Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61049 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This regulation will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 73 

Biologics, Incorporation by reference, 

Packaging and containers, Penalties, 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

Dated: October 7, 2005. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

we are amending 42 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—SELECT AGENTS AND 

TOXINS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 262a; sections 201–

204, 221 and 231 of Title II of Public Law No. 

107–188, 116 Stat. 637 (42 U.S.C. 262a). 

■ 2. Amend paragraph (b) of § 73.3 by 

adding the following entry in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 73.3 HHS select agents and toxins. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reconstructed replication competent 

forms of the 1918 pandemic influenza 

virus containing any portion of the 

coding regions of all eight gene 

segments. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–20946 Filed 10–17–05; 12:02 

pm] 

BILLING CODE 4160–17–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 

[WT Docket No. 03–264; FCC 05–144] 

Amendment of Various Rules Affecting 

Wireless Radio Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) streamlines and 

harmonizes licensing provisions in the 

wireless radio services (WRS) that were 

identified in part during the 

Commission’s 2000 and 2002 biennial 

regulatory reviews. The Commission 

concludes that streamlining and 

harmonizing these rules will clarify 

spectrum rights and obligations for 

affected licensees and support recent 

efforts to maximize the public benefits 

derived from the use of the radio 

spectrum. Among other matters, the 

Commission retains the references to 

ERP and EIRP in its rules, eliminates the 

transmitter-specific posting requirement 

of part 22 licensees, conforms the 

Emission Mask G to a modulationindependent mask that places no 

limitation on the spectral power density 

profile within the maximum authorized 

bandwidth, eliminates a rule which 

required the filing of certain outdated 

supplemental information, and 

eliminates certain transmitter output 

power limits rules. Further, in this 

document, the Commission eliminates 

many filing and data reporting 

requirements, some output power 

limits, and seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should increase other 

power limits. 

DATES: Effective December 19, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr. and/or B.C. ‘‘Jay’’

Jackson, Jr. of the Mobility Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

at 202–418–0620 or via e-mail at 

Wilbert.Nixon@fcc.gov and/or 

Jay.Jackson@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order portion (Report and Order) of 

the Commission’s Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

FCC 05–144, in WT Docket Nos. 03–264, 

adopted July 22, 2005, and released 

August 9, 2005. The Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking portion (FNPRM) 

of the document is summarized 

elsewhere in this publication. The full 

text of the document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

St., SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, 

DC 20554. The complete text may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor: Best Copy & 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC, 

20554, telephone 800–378–3160, 

facsimile 202–488–5563, or via e-mail at 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also 

be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. 

Alternative formats are available to 

persons with disabilities by contacting 

Brian Millin at (202) 418–7426 or TTY 

(202) 418–7365 or at 

Brian.Millin@fcc.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document contains modified 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this R&O as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public 

and agency comments are due December 

19, 2005. In addition, the Commission 

notes that pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

Synopsis of the Report and Order 

I. Introduction 

1. On January 7, 2004, the 

Commission released a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, (NPRM) 

published at 69 FR 8132, February 23, 

2004, which commenced a proceeding 

to streamline and harmonize licensing 

provisions in the wireless radio services 

(WRS) that were identified in part 

during the Commission’s 2000 and 2002 

biennial regulatory reviews pursuant to 

section 11 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (‘‘Communications 

Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) (47 U.S.C. 161). The 

Commission proposed various 

amendments to parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 

90 of the rules to modify or eliminate 

provisions that treat licensees 

differently and/or have become 

outdated as a result of technological 

change, supervening changes to related 

Commission rules, and/or increased 

competition within WRS. We believe 

streamlining and harmonizing these 

rules will clarify spectrum rights and 

obligations and optimize flexibility for 

WRS licensees, fulfill our mandate 

under Section 11 of the 

Communications Act, and support 

efforts to maximize the public benefits 

derived from the use of the radio 

spectrum. Accordingly, in this Report 

and Order, we: 

• Modify our rules to classify a 

deletion of a frequency and/or 

transmitter site from a multi-site 

authorization under part 90 as a minor 

modification. 

61050 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

• Retain the references to ERP and 

EIRP in our rules. 

• Eliminate the transmitter-specific 

posting requirement of Part 22 licensees. 

• Eliminate part 24 transmitter output 

power limits. 

• Retain the frequency coordination 

requirement for incumbent licensees 

operating on 800 MHz General Category 

frequencies and for site-based 800 MHz 

General Category applications filed after 

800 MHz rebanding. 

• Conform the Emission Mask G to a 

modulation-independent mask that 

places no limitation on the spectral 

power density profile within the 

maximum authorized bandwidth. 

• Eliminate § 90.607(a) of our rules 

requiring the filing of certain outdated 

supplemental information. 

• Eliminate the loading requirement 

and references to the ‘‘waiting list’’ in 

§ 90.631(d) of our rules, and eliminate 

§ 90.631(i) which is no longer necessary 

because the 900 MHz specialized mobile 

radio (SMR) renewal period it references 

has long passed. 

• Modify § 90.635 of our rules to 

remove the distinction between urban 

and suburban sites when setting the 

maximum power and antenna heights 

limits for conventional 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems. Eliminate the power 

limitations on systems with operational 

radii of less than 32 kilometers. 

• Eliminate § 90.653 of our rules 

which specifies no limitation on the 

number of system authorizations to 

operate within a given geographic area 

as redundant. 

• Eliminate § 90.658 of our rules 

which provides that site-based licensees 

of trunked SMR systems must provide 

loading data in order to either acquire 

additional channels or renew their 

authorizations. 

• Modify § 90.693 of our rules to 

eliminate the necessity of incumbent 

800 MHz SMR licensees filing 

notifications of minor modifications in 

certain circumstances. 

• Eliminate § 90.737 of our rules 

which requires the filing of 

supplemental progress reports for 220 

MHz Phase I licensees. 

II. Background 

2. In the 2000 Biennial Review Report 

(16 FCC Rcd 1207 (2001)) and 2002 

Biennial Review Report (18 FCC Rcd 

4726 (2003)), the Commission supported 

proposals to streamline, harmonize, and 

update a number of regulations after 

reviewing various WRS rule parts 

pursuant to section 11 of the Act. 

Section 11 of the Act requires the 

Commission to review biennially its 

regulations that are applicable to 

providers of telecommunications service 

in order to determine whether any rule 

is ‘‘no longer necessary in the public 

interest as the result of meaningful 

economic competition.’’ Following such 

reviews, the Commission is required to 

modify or repeal any such regulations 

that are no longer in the public interest. 

Since the release of the biennial review 

reports, the Commission has considered 

modifying or repealing certain 

regulations by issuing notices of 

proposed rulemakings as appropriate. 

The NPRM addressed additional 

proposals, identified in the 2000 and/or 

2002 biennial review reports, to 

streamline and harmonize WRS rules 

that may no longer be necessary in the 

public interest pursuant to section 11 of 

the Act. 

3. To a great extent, technological 

changes and/or successive changes to 

various Commission licensing rules 

have made it appropriate to review 

whether many of these rules are 

obsolete and no longer in the public 

interest. Accordingly, the NPRM sought 

comment on streamlining and 

harmonizing these rules if they no 

longer serve the public interest in their 

current form notwithstanding any 

findings regarding the level of 

competition among existing services. In 

its 2002 Biennial Review Report, the 

Commission clarified the scope and 

standard of review for future 

proceedings conducted pursuant to 

section 11. In so doing, the Commission 

acknowledged that it has broad 

discretion to review the continued need 

for any rule even in the absence of a 

congressional mandate such as section 

11. Accordingly, the NPRM sought 

comment pursuant to the Commission’s 

broad authority to consider any 

proposed modifications to, or 

elimination of, these existing rules 

under the Commission’s general public 

interest standard. The Commission also 

provided notice of, and invited the 

public to review, various administrative 

corrections that it intended to make at 

the conclusion of this proceeding to 

update and/or clarify certain WRS rules. 

Although it was not necessary pursuant 

to the Administrative Procedure Act to 

seek comment on all of the proposed 

rule changes in the NPRM, the 

Commission did so to facilitate 

administrative efficiency. Thirteen 

parties filed comments. Six parties filed 

reply comments. 

III. Discussion 

A. Classification of Part 90 Frequency 

and/or Transmitter Site Deletions as 

Minor Modifications Under Part 1 

4. Background. Section 1.929(c)(4) of 

the Commission’s rules requires that 

certain requests for modification to a 

site-specific part 90 authorization, 

including changes to the frequencies or 

locations of base stations, are 

considered major modifications to the 

license which require prior Commission 

approval. Pursuant to § 90.135(b) of the 

rules, a site-specific Part 90 licensee that 

makes a modification request listed in 

§ 1.929(c)(4) must submit its request to 

the applicable frequency coordinator, 

unless the request falls within one of the 

specific exemptions listed in § 90.175 of 

the rules. 

5. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that a request to delete a 

frequency or a site from a multi-site 

authorization under part 90 should be 

considered a minor modification that 

requires neither frequency coordination 

nor the Commission’s prior approval 

and consequently proposed to amend its 

rules such that these actions would be 

treated as minor modifications under 

part 1 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission invited comment on its 

tentative conclusion and also sought 

comment on whether there remains any 

need for licensees to notify the 

applicable frequency coordinator of any 

given deletion, if the rules are modified 

as proposed. 

6. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

conclusion which was unanimously 

supported by the commenting parties. 

We conclude that requiring frequency 

coordination for a part 90 frequency or 

site deletion request is unnecessary 

given that the Universal Licensing 

System (ULS) now provides frequency 

coordinators with immediate access to 

frequency and site information. We 

agree with AAA’s assessment that it 

would be inconsistent to require 

coordination for a deletion of a site or 

a frequency when it is not required for 

a request to cancel an entire 

authorization. We also conclude that no 

further direct notification of frequency 

coordinators by licensees is necessary. 

