licensee\'s authorized band, but fall
    just outside the passband of an adjacent licensee\'s receiver(s).

[^107]: *Cellular Year 2000 Biennial Report and Order* at ¶46**.** An
    OOBE standard reflects the reduction in out-of-band energy at the
    transmitter.

[^108]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.361.

[^109]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.363; 47 C.F.R. § 22.361, Table C-2.

[^110]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.367.

[^111]: *Cellular Year 2000 Biennial Report and Order* at ¶48.

[^112]: *Id.* at ¶49.

[^113]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.373.

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.379.

[^115]: *See* Revision of Part 22 of the Commission\'s Rules Governing
    the Public Mobile Services, *Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 6513
    (1994).

[^116]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.381.

[^117]: *Id.*

[^118]: We also seek comment on transmission power limits for auxiliary
    test transmitters. *See* para. 61, *infra*.

[^119]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^120]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.383.

[^121]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.352(c)(7).

[^122]: 47 C.F.R. § 17.14(a).

[^123]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.377.

[^124]: 47 C.F.R. Pt. 22, Subpt. D.

[^125]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.411, 22.531(a).

[^126]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.415.

[^127]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.625(a), 22.621.

[^128]: In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules Regarding
    Multiple Address Systems, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd. 11,956
    (2000) (*Multiple Address Systems Order*), *corrected by* Amendment
    of Commission\'s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems,
    *Erratum*,15 FCC Rcd 16415 (WTB, PSPWD 2000).

[^129]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.417.

[^130]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.725(c).

[^131]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.729.

[^132]: We note that meteor burst propagation may also be used in Alaska
    by licensees under Part 90 of our rules and there are operational
    systems under this rule part. 47 C.F.R. § 90.250.

[^133]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.729(a).

[^134]: Commercially reliable transmission using meteor burst
    propagation requires: a frequency in the low VHF range (30-50 MHz);
    high transmit power; and transmission of messages in relatively
    short intervals.

[^135]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^136]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.313(a)(3).

[^137]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.727(f).

[^138]: A CIC connects the outermost points of the intersecting
    interference contours for the base stations in a radio system.
    However, an incumbent\'s valid CIC does not include areas surrounded
    by the composite interior contour that are not part of the
    interference contours of the incumbent\'s individual sites. *See*
    Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10055 ¶35 (1999).

[^139]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.929(c)(1). Section 1.947(a) states, "All major
    modifications, as described in section 1.929 of this part, require
    prior Commission approval. Applications for major modifications also
    shall be treated as new applications for determination of filing
    date, Public Notice, and petition to deny purposes." 47 C.F.R. §
    1.947(a). Licensees may make minor modifications to station
    authorizations (as defined in Section 1.929), as a matter of right,
    without prior Commission approval. 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b).

[^140]: *See* Karl A. Rinker, d/b/a Rinker's Communications, Request for
    Declaratory Ruling, 14 FCC Rcd 19546 (WTB, CWD 1999) (*Rinker*).
    Rinker sought a declaratory ruling as to whether contour extensions
    over the Atlantic Ocean are major or minor modifications. The
    *Rinker* decision denied Rinker's request on the grounds that it was
    effectively asking for a rule change and was not properly the
    subject of a declaratory ruling.

[^141]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment On Request For
    Rule Change And Conditionally Waives Section 1.929(C)(1) To Permit
    Expansion Of Paging Contours Over Water On A Secondary Basis,
    *Public Notice*, DA 01-688 (rel. Mar. 15, 2001). The Bureau noted
    that CIC expansions solely over water should pose no risk of
    interference to other systems on land, and that processing such
    applications as major modifications would be a significant burden on
    both licensees and the Bureau. The Bureau attached several
    conditions to the conditional waiver.

[^142]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.929(a)(5).

[^143]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.503(f).

[^144]: *See* In The Matter of Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    -- Competitive Bidding, *Second Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking,* 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2764 ¶57 (1997).

[^145]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.531(b).

[^146]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.551.

[^147]: In 1996, the Commission expanded permitted offerings of fixed
    wireless service by Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers. *See*
    Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Permit Flexible Service
    Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, *First Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 8965
    (1996), *Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration*, 15
    FCC Rcd 14680 (2000).

[^148]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.539.

[^149]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.569. Under section 22.569, the FCC will not
    assign more than two channels in an area to a carrier per
    application cycle. That is, a carrier must apply for no more than
    two channels, receive the authorization, construct the station,
    provide service to subscribers, and notify the FCC of commencement
    of service to subscribers before applying for additional mobile
    channels in that area.

[^150]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.561.

[^151]: AMTA requests, in its 2002 Biennial Review reply comments, that
    the Commission clarify section 22.569 to exempt auction applicants
    from any restriction on the number of channels for which
    authorization is held. Reply Comments of the American Mobile
    Telecommunications Association, Inc., WT Dkt. No. 02-310 (filed Nov.
    4, 2002). We think that Section 22.539(d)(3) makes clear that
    geographic area authorizations are not subject to the additional
    channel policies. We further believe that our proposal to eliminate
    this section in its entirety encompasses AMTA's concern. In the
    event that commenters suggest that we retain this rule section,
    however, we request comment on any modifications to the rule section
    that would be appropriate or necessary to resolve the issue raised
    by AMTA.

