76268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207A), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; email address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical questions or details about the 

public hearing, please see the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web 

site http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/

index.html. To submit a question, select 

Help Center, followed by Contact Us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Worldwide Web (WWW) 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of today’s 

notice will also be available through the 

WWW. Following signature, a copy of 

this action will be posted on the EPA’s 

greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/

index.html. 

Background on Today’s Action 

In this action, the EPA is providing 

notice that the public hearing date for 

the proposed rule titled ‘‘Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program: 2015 Revisions 

and Confidentiality Determinations for 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems’’ 

has changed. That proposal was 

published on December 9, 2014, and the 

previous date for a public hearing, if 

requested, was 15 days later on 

December 24, 2014. On December 15, 

2014, the EPA received a request for a 

public hearing along with a request to 

move the date of the public hearing to 

accommodate holiday vacation 

schedules. The EPA is moving the date 

of the public hearing from December 24, 

2014 to January 8, 2015 in response to 

this request. The comment period for 

this proposal is unchanged. Public 

comments for this proposal are due 

February 9, 2015. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

Sarah Dunham, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29867 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 22 

[WT Docket No. 12–40; RM Nos. 11510 and 

11660; FCC 14–181] 

FCC Seeks Comment on Cellular 

Service Reform of Licensing and 

Technical Rules, Including Power 

Limits 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on reforms of its rules 

governing the 800 MHz Cellular 

(‘‘Cellular’’) Service. The proposals 

include a geographic-based 

discontinuance of operations rule to 

replace the current site-based approach, 

and the establishment of frequency 

coordinators to review certain 

applications prior to their submission to 

the Commission. In addition, the 

Commission proposes revised Cellular 

radiated power provisions and related 

technical rules, including use of a 

power spectral density (‘‘PSD’’) model. 

The goals of the proposed reforms are to 

provide licensees with increased 

flexibility, achieve greater efficiency in 

the provision of new service to 

consumers, and facilitate deployment of 

next-generation wireless broadband 

networks that use advanced 

technologies. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

January 21, 2015 and reply comments 

on or before February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 12–40, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: All hand-delivered or 

messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Shafran, Mobility Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

(202) 418–2781, TTY (202) 418–7233, or 

nina.shafran@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘FNPRM’’) in WT Docket No. 12–40, 

RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, FCC 14–181, 

adopted November 7, 2014, and released 

November 10, 2014. The full text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (202)488–5300, 

facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also 

be downloaded at: http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2014/db1110/FCC-14- 

181A1.pdf. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

by calling the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Comment Filing Instructions 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(‘‘ECFS’’). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Parties should 

only file in WT Docket No. 12–40. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76269 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Commission 

proposes and seeks comment on several 

additional reforms of the Cellular 

Service to establish a more flexible and 

efficient licensing approach and to 

facilitate the use of more advanced 

wireless technologies, as explained in 

detail in the sections below. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

the costs and benefits of all the 

proposals discussed herein. 

II. Permanent Discontinuance of 

Operations 

2. The Commission proposes and 

seeks comment on a new rule governing 

the permanent discontinuance of 

operations, which is intended to afford 

licensees operational flexibility to use 

their spectrum efficiently while 

ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle 

for extended periods. Under 47 CFR 

1.955(a)(3), an authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

‘‘permanently discontinued.’’ The 

current § 22.317 of the Commission’s 

rules (47 CFR 22.317) applicable to part 

22 Public Mobile Services stations, 

including Cellular Service stations, 

defines permanent discontinuance as 

the failure to provide service to 

subscribers for 90 continuous days (up 

to 120 continuous days with an 

extension). If a Cellular site is 

permanently discontinued under 

§ 22.317, the licensee’s Cellular 

Geographic Service Area (‘‘CGSA’’) is 

modified accordingly to reflect the 

reduction in licensed area. Through ex 

parte letters, a coalition of 

associations—CTIA, the Rural Wireless 

Association (‘‘RWA’’), and the National 

Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association (‘‘NTCA’’) (collectively, the 

‘‘Coalition’’)—proposes that a Cellular 

licensee should be required to file to 

report a reduction in service area only 

when it’s ‘‘actual coverage area drops 

below 50 percent of its coverage 

area . . . for more than 12 months.’’ 