We agree with NAM/MRFAC that 

licensees need provide no special 

notification to coordinators of a 

frequency/site deletion because 

licensees are generally required to file 

notifications of minor modifications 

with the Commission within 30 days of 

the change pursuant to §§ 1.929 and 

1.947, and that coordinators routinely 

obtain such information via regular 

downloads from the ULS. We also 

clarify that a deleted frequency and/or 

transmitter location becomes available 

for the filing of applications, where 

applicable, when the ULS database is 

updated to reflect the grant of the 

modification application seeking 

deletion of a frequency and/or 

transmitter location. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61051 

B. Effective Radiated Power/Equivalent 

Isotropically Radiated Power 

7. Background. In its comments in the 

2000 biennial review proceeding, the 

Wireless Communications Division of 

the Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA) argued that 

designating FCC power limits in terms 

of ERP in the Cellular Radiotelephone 

Service (cellular) rules and EIRP in the 

broadband Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) rules is ‘‘confusing to [its 

members’] customers since it appears 

that a dual mode phone [transmits] at 

different power levels at different 

frequencies.’’ Although it recommended 

in the 2000 Biennial Review Report that 

a rulemaking proposal be initiated to 

consider using EIRP exclusively in 

Commission rules, the Commission 

tentatively concluded that the costs of 

implementation and potential for greater 

confusion that would likely be 

associated with making a wholesale 

conversion from ERP limits to EIRP 

limits outweigh the potential benefits to 

those licensees who do not possess the 

scientific or engineering expertise to 

distinguish between the two standards 

and sought comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

8. Discussion. We decide to leave 

unchanged the references to ERP and 

EIRP in our rules and adopt our 

tentative conclusion. We agree with 

AAA and Nextel that the costs 

associated with implementing the TIA 

request, together with the potential for 

greater uncertainty, outweigh its 

possible benefits. Because an EIRP limit 

is always a larger number than the 

equivalent ERP limit, we believe that 

restating all ERP limits as EIRP limits 

could likely cause some entities (e.g., 

licensees, frequency coordinators, etc.) 

to mistakenly think that the 

Commission has increased the 

permitted power. 

C. Part 22 Transmitter Identification 

9. Background. Section 22.303 of the 

Commission’s rules provides, inter alia, 

that ‘‘[t]he station call sign must be 

clearly and legibly marked on or near 

every transmitting facility, other than 

mobile transmitters, of the station.’’ In 

the 2002 biennial review proceeding, 

CTIA and the Rural Cellular Association 

(RCA) recommended that the 

Commission eliminate this requirement 

in the interest of commercial wireless 

regulatory parity, since wireless services 

regulated under other parts of the 

Commission’s rules are not subject to a 

comparable obligation to post call sign 

information on each transmitter. The 

Commission agreed with CTIA and RCA 

that these rules should be harmonized 

and tentatively concluded to delete the 

last sentence of § 22.303, thereby 

eliminating the transmitter-specific 

posting requirement for cellular and 

other part 22 licensees. The Commission 

requested comment on this proposal, 

including whether the absence of call 

sign information on transmitting 

facilities associated with other WRS that 

are not subject to part 22 has proved 

problematic to the public or other 

carriers in any way. 

10. Discussion. We eliminate the 

transmitter-specific posting requirement 

of part 22 licensees and thereby adopt 

our tentative proposal. All commenting 

parties, including AMTA, CTIA and 

Cingular, support the proposal. AMTA 

asserts that the requirement for posting 

a call sign at each transmitter location 

is a vestige of a time when systems 

typically were licensed on a site-specific 

and frequency-specific basis wherein 

each location had a unique call sign and 

claims that now, a significant number of 

wireless systems, including part 22 

systems, are licensed on a geographic 

basis with a single call sign covering the 

entire authorization. Cingular states that 

‘‘[n]ot having posted call sign 

information has not proved problematic 

for PCS and other services governed by 

other parts of the rules. The proposed 

rule change would harmonize the 

cellular and PCS rules and eliminate an 

unnecessary obligation on licensees.’’

We agree with the commenters’

analysis. 

D. Part 24 Power and Antenna Height 

Limits 

11. Background. Section 24.232 of the 

Commission’s rules contains, inter alia, 

limits on broadband PCS base station 

equivalent isotropically radiated power 

and broadband PCS base station 

transmitter output power. For the last 

ten years, the rule limited ‘‘base station 

power’’ to 1640 watts peak EIRP for 

antenna heights up to 300 meters height 

above average terrain (HAAT), and also 

limited transmitter output power to 100 

watts. When the Commission increased 

the PCS EIRP limit from 100 watts to 

1640 watts in 1994, it concurrently 

adopted the 100 watt peak transmitter 

power output limit to ensure that 

broadband PCS licensees utilizing the 

increased EIRP would do so by 

employing high-gain, directional 

antennas, rather than high power 

transmitters with low-gain, nondirectional antennas. Such use of 

directional antennas, the Commission 

stated, would help reduce the likelihood 

of a system imbalance in which PCS 

licensees would deploy base stations 

that could transmit a strong signal over 

distances well beyond a mobile unit’s 

capability to respond. Also, the 

Commission stated that it would not 

authorize a higher output power limit at 

that time because ‘‘interference could 

result to fixed microwave operations 

and/or to other PCS systems in adjacent 

service areas.’’ As discussed in more 

detail below, the Commission recently 

adopted the Rural Report and Order, 

published at 69 FR 75144, December 15, 

2004, and amended § 24.232(b), the 

power rule for broadband PCS, to allow 

twice as much radiated power (3280 

watts EIRP) for use in rural areas, and 

also increased the base station 

transmitter output power limit from 100 

watts to 200 watts in rural areas. The 

Commission indicated that increasing 

power limits in rural areas can benefit 

consumers in rural areas by reducing 

the costs of infrastructure and otherwise 

making the provision of spectrum-based 

services to rural areas more economic. 

12. Powerwave, a manufacturer of 

Multi-Carrier Power Amplifiers 

(MCPAs), filed comments in the 2002 

biennial review proceeding, prior to the 

Commission’s release of the Rural 

Report and Order, and asserted that the 

output power limitations contained in 

rule § 24.232 are overly restrictive. 

According to Powerwave, as subscriber 

growth in PCS has increased 

dramatically since broadband PCS 

systems were first authorized, the 

number of carriers (i.e., the individual 

electrical signals that carry information) 

used to provide the additional voice 

channels in a typical cell site has also 

increased. Powerwave asserted that the 

need for higher power levels has also 

increased because, due to increased 

local resistance to base station 

construction, more PCS stations must be 

collocated with cellular stations and, 

therefore, are spaced on a cellular 

design. As a result, PCS licensees, 

according to Powerwave, are 

increasingly using MCPAs in their 

systems. Powerwave contended that the 

output power limit in § 24.232(a) has 

the unintended effect of penalizing the 

use of an MCPA transmitter in the place 

of multiple individual transmitters 

because the output power rule limits 

power on a per transmitter basis rather 

than on a per carrier basis. As a result, 

Powerwave proposed that the 

Commission eliminate the output power 

restriction entirely, or at the very least, 

amend § 24.232 to provide that the 

output power of each carrier must not 

exceed 100 watts, instead of each 

transmitter. 

13. In the 2002 Biennial Review Staff 

Report, Commission staff generally 

agreed with Powerwave and concluded 

that § 24.232(a) should be modified in 

order to regulate PCS base station 

61052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

transmissions in a more technologicallyneutral manner. Given the case 

Powerwave presented and subsequent 

recommendations of staff, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether to relax the output power 

limitations in § 24.232(a) by either 

amending the rule to provide that the 

output power limit of 100 watts applies 

on a ‘‘per carrier’’ basis in the case of 

MCPAs, or to simply eliminate the 

transmitter output power restriction to 

allow increased flexibility for PCS 

licensees in the configuration of their 

systems. 

14. In addition, the Commission asked 

commenters to address whether or not 

a radiated power rule can be devised 

that is technology-neutral, given that the 

current ‘‘per transmitter’’ rule allows 

licensees utilizing relatively narrower 

bandwidth technologies (e.g., GSM) to 

operate with higher aggregate power 

across their authorized spectrum than 

licensees utilizing relative broader 

bandwidth technologies such as CDMA. 

The Commission suggested that parties 

consider other alternatives, including 

whether or not a power spectral density 

limit (i.e., power per unit bandwidth) 

would be more appropriate and thus 

preferable to a ‘‘per-carrier’’ wording. In 

response to this latter question, 

Motorola and Qualcomm argue that the 

Commission’s current rule favors 

narrowband technologies over wider 

bandwidth technologies because it is on 

a ‘‘per transmitter’’ basis, and licensees 

using narrow bandwidth technologies 

could operate multiple transmitters 

resulting in a higher aggregate power 

per unit bandwidth. According to 

Motorola and Qualcomm, this places 

wider bandwidth systems at a 

competitive disadvantage because they 

need to deploy additional infrastructure 

to maintain the same coverage area as 

narrower bandwidth technologies. 

15. Consequently, as a compromise 

between the narrowband and wideband 

technologies, Motorola urges the 

Commission to modify § 24.232(a) to 

apply the EIRP limits on a ‘‘per MHz’’

basis for technologies with emission 

bandwidths exceeding 1 MHz, and on a 

‘‘per carrier’’ basis for technologies with 

emission bandwidths less than 1 MHz. 

Motorola argues that this adjustment 

would ensure that wideband systems 

could be deployed on a competitive 

basis by being able to radiate similar 

power per unit bandwidth, regardless of 

the technology utilized. Motorola 

contends that this proposal, as opposed 

to applying a universal power spectral 

density limit (as Qualcomm suggests) is 

more fair to narrowband operations, 

because applying a power spectral 

density universally would in effect 

impose limits in excess of those 

currently applicable and could 

negatively impact current systems and 

technologies. 