[^152]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.561.

[^153]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.725.

[^154]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.757.

[^155]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.563 (emphasis added). This requirement was
    intended to address the possibility of a lack of available channel
    pairs to meet future demand for rural radio telephone service. The
    Commission adopted this requirement when it amended the rules to
    allow radio common carriers (*i.e.*, non-wireline carriers) to apply
    for unused channel pairs that until then had been designated for
    assignment only to wireline common carriers. The wireline carriers
    had been holding some of these designated channel pairs in reserve
    (unused) to meet possible future rural radiotelephone service need.

[^156]: The equipment used to provide one-way paging service cannot be
    used to provide two-way RRS.

[^157]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.901(d) (cellular fixed services); 47 C.F.R.
    § 24.3 (PCS fixed services).

[^158]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.563.

[^159]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.565(g).

[^160]: *See* para. 44, *supra*.

[^161]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.577.

[^162]: *See* n.147, *supra*.

[^163]: Reply Comments of the American Mobile Telecommunications
    Association, Inc., WT Dkt. No. 02-310, at 10 (filed Nov. 4, 2002).

[^164]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.591.

[^165]: The channels are in the 488-494 MHz band, which is UHF TV
    channel 17. In 1982, the Commission reallocated the six channel
    pairs to enable Hawaiian common carriers "to transmit inter-island
    paging and portable telephone signals." In the Matter of Amendment
    of Parts 2 of the Commission's Rules Governing Frequency
    Allocations, 22 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Public
    Mobile Radio Services, 73 of the Commission's Rules Governing the
    Radio Broadcast Services, and 74 of the Commission's Rules Governing
    Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special Broadcast, and Other Program
    Distribution Services To Reallocate UHF-TV Broadcast Channel 17 for
    Common Carrier Fixed Relay and Control Operations in the State of
    Hawaii, *Report and Order*, 51 Rad. Reg. (P&F) 2d 398 (1982).
    Channel 17 was not then and is not now allotted for broadcast use in
    Hawaii.

[^166]: The 488.750, 491.750 MHz channel pair is assigned to Mobile One,
    Inc., Call Sign WXR957.

[^167]: So long as one channel pair is still used under Part 22, UHF TV
    channel 17 would remain unavailable in Hawaii. Moreover, 47 C.F.R. §
    2.106 note NG 127 provides: "In Hawaii, the frequency band 488-494
    MHz is allocated exclusively to the fixed service for use by common
    carrier control and repeater stations for point-to-point
    inter-island communications only." If the entire 488-494 MHz band
    becomes clear, the Commission could consider reallocating this band
    back to broadcasting or for other purposes consistent with the Table
    of Allocations.

[^168]: The section 22.591 table incorrectly specifies eight microwave
    channel center frequencies. That table should reflect that there are
    398 microwave channel center frequencies. *See* Revision of Part 22
    of the Commission\'s Rules Governing the Public Mobile Services,
    *Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 6513, 6632 (1994).

[^169]: In the Matter of Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage
    Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, *First
    Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7 FCC
    Rcd 6886, 6890 ¶21 (1992).

[^170]: In the Matter of Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules
    to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to
    Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services,
    Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, *Second Report and
    Order*, FCC 02-304 (rel. Nov. 15, 2002). The Commission reserved for
    further analysis the possible AWS use of the 2160-2165 MHz band.
    *Id*. at ¶7. The Commission concurrently adopted a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking on the licensing, technical, and operational
    rules to be applied to the newly allocated AWS bands. *See* In the
    Matter of Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7
    GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 02-305
    (rel. Nov. 22, 2002).

[^171]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.101.

[^172]: Sections 22.601 and 22.602 provide that no new systems will be
    authorized on these channels pursuant to Part 22. 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 22.601, 22.602. Section 22.602 also provides procedures for
    transitioning Paging and Radiotelephone Service licensees from these
    channels. *Id.*

[^173]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.602.

[^174]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.593.

[^175]: *See* paras. 63-64, *supra*.

[^176]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.593.

[^177]: Comments of Westel Communications, Inc., WT Dkt. No. 02-310
    (filed Oct. 18, 2002).

[^178]: Reply Comments of APCO, WT Dkt. No. 02-310, at 3 (filed Nov. 4,
    2002).

[^179]: *Id*.

[^180]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.757.

[^181]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.811.

[^182]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.815.

[^183]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.142 (1997).

[^184]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.946.

[^185]: *See* [Biennial Regulatory Review---Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13,
    22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System
    in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, *Report and Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd 21027 (1998) (*ULS Report and Order*); *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 11145
    (1998).](http://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=4493&SerialNum=1998267573&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW2.78&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw&FN=_top)

[^186]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.819.

[^187]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.871.

[^188]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.1003.

[^189]: *See, e.g.*, para. 28, *supra*.

[^190]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^191]: Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63
    Fed. Reg. 24121(1998).