3. Consistent with its approach in 

recent proceedings involving other 

flexible commercial wireless services, 

notably certain Advanced Wireless 

Services (‘‘AWS’’) bands and the 600 

MHz band, the Commission now 

proposes a new Cellular Service-specific 

rule, § 22.947 (47 CFR 22.947), defining 

permanent discontinuance as 180 

consecutive days during which the 

licensee does not operate or, in the case 

of a Cellular commercial mobile radio 

service (‘‘CMRS’’) provider, does not 

provide service to at least one subscriber 

that is not affiliated with, controlled by, 

or related to the providing carrier. The 

Commission also proposes to revise 

§ 22.317 to make it clear that it would 

no longer apply to the Cellular Service. 

As in the Commission’s proceedings 

concerning the rules governing other 

flexibly licensed wireless services (e.g., 

AWS–3 and 600 MHz), the 

Commission’s proposed new definition 

recognizes that, while most Cellular 

licensees use their systems to provide 

CMRS offerings, flexibility is needed 

where Cellular licensees use their 

systems for private, internal 

communications because such licensees 

generally do not provide service to 

unaffiliated subscribers. The 

Commission seeks comment on all 

aspects of this proposal. 

4. The Commission also proposes that 

the new service discontinuance rule be 

applied to the entire geographic license 

area, i.e., the CGSA, rather than 

individual cell sites. Affording Cellular 

licensees a discontinuance of service 

period longer than 90 (or 120) days, and 

applying it on a geographic license area 

basis, might better enable them to 

implement technology upgrades 

involving reconfiguration and possible 

relocation of cell sites and other 

network elements. Following the 

effective date of the new discontinuance 

rule adopted in this proceeding, a 

Cellular system not in operation or not 

providing service within the CGSA to at 

least one unaffiliated subscriber for the 

defined permanent discontinuance 

period—180 consecutive days under our 

proposal—would terminate 

automatically. 

5. If an Unserved Area application is 

filed by a new entrant and granted for 

a new Cellular system (versus an 

incumbent’s CGSA expansion) in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

applicable rules, the Commission 

proposes that the new Cellular system 

licensee would not be subject to the 

proposed 180-day permanent 

discontinuance rule until the expiration 

of the one-year construction period for 

that system (including extensions, if 

any), so as not to penalize new entrants 

that choose to operate and provide 

service early in their construction 

periods. 

6. In addition, consistent with 47 CFR 

1.955(a)(3), the Commission proposes 

that, if a Cellular licensee permanently 

discontinues service, the licensee must 

notify the Commission of the 

discontinuance within 10 days by filing 

FCC Form 601 so that the Commission 

can update its Universal Licensing 

System (‘‘ULS’’) to reflect the 

cancellation for the entire CGSA. The 

license would automatically terminate 

without specific Commission action if 

service is permanently discontinued, 

even if the licensee fails to file the 

required FCC Form. 

7. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that the approach described 

above increases licensee flexibility and 

serves the public interest, and seeks 

comment on all aspects of the proposal, 

including the associated costs and 

benefits. Also, comment is invited on 

the alternative advocated by the 

Coalition and on any additional 

alternatives not discussed in this 

FNPRM, including the expected costs 

and benefits and how it would better 

serve the public interest. 

III. Frequency Coordinators 

A. Introduction and Background 

8. The Commission also proposes and 

seeks comment on requiring that 

frequency coordinators perform review 

of new-system and CGSA-expansion 

applications in the Cellular Service, 

pursuant to a new proposed rule (47 

CFR 22.985), as it tentatively concludes 

that frequency coordination will result 

in authorizing Cellular service more 

efficiently and effectively. The 

Commission proposes to require that 

frequency coordinators perform the 

first-line review of Cellular applications, 

including exhibits and attachments such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

as the electronic map files, for CGSA 

expansions and new Cellular systems, 

and to advise the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’) 

on whether, in the coordinator’s 

assessment, these applications comply 

with applicable Commission rules. 

Many Cellular applications contain 

inaccuracies, even when resubmitted 

after return by Bureau staff for 

correction, and errors delay service and 

also needlessly consume Commission 

resources. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that having frequency 

coordinators review certain major 

applications under the new Cellular 

licensing paradigm would further 

advance the goal of better focusing 

limited Commission staff resources. 

9. Frequency coordination in other 

wireless services generally involves 

third parties who advise the 

Commission on whether potential or 

actual licensees’ proposed operations 

comply with the applicable technical 

rules of a particular service, while also 

working to minimize interference to 

licensees operating in a given frequency 

block, band, or geographic area. 