16. Finally, CTIA, in ex parte 

submissions, proposes that EIRP limits 

for PCS licensees be limited to the larger 

of either: (1) The current rules; or (2) a 

power spectral density constraint of 

3280 watts/MHz average EIRP for nonrural areas and 6560 watts average EIRP/ 

MHz for rural areas. In addition, CTIA 

proposes that the Commission allow 

operators to measure power limits on an 

‘‘average’’ as well as ‘‘peak’’ basis, as 

CTIA claims the term ‘‘peak’’ is subject 

to interpretation and may lead to 

confusion. CTIA argues that replacing 

the term ‘‘peak’’ with the term 

‘‘average’’ or by simply removing 

‘‘peak’’ (and thereby conform the form 

of the EIRP/ERP limits in parts 22 and 

24) to permit measurements on either a 

peak or average basis, without 

restriction, would remove the 

uncertainty associated with use of the 

term peak in the current rules. 

17. Discussion. After consideration of 

the record and the general experience 

with the PCS and other new wireless 

services, we conclude that the current 

base station transmitter output power 

limits should be relaxed to afford more 

flexibility and achieve harmonization 

among wireless radio services and 

competing technologies. The record 

demonstrates that the transmitter output 

power limit has had an undesirable 

effect in hindering the use of MCPAs. 

MCPAs may be a cost effective way to 

construct base stations, and we wish to 

allow licensees flexibility in their use. 

In view of these conclusions and our 

policy to eliminate unnecessary, 

counterproductive or ineffective rules, 

we are amending §§ 24.232(a)–(b) to 

eliminate the 100-watt and 200-watt 

base station transmitter output power 

limits for urban and rural systems, 

respectively (We note that Motorola 

requested that any changes made to 

§ 24.232 of our rules be uniformly 

applied to our part 27 rules involving 

power for AWS systems, specifically 

§ 27.50(d)(1). Motorola Comments at 2–

5. While we are amending §§ 24.232(a) 

and (b) to eliminate the output power 

restriction for part 24 broadband PCS 

systems, the NPRM did not specifically 

address the proposed elimination of the 

output power restriction for AWS 

systems under part 27. Accordingly, we 

believe that this issue would be better 

addressed in our review of petitions for 

reconsideration of the AWS Report and 

Order, published at 69 FR 5711, 

February 6, 2004, where the identical 

form of relief was sought for AWS 

systems. See In the Matter of Service 

Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in 

the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT 

Docket No. 02–353, Report and Order. 

As discussed, we believe that the 

remaining rule that limits maximum 

EIRP is sufficient to serve our legitimate 

regulatory purposes for the time being. 

We note that, in view of our elimination 

of the broadband PCS base station 

transmitter output power limit rule, 

there is no need to address the ‘‘per 

transmitter’’ vs. ‘‘per carrier’’ aspect 

with regard to base station transmitter 

output power. 

18. We conclude that the current base 

station transmitter output power limits 

have little or no role either in limiting 

interference or in ensuring that wireless 

systems are not designed with an 

excessive imbalance between the 

forward and reverse links. In light of our 

action eliminating the output power 

limit, we need not address Qualcomm’s 

contention that establishing a per carrier 

limit would invariably cause harmful 

interference as GSM and TDMA 

networks could operate base stations at 

much greater power than CDMA and 

W–CDMA networks. We believe that 

interference problems in PCS are largely 

avoided by voluntary coordination 

between the licensees of adjacent 

systems of facilities located in the area 

near the geographic boundary between 

those systems, and by licensee 

compliance with existing EIRP limits. 

We further believe that the demand for 

wireless spectrum and resulting cost of 

obtaining access to that spectrum 

provide a strong incentive for licensees 

to reuse frequencies efficiently within 

PCS systems. The necessity for efficient 

re-use ensures that licensees carefully 

design systems such that the base 

station transmit range does not exceed 

the ability of mobile units to 

communicate back. Excess base transmit 

range would have a negative impact on 

frequency re-use and intra-system 

interference levels. Thus, we believe 

systems will continue to be properly 

designed, even without our current 

output power rule. We also believe that 

licensees are in the best position to 

decide what combination of equipment 

will result in the most efficient 

provision of service. For example, 

licensees may wish to utilize higher 

base station output power with lower 

gain antennas while operating within 

our EIRP limits, and we believe it is in 

the public interest to afford licensees 

the flexibility to make these types of 

decisions regarding system design. 

19. With respect to the question of 

spectral power density limits, we decide 

to maintain for the time being the 

radiated power limits as recently 

increased in the Rural Report and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61053 

Order. Given these recent radiated 

power increases, we conclude that the 

record developed in response to the 

NPRM does not adequately support 

further EIRP increases. We find that the 

Commission and industry should be 

afforded additional time to gain 

experience with, and assess the effect of, 

the increased rural radiated power 

limits and the elimination of part 24 

transmitter output power limits. We also 

note that the NPRM was issued in 

response to comments received in our 

biennial review process and, with 

respect to possible EIRP increases, was 

limited in scope to broadband PCS 

systems regulated under part 24 of our 

rules. Accordingly, the commenting 

parties largely responded to the NPRM 

without knowledge of the Commission’s 

rule changes as ultimately adopted in 

the Rural Report and Order. Moreover, 

the Rural Report and Order addressed 

rural system EIRP increases across 

multiple radio services, and was not 

limited to part 24 broadband PCS 

systems. Thus, in keeping with our 

objective to harmonize our rules across 

similar services, we believe that the 

issue of increasing EIRP for broadband 

PCS licensees must be examined in the 

larger context of services governed by 

other rule parts, including cellular 

licensees under part 22, and 700 MHz, 

WCS and Advanced Wireless Services 

under part 27. We will explore these 

issues in the FNPRM. 

20. Additionally, we note that a new 

dimension has been raised relative to 

our examination of our rules to achieve 

better parity among technologies. 

Specifically, CTIA has suggested a 

fundamental shift in how base station 

transmitter power limits are determined. 

Rather than simply increasing the 

permitted peak radiated power, CTIA 

asks that we change from peak to 

average power while implementing a 

power spectral density limit. While we 

appreciate that several major carriers 

and equipment manufacturers are in 

agreement on such an approach, we 

believe such a change raises a number 

of issues that need closer examination 

and for which we have little record. For 

example, it is not clear what impact 

changing from a peak power limit to an 

average power limit may have on 

services operating in other parts of the 

spectrum, particularly those in adjacent 

frequency bands. Because of the 

significant issues that are raised by the 

CTIA proposal, and although the 

proposal has promise, we decline to 

make any changes to the Commission’s 

current radiated power rules at this 

time. However, we will consider this 

below among other issues in the 

FNPRM. 

E. Proposed Modifications to Part 90 

1. Frequency Coordination 

21. Background. Section 90.175(j) 

includes exemptions from the general 

frequency coordination obligation of 

part 90 license applications. Previously, 

the Commission did not require 

evidence of frequency coordination to 

accompany applications for 800 MHz 

Upper 200 and Lower 80 SMR 

frequencies. In the 2002 biennial review 

proceeding, CTIA asked the 

Commission to expand the exceptions to 

the frequency coordination 

requirements to include the 800 MHz 

General Category frequencies. However, 

the Commission staff found that ‘‘the 

possible conversion of existing site-bysite licensed general category 

frequencies to a different mode of 

operation (e.g., from conventional to 

trunked use), and the potential shared 

use environment of the frequencies, 

makes [wholesale] elimination of the 

coordination requirement a concern,’’

and that frequency coordination 

‘‘remains beneficial in a shared use 

environment to ensure efficient use and 

prevent interference.’’ Consequently, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether to eliminate the frequency 

coordination requirement for incumbent 

licensees operating on 800 MHz General 

Category frequencies on a non-shared 

basis, where such licensees propose 

new and/or modified facilities that do 

not expand the applicable interference 

contour. 

22. Discussion. In light of the 

Commission’s recent decision to 

reconfigure the 800 MHz band, we 

believe this issue is moot (i.e., there is 

no longer any reason to expand the 

exceptions to the frequency 

coordination requirements to include 

the band 806–809.75/851–854.75 MHz). 

Specifically, in the 800 MHz Order, 

published at 69 FR 67823, November 22, 

2004, the Commission decided to 

separate incompatible technologies by 

moving enhanced specialized mobile 

radio (ESMR) operations to the upper 

portion of the 800 MHz band and 

putting non-ESMR operations in the 

lower portion of the band. Under this 

800 MHz reconfiguration plan, the 806–

809 MHz/851–854 MHz segment of the 

General Category spectrum was 

reallocated exclusively for site-based 

public safety operations. The remaining 

segment of the General Category 

spectrum, i.e. 806–806.75 MHz/809–

809.75 MHz, is still designated as 

General Category spectrum. 

23. Although geographic area 

licensees operating in this segment can 

remain under certain conditions 

pursuant to the 800 MHz Order, it is 

likely that ESMR systems in this 

remaining segment of the General 

Category will relocate to the ESMR 

portion of the band and the 806–806.75 

MHz/809–809.75 MHz segment will be 

used predominately for site-based 

systems. For example, on the channels 

in this segment of the General Category 

vacated by Nextel, applications for sitebased facilities will be accepted, 

exclusively from public safety entities 

for the first three years, by public safety 

and CII entities for the next two years, 

and thereafter by any entity eligible for 

use of 800 MHz channels. These sitebased facilities, will require frequency 

coordination in order to avoid 

interference. Therefore, we decline to 

adopt the proposal that § 90.175(j) be 

amended to exempt applications in the 

General Category spectrum from 

frequency coordination. 