[^192]: *See* FCC Announces a New Filing Location for Paper Documents
    and a New Fax Number for General Correspondence, *Public Notice*, DA
    01-2919 (rel. Dec. 14, 2001).

[^193]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^194]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^195]: 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^196]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^197]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. 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).

[^198]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^199]: *Id*.

[^200]: *Notice* at paras. 7-22, *supra.*

[^201]: *Id.* at para. 17, supra.

[^202]: *Id.* at para. 22, *supra.*

[^203]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^204]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2)&(b). In our *Cellular Year 2000 Biennial
    Report and Order,* we stated that "section 11 places the burden on
    the Commission to make the requisite determinations; no particular
    burden is placed on the opponents or proponents of a given rule."
    Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting
    the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and Other Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services, *Report and Order*, FCC 02-229, at ¶4 (rel. Sept.
    24, 2002) (*Cellular Year 2000 Biennial Report and Order*), citing
    In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Spectrum
    Aggregation Limits for Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Dkt. No.
    01-14, *Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22628, 22679 ¶25 (2001); *see
    also Second Report and Order*, FCC 02-247 (rel. Sept. 24, 2002);
    *Erratum*, DA 02-2969 (rel. Nov. 4, 2002).

[^205]: *See* Biennial Regulatory Review, CC Docket No. 00-175,
    *Report*, FCC 00-456 (adopted Dec. 29, 2000; rel. Jan. 17, 2001)
    (*2000 Biennial Review Report*); Biennial Regulatory Review 2000
    Updated Staff Report (rel. Jan. 17, 2001) (Staff Report); 2002
    Biennial Regulatory Review, *Report*, FCC 02-342, 2003 WESTLAW
    (FEDCOM FCC) 1192543 (adopted Dec. 31, 2002; rel. March 14, 2003);
    The Commission Seeks Public Comment in the 2002 Biennial Review of
    Telecommunications Regulations Within the Purview of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, *Public Notice*, FCC 02-264 (rel. Sept.
    26, 2002).

[^206]: We are not here addressing the specific rules contained in
    Subpart J regarding the implementation of CALEA for Part 22
    services. We are addressing implementation of CALEA in CC Docket No.
    97-213. *See* In The Matter of Communications Assistance for Law
    Enforcement Act, *Order on Remand*, 2002 WESTLAW (FEDCOM FCC)
    534605.

[^207]: *See* FCC Staff Report, *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report,* ET
    Dkt. No. 02-135 (rel. Nov. 2002).

[^208]: *Notice* at para. 56, *supra.*

[^209]: *Id.* at para. 62, *supra.*

[^210]: The specific rules include: Sections 22.1(b), 22.3(b), 22.7,
    22.99, 22.143(d)(4), 22.157, 22.159, 22.161, 22.351, 22.352, 22.361
    (Table C-2), 22.363, 22.373, 22.379, 22.381, 22.383, 22.415,
    22.503(g), 22.539, 22.563, 22.569, 22.591, 22.593, 22.601, 22.602,
    22.625(a), 22.655(a) and (b), 22.725, 22.725(c), 22.729, 22.757,
    22.805, 22.815, and 22.871 of the Commission's rules.

[^211]: *Notice* at para. 40, *supra.*

[^212]: *Id.* at paras. 25-27, *supra.*

[^213]: *Id.* at paras. 51-55, *supra.*

[^214]: *Id.* at paras. 32-34, *supra.*

[^215]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^216]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^217]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 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."

[^218]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^219]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^220]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of Census, Table 6 (special
    tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
    Small Business Administration).

[^221]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^222]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of
    Governments."

[^223]: *Id*.

[^224]: *Notice* at para. 28, *supra.*

[^225]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.493(b).

[^226]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^227]: *See* Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (May 2002).

[^228]: *Notice* at para. 28, *supra.*

[^229]: Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules To
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, *Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed* Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 2731,
    2811-2812 (1997). These provisions were somewhat modified and
    clarified in Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules To Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088 (1999). *See* *also* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 22.217, 22.223.

[^230]: *See* Letter to Amy J. Zoslov, Chief (Acting), Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator,
    Small Business Administration, at 3-4 (Dec. 2, 1998).

[^231]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^232]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 5.3.

[^233]: Air-ground radiotelephone service is defined in Section 22.99 of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^234]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^235]: *Id*.

[^236]: Rural Radiotelephone Service is defined in Section 22.99 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^237]: BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and 22.729 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.729.

[^238]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^239]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210 (1000 or fewer), 334220
    (750 or fewer), 334290 (750 or fewer).

[^240]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC code 3663
    (estimate created by the Census Bureau under contract to the Office
    of Advocacy, SBA).

[^241]: *Notice* at paras. 68-70, *supra.*

[^242]: *Id.* at paras. 25-27, *supra.*

[^243]: *Id.* at paras. 51-55, *supra.*

[^244]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^245]: *Notice* at paras. 51-54, *supra*.

[^246]: *Id.* at paras. 2 & 4, *supra.*

[^247]: *Notice* at paras. 7-22, *supra.*