Depending on the service, they may 

recommend restrictions to appear on 

licenses and comment on other 

technical issues in applications. In 

services with multiple frequency 

coordinators, the Commission often 

requires a frequency coordinator to 

notify and transmit certain information 

to other coordinators certified to 

coordinate in the affected 

frequency(ies). A prominent example is 

in the part 90 Private Land Mobile 

Radio (‘‘PLMR’’) Service, including the 

806–824/851–869 MHz and 896–901/

935–940 MHz bands that are adjacent to 

the Cellular band. The Commission has 

recognized the value of PLMR frequency 

advisory committees since the 1950s, 

and by the late 1980s, the Commission 

had mandated the use of private 

frequency coordinators for most PLMR 

frequencies. Frequency coordination 

also is used in a variety of other wireless 

services, such as certain part 80 

maritime and part 87 aviation 

frequencies, in which frequency 

coordinators must consider interference 

to all other similar frequencies within a 

specific geographic range. More 

recently, the Commission decided to 

require the use of frequency 

coordinators for licensees operating in 

the part 95 WMTS and Medical Device 

Radiocommunication Service 

(‘‘MedRadio’’). 

10. In its November 2013 ex parte 

letter, the Coalition suggests that, if the 

Commission opts to use frequency 

coordination for the Cellular Service, it 

should give the designated coordinators 

full authority to approve applications. 

This would include, the Coalition 

asserts, authorization of proposed 

CGSA-expansions, and that such 

authorizations ‘‘would become effective 

30 days after the frequency coordinator 

notifies’’ the Commission. By this 

FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment generally on the use of 

Cellular frequency coordinators, and 

specifically on the details of our 

proposal outlined below. However, in 

light of a federal court decision, USTA 

v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 

the Commission does not seek comment 

on the suggestion to delegate authority 

to coordinators to grant applications. 

We especially urge all parties that 

preliminarily determine they would be 

interested in being frequency 

coordinators to indicate such interest 

during the comment or reply comment 

period. 

11. All commenters should be specific 

and detailed, and should review the 

proposed new rule in Appendix B of 

this FNPRM and comment on its 

wording. To the extent commenters 

offer alternative ideas not considered 

herein, they should explain how such 

alternatives would better serve the 

public interest and achieve the 

Commission’s goals, consistent with 

Commission precedent and current 

spectrum management policies. 

B. Coordinator Duties 

12. In the Report and Order released 

November 10, 2014 in this proceeding 

(‘R&O’’), the Commission eliminated the 

need for many different types of Cellular 

applications. Of the applications that 

will continue to be filed, the 

Commission proposes to require the use 

of Cellular frequency coordinators to 

review the following: (1) Major 

modification applications claiming at 

least 50 contiguous square miles of 

Unserved Area as CGSA; and (2) 

applications seeking authorization for 

new Cellular systems. Under this 

proposal, all other applications, 

including construction notifications and 

renewal applications, for example, 

would continue to be filed directly with 

the Commission. The Commission 

further proposes, however, that to the 

extent such other filings are submitted 

with a CGSA-expansion or new-system 

application, those other filings would 

also need to be filed with a Cellular 

frequency coordinator for initial review. 

For example, an application that 

modifies and/or adds a location 

requiring an Environmental Assessment, 

which normally would come directly to 

the Commission, would have to be 

submitted to a frequency coordinator if 

such application is filed along with a 

CGSA-expansion or new-system 

application. Using frequency 

coordinators in this manner could 

greatly assist in developing and 

managing the Cellular spectrum. 

13. The Commission proposes that 

Cellular frequency coordinators be 

private organizations certified by the 

Commission to review certain categories 

of applications (as outlined above), 

including any exhibits, FCC Form 

Schedules, and electronic maps 

required with those applications, to 

ensure compliance with all rules 

applicable to the Cellular Service. 

Cellular coordinators would review only 

applicable technical information for 

compliance with the rules; they would 

not, for example, review an applicant’s 

financial or ownership information that 

may accompany or be linked in an 

application. Frequency coordinators 

would work with the applicants to 

resolve any inaccuracies involving 

technical information, including the 

service area boundary (‘‘SAB’’) and 

CGSA calculations, ensure compliance 

with all applicable rules, and submit the 

application to the Commission. 