2. Emission Masks 

24. Background. Section 90.210 of the 

Commission’s rules describes several 

emission masks applicable to part 90 

transmitters. In comments in the 2002 

biennial review proceeding, Motorola 

notes that, while the standards imposed 

by this rule section generally serve the 

public interest by limiting unwanted 

emissions outside the authorized 

bandwidth and thus minimizing 

adjacent channel interference, Emission 

Mask G, set forth in § 90.210(g), limits 

design flexibility without any 

corresponding value in improved 

interference control. Motorola 

recommended that the Commission 

conform the Emission Mask G rule to 

the steps it has taken in recent years in 

adopting modulation-independent 

masks (emission masks D, E, and F) that 

place no limitation on the spectral 

power density profile within the 

maximum authorized bandwidth. The 

Commission sought comment on the 

potential benefits to the public of 

making this change, and whether this 

proposed revision would, despite 

Commission intent, potentially increase 

interference. Also, the Commission 

tentatively concluded that it should 

revise § 90.210(m) of its rules to 

conform to ITU Regulation S3.10, 

because it believed this revision will 

provide greater protection against 

interference. The Commission sought 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

25. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

conclusion to conform the Emission 

Mask G to a modulation-independent 

mask that places no limitation on the 

spectral power density profile within 

61054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the maximum authorized bandwidth. 

We also revise § 90.210(m) of our rules 

to conform to ITU Regulation S3.10. All 

of the commenting parties, including 

CTIA, Motorola and Nextel, support the 

Commission’s emission mask proposal. 

We agree with the commenters’

assertion that elimination of the rule 

will afford greater flexibility to 

manufacturers and will conform this 

emission mask rule with other emission 

mask provisions applicable to part 90 

services. 

3. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Supplemental 

Information 

26. Background. Section 90.607 of the 

Commission’s rules describes the 

supplemental information that must be 

furnished by applicants for 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz SMR systems. Under 

paragraph (a) of this rule, applicants 

proposing to provide service on a 

commercial basis in these bands must 

supply, among other things, a statement 

of their ‘‘planned mode of operation’’

and a statement certifying that only 

eligible persons would be provided 

service on the licensee’s base station 

facility. In comments filed in the 2002 

biennial review proceeding, PCIA 

advocated eliminating § 90.607(a). 

Specifically, PCIA stated that the system 

diagrams that were used when the 800 

MHz band was originally conceived 

have not been used by the Commission 

for years and are no longer necessary. 

Moreover, PCIA asserted that the 

eligibility statement is no longer needed 

because the eligibility rules for SMR 

end-users have been eliminated. The 

Commission, therefore, tentatively 

concluded that it should delete 

§ 90.607(a) to eliminate the abovementioned reporting requirements. 

27. Discussion. We eliminate 

§ 90.607(a) from our rules as it is no 

longer relevant to our regulatory 

scheme. The supplemental information 

required under this rule section was 

previously used in the Commission’s 

analysis of site-based operations in the 

SMR service and assisted the 

Commission in determining to what 

extent single-site facilities were 

operating as part of a larger network. 

Further, prior Commission rules 

required that SMR end-users meet 

certain eligibility requirements and the 

Commission relied upon an applicant’s 

separate certification regarding 

compliance. The Commission has 

shifted from site-based licensing of SMR 

channels to geographic-area licensing 

through competitive bidding, where 

SMR systems are routinely part of 

larger, integrated networks consisting of 

multiple transmitter sites. We therefore 

find it unnecessary to require applicants 

to provide a statement of planned mode 

of operation. We also agree with PCIA 

that the separate eligibility certification 

is no longer necessary as the eligibility 

rules for SMR users have been 

eliminated. We also believe meaningful 

competition among the various wireless 

services has rendered such requirements 

no longer necessary in the public 

interest and market forces should 

encourage applicants to operate their 

facilities in the proper manner without 

Commission involvement. 

4. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Trunked 

Systems Loading, Construction and 

Authorization Requirements 

28. Background. Section 90.631 of the 

Commission’s rules contains various 

requirements for the authorization, 

construction, and loading of 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz trunked systems. PCIA 

and CTIA request that the Commission 

modify two of these requirements that 

they assert are no longer necessary. 

Section 90.631(d) of the Commission’s 

rules allows a licensee of an 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz SMR trunked system to 

request an additional five channels than 

it has constructed without meeting the 

loading requirements if the licensee 

operates in a ‘‘rural area.’’ The rule 

defines a ‘‘rural area’’ as either (1) an 

area which is beyond the 100-mile 

radius of the designated center of 

urbanized areas listed in the rule, or (2) 

an area that has a ‘‘waiting list.’’ In 

comments in the 2002 biennial review 

proceeding, PCIA noted that waiting 

lists for 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR 

frequencies were eliminated by the 

Commission in 1995 when the 

Commission switched to competitive 

bidding and geographic area licensing. 

As a result, PCIA requested that the 

Commission amend § 90.631(d) to delete 

the ‘‘waiting list’’ exception to the 

definition of a rural area. The 

Commission agreed with PCIA and 

sought comment on a tentative 

conclusion to delete this exception to 

the definition of a rural area. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

eliminating other references to waiting 

lists contained in § 90.631(d) of the 

rules. 

29. Section 90.631(i) provides that an 

incumbent (i.e., pre-auction, site-by site 

authorized) 900 MHz SMR licensee that 

has not met the loading requirements set 

forth in § 90.631(b) at the end of its 

initial five-year license term will only 

be granted a renewal period of two 

years, in which time the licensee must 

satisfy the loading requirements. CTIA 

stated that the requirement is obsolete 

because the ‘‘timeframe for site-specific 

SMR 900 MHz systems to meet the 

loading requirements has since 

expired.’’ The Commission agreed that 

the period of renewing incumbent 900 

MHz SMR licenses subject to this 

requirement has ended. Therefore, the 

Commission tentatively concluded to 

eliminate paragraph (i) of § 90.631 from 

its rules, as well as references to 

paragraph (i) in § 90.631(b) of the rules. 

30. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

conclusions. We agree with all of the 

commenting parties, including AMTA, 

CTIA, Nextel, and PCIA, that support 

the Commission’s tentative conclusion 

on this issue urging the Commission to 

eliminate both the loading requirement 

and references to the ‘‘waiting list’’ in 

§ 90.631(d) of the rules and to eliminate 

§ 90.631(i), which is no longer 

necessary since the 900 MHz SMR 

renewal period it references has long 

passed. These rules are no longer 

relevant to our regulatory scheme. 

5. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Power and 

Antenna Height 

31. Background. Section 90.635 of our 

rules sets forth the limitations on power 

and antenna height for 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems. In its comments in 

the 2002 biennial review proceeding, 

PCIA asked the Commission to modify 

or eliminate the restrictions placed on 

two particular types of 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems—those located in 

‘‘suburban’’ areas as defined in the rule 

and those whose service area 

requirements are less than 32 

kilometers. 

32. First, § 90.635(a)–(c) differentiates 

between ‘‘urban’’ and ‘‘suburban’’

conventional (i.e., non-trunked) 

systems, allowing a greater maximum 

power (1000 watts vs. 500 watts ERP) at 

a given antenna height above average 

terrain for urban conventional systems 

than suburban conventional systems. 

The 90.635 chart (Table 2) limits 

maximum radiated power on a sliding 

scale based upon antenna height above 

average terrain. For example, urban 

conventional systems and all trunked 

systems are permitted to operate with a 

radiated power of 65 Watts ERP with an 

antenna height above average terrain of 

4500 feet and above to a maximum of 

1000 Watts ERP from an antenna height 

above average terrain of no greater than 

1000 feet. In contrast, suburban 

conventional licensees are limited to a 

maximum power of 15 Watts ERP with 

an antenna height above average terrain 

of 4500 feet and above to a maximum 

of 500 Watts ERP from an antenna 

height above average terrain of no 

greater than 500 feet. PCIA argued that 

such a distinction ‘‘no longer serves a 

useful purpose and should be 

eliminated.’’ PCIA justified this 

conclusion by asserting that suburban 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61055 

systems frequently must cover larger 

service areas than urban systems, and 

therefore, a smaller maximum power 

limit economically restricts the ability 

of these licensees to serve the suburban 

areas. Moreover, PCIA asserted that the 

restrictions on suburban sites also 

prevent these licensees from 

counteracting interference from cellular 

systems to the same extent as urban 

sites. The Commission sought comment 

on PCIA’s proposal to modify § 90.635 

to remove the distinction between urban 

and suburban sites when setting the 

maximum power and antenna height 

limits for conventional 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems, stating that it 

believed there is a significant question 

as to whether the justification for such 

distinction remains relevant in today’s 

marketplace. 

33. Second, PCIA asked the 

Commission to eliminate the power 

restrictions on 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

systems with an operational radius of 

less than 32 kilometers in radius. PCIA 

stated that although it ‘‘appreciates the 

Commission’s original goal to maximize 

the number of radio systems that could 

be accommodated on a single frequency, 

by limiting the ERP of small footprint 

systems,’’ the possibility of additional 

channel use is effectively prohibited by 

the requirement in § 90.621(b)(4) that 

applicants protect all existing stations as 

if the incumbent system was operating 

at 1000 watts ERP. PCIA also asserted 

that the power limitation prevents these 

smaller systems from limiting 

interference from cellular systems. 

Therefore, PCIA requested that the 

power limitations on 800 MHz and 900 

MHz systems with an operational radius 

below 32 kilometers be eliminated. The 

Commission sought comment on this 

proposal and asked that interested 

parties address the use of such systems 

in light of the Commission’s original 

goal of increasing the use of single 

frequencies, and whether lifting of these 

restrictions will help eliminate 

interference from cellular systems. 

34. Discussion. We adopt PCIA’s 

proposal to modify § 90.635 to remove 

the distinction between urban and 

suburban sites when setting the 

maximum power and antenna height 

limits for conventional 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems and eliminate power 

limitations on systems with operational 

radii of less than 32 kilometers. All of 

the commenting parties, including 

AMTA, CTIA, Motorola, NAM/MRFAC, 

Nextel, and PCIA support the PCIA 

proposal. We agree with AMTA that 

several decades of experience have 

confirmed that there is no bright line 

distinction between the operational 

requirements of systems in these two 

areas. AMTA contends that suburban 

facilities arguably could require greater 

power since they might need to cover 

larger geographic areas than their urban 

counterparts. AMTA argues that this 

rule is not needed to protect against 

inter-system interference in these bands 

and has not proven reflective of the real 

world operational requirements of 

operators. In that regard, CTIA contends 

that under the current rule, an ‘‘urban’’

system operating 24 km from the 

geographic center of the top 50 

urbanized areas could operate with a 

higher power and antenna height than a 

system located 25 km from an urban 

center, which would instead be 

classified as a ‘‘suburban’’ system. CTIA 

argues that such a bright-line distinction 

makes little, if any, sense from an 

engineering perspective. Furthermore, 

CTIA argues, the existence of the 

‘‘urban’’ versus ‘‘suburban’’ thresholds 

increases infrastructure and compliance 

costs, without providing any 

countervailing public interest benefit. 

35. With regard to the reduced power 

requirements for this type of system, 

Motorola notes that the reduced power 

requirements may affect coverage well 

within the 32-kilometer service border 

by providing reduced building 

penetration. However, PCIA argues that 

such restrictions in today’s operating 

environment should not lead to any 

allocations of additional spectrum for 

other licensees. Specifically, PCIA 

continues, since § 90.621(b)(4) requires 

that licensees be protected at 1000 watts 

ERP, even if the station is licensed for 

less, the reduced ERP for such systems 

provides no spectrum benefit. PCIA 

contends that conversely, the reduced 

ERP makes some operations more 

difficult for these types of systems. For 

example, PCIA continues, airlines do 

not serve a large operational area, but 

must be able to communicate into the 

lower reaches of terminal buildings. 

PCIA contends that the ERP limits of 

§ 90.635 restrict the ability of airlines to 

serve these areas. PCIA also argues that 

one of the most effective means of 

coping with in-band interference is to 

increase the signal level of the desired 

signal. In other words, PCIA argues, a 

private radio or public safety licensee, 

experiencing interference from an 

adjacent channel cellular system, 

should increase the signal level of their 

system to override the cellular 

interference. PCIA states that in the 

context of these systems, constructing 

an additional transmitter site is an 

expensive and needless solution. 

Further, PCIA states that in the context 

of an airport facility, constructing an 

additional transmitter site is often not 

an option. PCIA claims that no licensees 

would be harmed by the ability of a 

licensee to utilize increased ERP, and 

such licensees should have the 

operational flexibility to utilize an ERP 

that does not cause interference to cochannel users. We agree. 

6. System Authorization Limit in 

Geographic Areas 

36. Background. Section 90.653 of the 

rules states that ‘‘[t]here shall be no 

limit on the number of systems 

authorized to operate in any one given 

area except that imposed by allocation 

limitations.’’ The Commission adopted 

this rule in 1982 pursuant to its decision 

to not restrict equipment manufacturers 

from holding 800 MHz SMR licenses. 

CTIA asserted that ‘‘[t]he rule is 

redundant and no longer serves any 

regulatory purpose.’’ Based on the fact 

that it has licensed and will continue to 

license 800 and 900 MHz SMR 

frequencies using competitive bidding 

for geographic-area authorizations, the 

Commission agreed with CTIA that this 

rule is no longer in the public interest. 

Therefore, the Commission tentatively 

concluded that § 90.653 should be 

removed. The Commission sought 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

37. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

conclusion and eliminate § 90.653 of 

our rules. We agree with all of the 

commenting parties, including AMTA, 

CTIA, and Nextel, that support the 

Commission’s tentative conclusion that 

rule § 90.653 is redundant ‘‘and no 

longer serves any regulatory purpose’’

due to the Commission’s general shift to 

competitive bidding for geographic area 

licensing in most cases. 

7. Reporting Requirement for Trunked 

SMR Loading Data 

38. Background. Section 90.658 of the 

Commission’s rules provides that sitebased licensees of trunked SMR systems 

licensed before June 1, 1993 must 

provide loading data in order to either 

acquire additional channels or renew 

their authorizations. Both PCIA and 

CTIA noted that all SMR licenses issued 

prior to June 1, 1993 have now been 

through at least one renewal period and, 

therefore, advocated eliminating the 

rule. The Commission staff found that 

this provision may be an outdated and 

burdensome requirement on SMR 

licensees, especially in light of the 

competition among cellular, PCS, and 

800/900 MHz SMR services. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

tentatively concluded that it will 

eliminate § 90.658 as no longer 

necessary in the public interest. 

39. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

proposal and eliminate § 90.658. The 

61056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission previously stated in the 

CMRS Third Report and Order, 

published at 59 FR 59945, November 21, 

1994, that loading requirements are 

‘‘one of the mechanisms we employ 

under our rules to ensure that mobile 

service licensees make efficient use of 

spectrum and offer service to customers 

within their service area.’’ Previously, 

SMR licensees were required to meet 

mobile loading requirements to obtain 

exclusive use of existing channels, 

obtain additional channels, serve areas 

within 40 miles of existing channels, 

and avoid automatic cancellation of 

authorization for unloaded channels at 

renewal. However, the Commission 

eliminated mobile loading requirements 

for CMRS licensees in the CMRS Third 

Report and Order and we eliminate 

§ 90.658 consistent with that action. We 

also note that all of the commenting 

parties, including CTIA, Nextel and 

PCIA, support the Commission’s 

tentative conclusion to eliminate 

§ 90.658 because competitive market 

forces among wireless services have 

replaced the need to closely monitor 

traffic loading on SMR systems. 

8. Grandfathering Provisions for 800 

MHz SMR Incumbent Licensees 

40. Background. In general, 

§ 90.621(b) requires a fixed mileage 

separation of 113 km (70 miles) between 

co-channel 800 and 900 MHz systems. 

However, § 90.621(b)(4) provides that 

co-channel stations may be separated by 

less than 113 km (70 miles) by meeting 

certain transmitter ERP and antenna 

height criteria, as listed in the 

Commission’s ‘‘Short-Spacing 

Separation Table.’’ Previously, 

engineering showings were submitted 

with applications demonstrating that a 

certain addition or modification would 

not cause interference to other licensees, 

even though the stations would be 

spaced less than 70 mi (113 km) apart. 

Currently, stations meeting the 

parameters set forth in the ShortSpacing Separation Table need not 

submit an engineering analysis 

demonstrating interference protection to 

co-channel licensees. Section 90.693 of 

the Commission’s rules requires that 

800 MHz incumbent SMR licensees 

‘‘notify the Commission within 30 days 

of any changes in technical parameters 

or additional stations constructed that 

fall within the short-spacing criteria.’’ It 

has been standard practice for 

incumbents to notify the Commission of 

all changes and additional stations 

constructed in cases where such stations 

are in fact located less than the required 

70 mile distance separation, and are 

therefore technically ‘‘short-spaced,’’

but are in fact fully compliant with the 

parameters of the Commission’s ShortSpacing Separation Table. 

41. Discussion. Although we did not 

propose in the NPRM to revise § 90.693, 

we will delete § 90.693’s notification 

requirement for incumbents wishing to 

locate stations closer than the minimum 

distance separation rules allow, but that 

fall within the parameters of the ShortSpacing Separation Table under 

§ 90.621 of our rules. Because 

incumbents are not allowed under the 

rules to expand their interference 

contours, this approach will not lead to 

interference among licensees. 

42. Although we eliminate a 

substantial number of filings to reduce 

burdens on licensees, we clarify that 

notification of minor modifications 

within 30 days will still be required 

under § 90.693 in two areas involving 

short-spaced systems. First, 

§ 90.621(b)(4) allows stations to be 

licensed at distances less than those 

prescribed in the Short-Spacing 

Separation Table where applicants 

‘‘secure a waiver.’’ Second, 

§ 90.621(b)(5) permits stations to be 

located closer than the required 

separation, so long as the applicant 

provides letters of concurrence 

indicating that the applicant and each 

co-channel licensee within the specified 

separation agree to accept any 

interference resulting from the reduced 

separation between systems. 

9. 220 MHz Phase I Supplemental 

Progress Reports 

43. Background. Section 90.737 of the 

Commission’s rules sets forth the 

supplemental progress reports that 220 

MHz Phase I licensees must file with the 

Commission. The Commission staff 

recommended that the Commission 

consider whether certain rules 

applicable to 220 MHz Phase I licensees 

continue to be necessary in the public 

interest in light of increased 

competition among commercial mobile 

radio services (CMRS) providers. In 

particular, staff identified section 90.737 

as imposing certain reporting 

requirements and restrictions on 

assignments of unconstructed, sitebased, 220 MHz Phase I licenses that 

were intended to prevent speculation 

and trafficking in licenses awarded by 

lottery. The Commission tentatively 

concluded that § 90.737 should be 

eliminated as no longer necessary in the 

public interest given recent competitive 

and other developments. The 

Commission sought comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

44. Discussion. We adopt our tentative 

conclusion to eliminate § 90.737. 

Licensing by lottery has been eliminated 

in the 220 MHz Service and a 

continuation of these reporting 

requirements may ‘‘impede the 

transferability of 220 MHz spectrum’’ in 

a competitive CMRS marketplace. Both 

commenting parties, AMTA and CTIA 

support the Commission’s tentative 

conclusion to eliminate § 90.737 

because ‘‘future 220 MHz licenses will 

be awarded by auction, not lottery’’ and 

the rule is no longer needed to prevent 

trafficking in unconstructed stations. 