Consistent with rules governing 

frequency coordination in other wireless 

services, the Commission proposes that 

the frequency coordinators’ 

recommendations be purely advisory, 

not binding on either the applicant or 

the Commission. However, the 

Commission proposes that, in the event 

of a dispute between an applicant and 

a frequency coordinator, an applicant 

would be able to direct the coordinator 

to submit the application at issue to the 

Commission without the coordinator’s 

recommendation. In that event, the 

application would need to explain that 

the applicant sought frequency 

coordination but the coordinator did not 

recommend the proposed operations. 

The Commission proposes that the 

applicant have the burden of proceeding 

and the burden of proof in requesting 

the Commission to grant its application 

notwithstanding a coordinator’s 

unfavorable recommendation. 

14. Part 90 PLMR frequency 

coordinators are required to file 

applications electronically using the 

ULS electronic batch format. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

Cellular frequency coordinators should 

be subject to the same requirement. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

what preparations the Commission 

would have to make before 

implementing a frequency coordination 

regime, such as modifying ULS to 

accommodate frequency coordinator 

information and receive electronic batch 

filing of the applications, including any 

maps submitted electronically, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76271 

educating the frequency coordinators. 

The Commission seeks comment also on 

whether Cellular frequency coordinators 

should have additional duties. 

Commenters are invited to address all 

these issues surrounding the 

appropriate duties of frequency 

coordinators for the Cellular Service and 

they should indicate how their positions 

serve the public interest, including a 

cost-benefit analysis. 

C. Commission’s Continued Role 

15. If it appears that a Cellular 

frequency coordinator’s performance is 

inconsistent with the public interest 

obligations that would be imposed on it 

through this proceeding, an inquiry 

would be initiated that could lead to its 

decertification, as with other wireless 

services for which frequency 

coordinators are used. The Commission 

would also continue to maintain the 

Cellular license data, including the 

online CGSA map files. Given that 

frequency coordinator recommendations 

are proposed to be advisory and not 

binding upon either the applicant or the 

Commission, we envision that Cellular 

applications would continue to go on 

public notice once received by the 

Commission and that the Commission 

would resolve competing applications 

and petitions to deny, if any. 

16. Many part 90 PLMR applicants 

that undergo frequency coordination 

receive conditional authority; that is, 

they are permitted to commence their 

proposed operations once the 

application has been favorably reviewed 

and submitted by a frequency 

coordinator and is pending before the 

Commission. In that situation, a 

minimum wait time of ten days is 

imposed between submission of the 

application and the onset of operation, 

during which the Commission can 

evaluate the proposed operations, 

including the frequency coordinator’s 

recommendation, and take adverse 

action if necessary. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether Cellular 

applicants should receive similar 

conditional operating authority while 

their applications are pending before the 

Commission. Making conditional 

authorization available following the 

frequency coordinator’s 

recommendation—if the Commission 

does not find a problem with the 

recommendation—could provide 

flexibility to Cellular applicants and 

benefit consumers by permitting more 

rapid deployment of proposed service. 

Commenters are invited specifically to 

address whether sound administrative 

principles support permitting 

conditional operation before the 30-day 

public comment period ends, and 

whether it should continue even if a 

competing application or petition to 

deny is filed. 

17. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to oversee the Cellular 

frequency coordinators and their 

processes on an ongoing basis, and to 

work to resolve disputes that cannot be 

resolved between an applicant and 

frequency coordinator. The Commission 

seeks comment on the circumstances 

under which the Commission should 

become involved in such a dispute, and 

the timing. Should the Commission 

specify a reasonable timeframe, e.g., 60 

days following the frequency 

coordinator’s recommendation to the 

applicant, during which the applicant 

and the frequency coordinator are to 

endeavor in good faith to resolve the 

matter before appealing to the 

Commission? Once the dispute is 

brought before the Commission, what 

procedures are appropriate for 

Commission staff to resolve the dispute? 

The Commission seeks comment on all 

aspects of the continued role for the 

Commission. 

D. Number of Coordinators and Fees 

18. In 1997, the Commission generally 

permitted certain frequency 

coordinators in the PLMR Industrial/

Business Pool band below 512 MHz to 

coordinate any frequency in the pool, 

thus ending exclusive frequency 

coordination and allowing competition 

among coordinators on certain 

frequencies. The Bureau subsequently 

introduced competitive coordination to 

other part 90 PLMR bands. The 

introduction of competition among 

coordinators was intended to promote 

lower coordination costs for applicants 

and foster better service to the public, 

and it has accomplished this purpose. 

Consequently, the Commission proposes 

to authorize multiple frequency 

coordinators for the Cellular Service. 