F. Corrections and Updates to WRS 

Rules 

45. In the NPRM, we described a 

series of administrative changes we 

proposed to make in this Report and 

Order. Generally, the changes entail 

correcting, updating, and eliminating 

various rules in parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 

90. We received no comment on any of 

the proposed administrative changes. 

Consequently, based on the record 

before us, we adopt those administrative 

changes. The specific administrative 

changes are as follows: 

• Part 1, subpart F—Title. Correct the 

term ‘‘Wireless Telecommunications 

Services’’ to read ‘‘Wireless Radio 

Services.’’

• Section 1.927(g). Replace the crossreference to § 1.948(h)(2) with 

§ 1.948(i)(2). 

• Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the 

third sentence which states that 

manually filed petitions to deny can be 

filed at the Commission’s former office 

location. 

• Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the 

cross-reference to § 1.948(c) with 

§ 1.946(c). 

• Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the 

reference to Form 489 with Form 601. 

• Section 22.946(c). Replace the 

cross-reference to § 22.144(b) with 

§ 1.955. 

• Section 22.947(c). Update the 

location for filing a cellular system 

information update (SIU) to ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.’’

• Section 22.948(d). Delete the crossreference to § 22.144(a). 

• Section 22.949(d). Replace the 

cross-reference to § 22.122 with § 1.927. 

• Section 22.953(b). Replace the 

cross-reference to § 1.929(h) with 

§ 1.929(a)–(b). 

Finally, we also received a request 

from Motorola to address the station 

identification rules applicable to 700 

MHz public safety licensees. 

Specifically, Motorola contends that 

unlike the rules for 800 MHz public 

safety licensees operating digital 

transmitting equipment on exclusive 

channels, the rules do not explicitly 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61057 

provide similarly situated 700 MHz 

licensees with the ability to transmit 

their station identification in the digital 

mode. We note that the Commission 

recently sought comment on this issue 

in another proceeding. 

G. Procedural Matters 

1. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification 

46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA) (See 5 U.S.C. 

601–612) requires that a regulatory 

flexibility analysis be prepared for 

notice-and-comment rule making 

proceedings, unless the agency certifies 

that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated, 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.’’

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

47. As required by the RFA, an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated in the NPRM, which 

commenced a proceeding to streamline 

and harmonize licensing provisions in 

the wireless radio services (WRS). The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. This 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

conforms to the RFA. 

48. This Report and Order adopts 

several measures intended to streamline 

and harmonize certain licensing 

provisions in the wireless radio services 

(WRS) and further Commission efforts 

to maintain clear spectrum rights and 

obligations for these licensees, fulfill the 

Commission’s mandate under section 11 

of the Communications Act to conduct 

biennial reviews, support recent efforts 

to maximize the public benefits derived 

from the use of the radio spectrum, and 

increase the ability of wireless service 

providers to use licensed spectrum 

resources flexibly and efficiently to offer 

a variety of services in a cost-effective 

manner. 

49. The Report and Order resolves the 

question of whether relevant provisions 

should be (1) streamlined as a result of 

competitive, technological, or 

subsequent administrative rule changes 

and/or (2) harmonized because they 

treat similarly situated services 

differently. The Order accomplishes this 

primarily by eliminating provisions 

when necessary and modifying 

provisions when appropriate. For 

example, as we have done in recent 

years in adopting modulationindependent masks (emission masks D, 

E, and F), we conform the Emission 

Mask G rule to the others and place no 

limitation on the spectral power density 

profile within the maximum authorized 

bandwidth. This action, supported by 

all commenting parties, will improve 

design flexibility while maintaining 

interference control, thus creating, we 

believe, no significant adverse economic 

impact. 

50. Also, we modified our rules to 

remove the distinction between urban 

and suburban sites when setting the 

maximum power and antenna height 

limits for conventional 800 MHz and 

900 MHz systems. Our experience has 

been that there is no bright line 

distinction between the operational 

requirements of urban and suburban 

systems. In fact, because they might 

need to cover larger geographic areas 

than their urban counterparts, suburban 

facilities arguably could require greater 

power. In general, we found that 

‘‘urban’’ versus ‘‘suburban’’ thresholds 

actually increase infrastructure and 

compliance costs, without providing 

any countervailing public interest 

benefit. We found that removing those 

distinctions might actually eliminate or 

significantly reduce those compliance 

costs. Therefore, we certify that the 

requirements of the Report and Order 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

2. Congressional Review Act 

51. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Report and Order, including a 

copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, the Report and Order and the 

final certification will be sent to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, 

and will be published in the Federal 

Register (See 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). 

3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

52. This document does not contain 

any proposed, new, or modified 

information collection subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified ‘‘information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198. See 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

4. Contact Information 

53. The primary Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau contacts 

for this proceeding are Wilbert E. Nixon, 

Jr., and B.C. ‘‘Jay’’ Jackson, Jr. of the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s 

Mobility Division (202–418–0620). Press 

inquiries should be directed to Chelsea 

Fallon, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, at (202) 418–7991, TTY at (202) 

418–7233, or e-mail at 

Chelsea.Fallon@fcc.gov. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

54. Pursuant to the authority of 

sections 4(i), 7, 11, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 

303(r), and 332 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 

332, the rule changes specified in the 

Report and Order are adopted. 

55. The rule changes set forth in the 

Report and Order will become effective 

60 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

56. The Commission’s Consumer 

Information Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Communications common 

carriers, Radio, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 22 

Communications common carriers, 

Radio. 

47 CFR Part 24 

Personal communications services, 

Radio. 

47 CFR Part 27 

Wireless communications services. 

47 CFR Part 90 

Business and industry, Common 

carriers, Radio, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Rule Changes 

■ Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 of Title 47 

of the Code of Federal Regulations are 

amended as follows: 

61058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, and 303(r). 

■ 2. The heading of Subpart F is revised 

to read as follows: 

Subpart F—Wireless Radio Services 

Applications and Proceedings 

■ 3. Section 1.927 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1.927 Amendment of applications. 

* * * * * 

(g) Where an amendment to an 

application specifies a substantial 

change in beneficial ownership or 

control (de jure or de facto) of an 

applicant, the applicant must provide 

an exhibit with the amendment 

application containing an affirmative, 

factual showing as set forth in 

§ 1.948(i)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 1.929 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1.929 Classification of filings as major or 

minor. 

* * * * * 

(c) In addition to those changes listed 

in paragraph (a) in this section, the 

following are major changes applicable 

to stations licensed to provide base-tomobile, mobile-to-base, mobile-tomobile on a site-specific basis: 

(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. 

(2) In the 900 MHz SMR and 220 MHz 

Service, any change that would increase 

or expand the applicant’s service area as 

defined in the rule parts governing the 

particular radio service. 

(3) In the Paging and Radiotelephone 

Service, Rural Radiotelephone Service, 

Offshore Radiotelephone Service, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio Service: 

(i) Request an authorization or an 

amendment to a pending application 

that would establish for the filer a new 

fixed transmission path; 

(ii) Request an authorization or an 

amendment to a pending application for 

a fixed station (i.e., control, repeater, 

central office, rural subscriber, or interoffice station) that would increase the 

effective radiated power, antenna height 

above average terrain in any azimuth, or 

relocate an existing transmitter; 

(4) In the Private Land Mobile Radio 

Services (PLMRS), the remote pickup 

broadcast auxiliary service, and GMRS 

systems licensed to non-individuals; 

(i) Change in frequency or 

modification of channel pairs, except 

the deletion of one or more frequencies 

from an authorization; 

(ii) Change in the type of emission; 

(iii) Change in effective radiated 

power from that authorized or, for 

GMRS systems licensed to nonindividuals, an increase in the 

transmitter power of a station; 

(iv) Change in antenna height from 

that authorized; 

(v) Change in the authorized location 

or number of base stations, fixed, 

control, except for deletions of one or 

more such stations or, for systems 

operating on non-exclusive assignments 

in GMRS or the 470–512 MHz, 800 MHz 

or 900 MHz bands, a change in the 

number of mobile transmitters, or a 

change in the area of mobile 

transmitters, or a change in the area of 

mobile operations from that authorized; 

(vi) Change in the class of a land 

station, including changing from 

multiple licensed to cooperative use, 

and from shared to unshared use. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 1.939 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1.939 Petitions to deny. 

* * * * * 

(b) Filing of petitions. Petitions to 

deny and related pleadings may be filed 

electronically via ULS. Manually filed 

petitions to deny must be filed with the 

Office of the Secretary, 445 Twelfth 

Street, SW., Room TW–B204, 

Washington, DC 20554. Attachments to 

manually filed applications may be filed 

on a standard 31/4′′ agnetic diskette 

formatted to be readable by high density 

floppy drives operating under MS-DOS 

(version 3.X or later compatible 

versions). Each diskette submitted must 

contain an ASCII text file listing each 

filename and a brief description of the 

contents of each file on the diskette. The 

files on the diskette, other than the table 

of contents, should be in Adobe Acrobat 

Portable Document Format (PDF) 

whenever possible. Petitions to deny 

and related pleadings must reference the 

file number of the pending application 

that is the subject of the petition. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 1.955 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.955 Termination of authorizations. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Failure to meet construction or 

coverage requirements. Authorizations 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if the 

licensee fails to meet applicable 

construction or coverage requirements. 

See § 1.946(c) of this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 

332. 

■ 8. Section 22.303 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.303 Retention of station 

authorizations; identifying transmitters. 

The current authorization for each 

station, together with current 

administrative and technical 

information concerning modifications to 

facilities pursuant to § 1.929 of this 

chapter, and added facilities pursuant to 

§ 22.165 must be retained as a 

permanent part of the station records. A 

clearly legible photocopy of the 

authorization must be available at each 

regularly attended control point of the 

station, or in lieu of this photocopy, 

licensees may instead make available at 

each regularly attended control point 

the address or location where the 

licensee’s current authorization and 

other records may be found. 

■ 9. Section 22.947 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 22.947 Five year build-out period. 

* * * * * 

(c) System information update. Sixty 

days before the end of the five year 

build-out period, the licensee of each 

cellular system authorized on each 

channel block in each cellular market 

must file, in triplicate, a system 

information update (SIU), comprising a 

full size map, a reduced map, and an 

exhibit showing technical data relevant 

to determination of the system’s CGSA. 

Separate maps must be submitted for 

each market into which the CGSA 

extends, showing the extension area in 

the adjacent market. Maps showing 

extension areas must be labeled (i.e. 

marked with the market number and 

channel block) for the market into 

which the CGSA extends. SIUs must 

accurately depict the relevant cell 

locations and coverage of the system at 

the end of the five year build-out period. 

SIUs must be filed at the Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. If any changes 

to the system occur after the filing of the 

SIU, but before the end of the five year 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61059 

build-out period, the licensee must file, 

in triplicate, additional maps and/or 

data as necessary to insure that the cell 

locations and coverage of the system as 

of the end of the five year build-out 

period are accurately depicted. 

■ 10. Section 22.948 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.948 Partitioning and Disaggregation. 

* * * * * 

(d) License Term. The license term for 

the partitioned license area and for 

disaggregated spectrum shall be the 

remainder of the original cellular 

licensee’s or the unserved area 

licensee’s license term. 

■ 11. Section 22.949 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 22.949 Unserved area licensing process. 

* * * * * 

(d) Limitations on amendments. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of 

§ 1.927 of this chapter, Phase I 

applications are subject to the following 

additional limitations in regard to the 

filing of amendments. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 22.953 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.953 Content and form of applications. 

* * * * * 

(b) Existing systems—major 

modifications. Licensees making major 

modifications pursuant to § 1.929(a) and 

(b) of this chapter, must file FCC Form 

601 and need only contain the exhibits 

required by paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. 

(c) Existing systems—minor 

modifications. Licensees making minor 

modifications pursuant to § 1.929(k) of 

this chapter—in which the modification 

causes a change in the CGSA boundary 

(including the removal of a transmitter 

or transmitters)—must notify the FCC 

(using FCC Form 601) and include fullsized maps, reduced maps, and 

supporting engineering exhibits as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. If the modification 

involves a contract SAB extension, it 

must include a statement as to whether 

the five-year build-out for the system on 

the relevant channel block in the market 

into which the SAB extends has 

elapsed, and as to whether the SAB 

extends into any unserved area in that 

market. 

PART 24—PERSONAL 

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 24 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 

309 and 332. 

■ 14. Section 24.12 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 24.12 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. 

■ 15. Section 24.232 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 24.232 Power and antenna height limits. 

(a) Base stations are limited to 1640 

watts peak equivalent isotropically 

radiated power (EIRP) with an antenna 

height up to 300 meters HAAT, except 

as described in paragraph (b) below. See 

§ 24.53 for HAAT calculation method. 

Base station antenna heights may 

exceed 300 meters with a corresponding 

reduction in power; see Table 1 of this 

section. The service area boundary limit 

and microwave protection criteria 

specified in §§ 24.236 and 24.237 apply. 

TABLE 1.—REDUCED POWER FOR

BASE STATION ANTENNA HEIGHTS

OVER 300 METERS

HAAT in meters Maximum 

EIRP watts 

≤ 300 ......................................... 1640 

≤ 500 ......................................... 1070 

≤ 1000 ....................................... 490 

≤ 1500 ....................................... 270 

≤ 2000 ....................................... 160 

(b) Base stations that are located in 

counties with population densities of 

100 persons or fewer per square mile, 

based upon the most recently available 

population statistics from the Bureau of 

the Census, are limited to 3280 watts 

peak equivalent isotropically radiated 

power (EIRP) with an antenna height up 

to 300 meters HAAT; See § 24.53 for 

HAAT calculation method. Base station 

antenna heights may exceed 300 meters 

with a corresponding reduction in 

power; see Table 2 of this section. The 

service area boundary limit and 

microwave protection criteria specified 

in §§ 24.236 and 24.237 apply. 

Operation under this paragraph must be 

coordinated in advance with all PCS 

licensees within 120 kilometers (75 

miles) of the base station and is limited 

to base stations located more than 120 

kilometers (75 miles) from the Canadian 

border and more than 75 kilometers (45 

miles) from the Mexican border. 

TABLE 2.—REDUCED POWER FOR

BASE STATION ANTENNA HEIGHTS

OVER 300 METERS

HAAT in meters Maximum 

EIRP watts 

≤ 300 ......................................... 3280 

≤ 500 ......................................... 2140 

≤ 1000 ....................................... 980 

≤ 1500 ....................................... 540 

≤ 2000 ....................................... 320 

(c) Mobile/portable stations are 

limited to 2 watts EIRP peak power and 

the equipment must employ means to 

limit the power to the minimum 

necessary for successful 

communications. 

(d) Peak transmit power must be 

measured over any interval of 

continuous transmission using 

instrumentation calibrated in terms of 

an rms-equivalent voltage. The 

measurement results shall be properly 

adjusted for any instrument limitations, 

such as detector response times, limited 

resolution bandwidth capability when 

compared to the emission bandwidth, 

sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true 

peak measurement for the emission in 

question over the full bandwidth of the 

channel. 

§ 24.843 [Removed] 

■ 16. Section 24.843 is removed. 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 18. Section 27.3 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (o) and (p) as 

(p) and (q) and adding new paragraph 

(o) to read as follows: 

§ 27.3 Other applicable rule parts. 

* * * * * 

(o) Part 74. This part sets forth the 

requirements and conditions applicable 

to experimental radio, auxiliary, special 

broadcast and other program 

distributional services. 

* * * * * 

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

■ 19. The authority citation for part 90 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), 

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 

61060 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 

303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7). 

§ 90.20 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 90.20 as follows: 

■ a. Amend the Public Safety Pool 

Frequency Table of Section 90.20(c)(3) 

(Frequencies.) by revising the entries for 

frequencies 35.02, 156.1725, 156.1875, 

156.195, 156.2025, 156.2325, 158.9925, 

159.0075, 159.0225, 159.0525, 159.0675, 

159.0825, 159.1125, 159.1275, 159.135, 

159.1425, 159.1725, 155.325, 155.3325, 

155.355, 155.3625, 155.385, 155.3925, 

155.400, 155.4075, 462.950, 462.95625, 

462.9625, 462.96875, 462.975, 

462.98125, 462.9875, and 462.99375 

Megahertz to read as set forth below; 

■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(d)(38); and 

■ c. The entries for 467.950, 467.95625, 

467.9625, 467.96875, 467.975, 

467.98125, 467.9875 and 467.99375 

Megahertz are amended by removing 

limitation 38 and adding in its place 10. 

PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE

Frequency or brand Class of station(s) Limitations Coordinator 

Megahertz 

* * * * * * * 

35.02 .............................................................................. Mobile ............................................................................ 12, 78 PS 

* * * * * * * 

155.325 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 39 PM 

155.3325 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 39 PM 

* * * * * * * 

155.355 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 39 PM 

155.3625 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 39 PM 

* * * * * * * 

155.385 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 39 PM 

155.3925 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 39 PM 

155.400 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 39 PM 

155.4075 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 39 PM 

* * * * * * * 

156.1725 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 42 PH 

* * * * * * * 

156.1875 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 42 PH 

156.195 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. ........................ PH 

156.2025 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

156.2325 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10 PH 

* * * * * * * 

158.9925 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.0075 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.0225 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.0525 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.0675 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.0825 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.1125 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.1275 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

159.135 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. ........................ PH 

159.1425 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27 PH 

* * * * * * * 

159.1725 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 43 PH 

* * * * * * * 

462.950 .......................................................................... Base or mobile ............................................................... 10, 65 PM 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61061 

PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE—Continued 

Frequency or brand Class of station(s) Limitations Coordinator 

462.95625 ...................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 44, 65 PM 

462.9625 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 65 PM 

462.96875 ...................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 44, 65 PM 

462.975 .......................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 65 PM 

462.98125 ...................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 44, 65 PM 

462.9875 ........................................................................ ......do ............................................................................. 27, 10, 65 PM 

462.99375 ...................................................................... ......do ............................................................................. 10, 44, 65 PM 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

§ 90.35 [Amended] 

■ 21. Section 90.35 is amended by 

removing one of the duplicate entries of 

‘‘Frequency 35.48 Megahertz’’ of the 

Industrial/Business Pool Frequency 

Table of paragraph (b)(3) and by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(45). 

■ 22. Section 90.149 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 90.149 License term. 

(a) Except as provided in subpart R of 

this part, licenses for stations authorized 

under this part will be issued for a term 

not to exceed ten (10) years from the 

date of the original issuance or renewal. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 90.175 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 90.175 Frequency coordinator 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(j) The following applications need 

not be accompanied by evidence of 

frequency coordination: 

(1) Applications for frequencies below 

25 MHz. 

(2) Applications for a Federal 

Government frequency. 

(3) Applications for frequencies in the 

72–76 MHz band except for mobile 

frequencies subject to § 90.35(c)(77). 

(4) Applications for a frequency to be 

used for developmental purposes. 

(5) Applications in the Industrial/ 

Business Pool requesting a frequency 

designated for itinerant operations, and 

applications requesting operation on 

154.570 MHz, 154.600 MHz, 151.820 

MHz, 151.880 MHz, and 151.940 MHz. 

(6) Applications in the Radiolocation 

Service. 

(7) Applications filed exclusively to 

modify channels in accordance with 

band reconfiguration in the 806–824/ 

851–869 band. 

(8) Applications for frequencies listed 

in the SMR tables contained in 

§§ 90.617 and 90.619. 

(9) Applications indicating license 

assignments such as change in 

ownership, control or corporate 

structure if there is no change in 

technical parameters. 

(10) Applications for mobile stations 

operating in the 470–512 MHz band, 

764–776/794–806 MHz band, or above 

800 MHz if the frequency pair is 

assigned to a single system on an 

exclusive basis in the proposed area of 

operation. 

(11) Applications for add-on base 

stations in multiple licensed systems 

operating in the 470–512 MHz, 764–

776/794–806 MHz band, or above 800 

MHz if the frequency pair is assigned to 

a single system on an exclusive basis. 

(12) Applications for control stations 

operating below 470 MHz, 764–776/ 

794–806 MHz, or above 800 MHz and 

meeting the requirements of § 90.119(b). 

(13) Except for applications for the 

frequencies set forth in §§ 90.719(c) and 

90.720, applications for frequencies in 

the 220–222 MHz band. 

(14) Applications for a state license 

under § 90.529. 

(15) Applications for narrowband low 

power channels listed for itinerant use 

in § 90.531(b)(4). 

(16) Applications for DSRCS licenses 

(as well as registrations for Roadside 

Units) in the 5850–5925 GHz band. 

(17) Applications for the deletion of a 

frequency and/or transmitter site 

location. 

■ 24. Section 90.210 is amended by 

removing paragraph (g)(1) and 

redesignating paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(3) as paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), and 

by revising paragraph (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 90.210 Power and antenna height limits. 

* * * * * 

(o) Instrumentation. The reference 

level for showing compliance with the 

emission mask shall be established, 

except as indicated in §§ 90.210 (d), (e), 

and (k), using standard engineering 

practices for the modulation 

characteristic used by the equipment 

under test. When measuring emissions 

in the 150–174 MHz and 421–512 MHz 

bands the following procedures will 

apply. A sufficient number of sweeps 

must be measured to insure that the 

emission profile is developed. If video 

filtering is used, its bandwidth must not 

be less than the instrument resolution 

bandwidth. For frequencies more than 

50 kHz removed from the edge of the 

authorized bandwidth a resolution of at 

least 100 kHz must be used for 

frequencies below 1000 MHz. Above 

1000 MHz the resolution bandwidth of 

the instrumentation must be at least 1 

MHz. If it can be shown that use of the 

above instrumentation settings do not 

accurately represent the true 

interference potential of the equipment 

under test, then an alternate procedure 

may be used provided prior 

Commission approval is obtained. 

§ 90.607 [Amended] 

■ 24a. Section 90.607 is amended by 

removing paragraph (a) and 

redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 

and (e) as paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and 

(d). 

■ 25. Section 90.631 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (d) and 

removing paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 90.631 Trunked systems loading, 

construction and authorization 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each applicant for a non-SMR 

trunked system must certify that a 

minimum of seventy (70) mobiles for 

each channel authorized will be placed 

into operation within five (5) years of 

the initial license grant. 

* * * * * 

(d) In rural areas, a licensee of a 

trunked system may request to increase 

its system capacity by five more 

channels than it has constructed 

without meeting the loading 

requirements specified in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section. A rural area is 

defined for purposes of this section as 

being beyond a 100-mile radius of the 

designated centers of the following 

61062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

urbanized areas: New York, NY; Los 

Angeles, CA; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, 

PA: San Francisco, CA; Detroit, MI; 

Boston, MA; Houston, TX; Washington, 

DC; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Miami, FL; 

Cleveland, OH; St. Louis, MO; Atlanta, 

GA; Pittsburgh, PA; Baltimore, MD; 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Seattle, WA; 

San Diego, CA; and Tampa-St. 

Petersburg, FL. The coordinates for the 

centers of these areas are those 

referenced in § 90.635, except that the 

coordinates (referenced to North 

American Datum 1983 (NAD83)) for 

Tampa-St. Petersburg are latitude 

28°00′1.1′′ N, longitude 82°26′59.3′′ W. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 90.635 is revised read as 

follows: 

§ 90.635 Limitations on power and antenna 

height. 

(a) The effective radiated power and 

antenna height for base stations may not 

exceed 1 kilowatt (30 dBw) and 304 m. 

(1,000 ft.) above average terrain (AAT), 

respectively, or the equivalent thereof as 

determined from the Table. These are 

maximum values, and applicants will be 

required to justify power levels and 

antenna heights requested. 

(b) The maximum output power of the 

transmitter for mobile stations is 100 

watts (20 dBw). 

TABLE.—EQUIVALENT POWER AND ANTENNA HEIGHTS FOR BASE STATIONS IN THE 851–869 MHZ AND

935–940 MHZ BANDS WHICH HAVE

A REQUIREMENT FOR A 32 KM (20 

MI) SERVICE AREA RADIUS

Antenna height (ATT) meters 

(feet) 

Effective radiated power 

(watts) 124

Above 1,372 (4,500) ............. 65 

Above 1,220 (4,000) to 1,372 

(4,500) ............................... 70 

Above 1,067 (3,500) to 1,220 

(4,000) ............................... 75 

Above 915 (3,000) to 1,067 

(3,500) ............................... 100 

Above 763 (2,500) to 915 

(3,000) ............................... 140 

Above 610 (2,000) to 763 

(2,500) ............................... 200 

Above 458 (1,500) to 610 

(2,000) ............................... 350 

Above 305 (1,000) to 458 

(1,500) ............................... 600 

Up to 305 (1,000) ................. 3 1,000 

1Power is given in terms of effective radiated power (ERP). 2Applicants in the Los Angeles, CA, area 

who demonstrate a need to serve both the 

downtown and fringe areas will be permitted to 

utilize an ERP of 1 kw at the following mountaintop sites: Santiago Park, Sierra Peak, 

Mount Lukens, and Mount Wilson. 

3Stations with antennas below 305 m 

(1,000 ft) (AAT) will be restricted to a maximum power of 1 kw (ERP). 4 Licensees in San Diego, CA, will be permitted to utilize an ERP of 500 watts at the 

following mountaintop sites: Palomar, Otay, 

Woodson and Miguel. 

§ 90.653 [Removed] 

■ 27. Section 90.653 is removed. 

§ 90.658 [Removed] 

■ 28. Section 90.658 is removed. 

§ 90.693 [Removed] 

■ 29. Section 90.693 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 90.693 Grandfathering provisions for 

incumbent licensees. 

* * * * * 

(b) Spectrum blocks A through V. An 

incumbent licensee’s service area shall 

be defined by its originally licensed 40 

dBμV/m field strength contour and its 

interference contour shall be defined as 

its originally-licensed 22 dBμV/m field 

strength contour. The ‘‘originallylicensed’’ contour shall be calculated 

using the maximum ERP and the actual 

height of the antenna above average 

terrain (HAAT) along each radial. 

Incumbent licensees are permitted to 

add, remove or modify transmitter sites 

within their original 22 dBμV/m field 

strength contour without prior 

notification to the Commission so long 

as their original 22 dBμV/m field 

strength contour is not expanded. 

Incumbent licensee protection extends 

only to its 40 dBμV/m signal strength 

contour. Pursuant to the minor 

modification notification procedures set 

forth in 1.947(b), the incumbent licensee 

must notify the Commission within 30 

days of any change in technical 

parameters for stations that are 

authorized under a waiver of 

90.621(b)(4), or that are authorized 

under 90.621(b)(5). 

(c) Special provisions for spectrum 

blocks F1 through V. Incumbent 

licensees that have received the consent 

of all affected parties or a certified 

frequency coordinator to utilize an 18 

dBμV/m signal strength interference 

contour shall have their service area 

defined by their originally-licensed 36 

dBμV/m field strength contour and their 

interference contour shall be defined as 

their originally-licensed 18 dBμV/m 

field strength contour. The ‘‘originallylicensed’’ contour shall be calculated 

using the maximum ERP and the actual 

HAAT along each radial. Incumbent 

licensees seeking to utilize an 18 dBμV/ 

m signal strength interference contour 

shall first seek to obtain the consent of 

affected co-channel incumbents. When 

the consent of a co-channel licensee is 

withheld, an incumbent licensee may 

submit to any certified frequency 

coordinator an engineering study 

showing that interference will not 

occur, together with proof that the 

incumbent licensee has sought consent. 

Incumbent licensees are permitted to 

add, remove or modify transmitter sites 

within their original 18 dBμV/m field 

strength contour without prior 

notification to the Commission so long 

as their original 18 dBμV/m field 

strength contour is not expanded. 

Incumbent licensee protection extends 

only to its 36 dBμV/m signal strength 

contour. Pursuant to the minor 

modification notification procedures set 

forth in 1.947(b), the incumbent licensee 

must notify the Commission within 30 

days of any change in technical 

parameters for stations that are 

authorized under a waiver of 

90.621(b)(4), or that are authorized 

under 90.621(b)(5). 

* * * * * 

§ 90.737 [Removed] 

■ 30. Section 90.737 is removed. 

■ 31. Section 90.743 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 90.743 Renewal expectancy. 

(a) All licensees seeking renewal of 

their authorizations at the end of their 

license term must file a renewal 

application in accordance with the 

provisions of § 1.949 of this chapter. 

Licensees must demonstrate, in their 

application, that: 

* * * * * 

(c) Phase I non-nationwide licensees 

have license terms of 10 years, and 

therefore must meet these requirements 

10 years from the date of initial 

authorization in order to receive a 

renewal expectancy. Phase I nationwide 

licensees and all Phase II licensees have 

license terms of 10 years, and therefore 

must meet these requirements 10 years 

from the date of initial authorization in 

order to receive a renewal expectancy. 

[FR Doc. 05–20927 Filed 10–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P