19. If there are multiple Cellular 

frequency coordinators, the Commission 

proposes that they have notification 

requirements similar to those for part 90 

PLMR frequency coordinators. In 

particular, a Cellular frequency 

coordinator would be required to notify 

other Cellular frequency coordinators 

within one business day of making a 

coordination recommendation and on 

any day when it does not make a 

recommendation. At a minimum, the 

notification would include the 

following information: Name of the 

applicant; type of application at issue; 

license (call sign) of the applicant (if 

applicable); CMA description and 

channel block of the existing license (if 

applicable); CMA designator(s) and 

channel block pertaining to where the 

applicant is expanding its CGSA or 

starting a new system; new or modified 

transmitter location(s) along with 

coordinates and the antenna height; 

effective radiated power, antenna center 

of radiation height above average 

terrain, height above sea level or height 

above mean sea level, and distance to 

the SAB and to the CGSA for the eight 

radials of each new/modified location; 

and date and time of the 

recommendation. Upon request, the 

notifying frequency coordinator would 

provide any additional information 

requested by another certified 

coordinator regarding a Cellular 

application already reviewed by the 

notifying coordinator but still pending 

before the Commission. 

20. Under the Commission’s proposal, 

it would be the responsibility of each 

Cellular frequency coordinator to ensure 

that its recommendations do not conflict 

with the recommendations of any other 

Cellular frequency coordinator. Should 

a conflict arise, the affected coordinators 

would be jointly responsible for taking 

action to resolve the conflict, up to and 

including notifying the Commission that 

an application may have to be returned. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

proposed notification process, including 

what information should be provided to 

coordinators with each notification, and 

the timing of notifications. 

21. The Commission also invites 

commenters, including parties that at 

least preliminarily have an interest in 

being a frequency coordinator 

candidate, to address whether the 

market for Cellular frequency 

coordination is likely to support 

multiple entities, as well as whether 

they perceive any problems in allowing 

more than one frequency coordinator for 

the Cellular Service. 

22. Fees. Because the Commission 

proposes to have multiple coordinators, 

the Commission proposes that market 

forces determine the Cellular frequency 

coordinators’ fees, rather than have the 

Commission regulate fees. Given that 

the Commission would continue to 

process and act on the reviewed 

applications, as proposed above, 

applicants would continue to pay 

Commission application fees (and also 

regulatory fees). Should the Commission 

adopt a pricing scheme for the 

frequency coordinators? If so, what 

should it be, and how would such an 

approach better serve the public 

interest? What are the costs and benefits 

of a particular scheme? If there is only 

one frequency coordinator, should the 

Commission regulate the coordinator 

fees? 

23. The Commission seeks comment 

on its proposal to certify more than one 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

frequency coordinator and to allow 

market forces to govern coordinators’ 

processing fees. Commenters should 

include an analysis of the costs and 

benefits of whatever proposal they 

advocate. 

E. Coordinator Certification Criteria and 

Selection Process 

24. The Commission proposes that, at 

a minimum, Cellular frequency 

coordinators must have the following 

qualifications: knowledge of the Cellular 

Unserved Area licensing process (as 

revised by the companion R&O in this 

proceeding); ability to register and 

maintain application information and 

transmit such information to ULS; 

technical capability to review 

applicants’ proposed licensing areas to 

determine compliance with all rules and 

procedures applicable to the Cellular 

Service; and both ability and 

willingness to develop procedures to 

work with Cellular applicants, which 

includes offering coordination services 

on a non-discriminatory basis and 

responding to applicant requests or 

concerns on a timely basis. The 

Commission also expects that the 

frequency coordinators would not have 

a conflict of interest when reviewing 

applications (or can show that any preexisting conflict of interest has been 

resolved). Although we do not propose 

at this time to require that the 

coordinators be national in scope and 

representative of all eligible Cellular 

licensees, the Commission expresses 

strong preference for those 

characteristics. 

25. Permitting current Cellular 

applicants or licensees to serve as 

frequency coordinators—either for 

themselves or for other applicants— 

could run counter to the public interest 

and undermine the goals of the 

proposal. As discussed above, a key goal 

is to have frequency coordinators 

resolve the high volume of inaccuracies 

in Cellular applications so that new 

service is not delayed, and also so that 

Commission staff resources are no 

longer needed for repeated review and 

return of such filings. The Commission 

expects that frequency coordinators 

specifically dedicated to this task would 

ensure that applications are accurate 

and compliant with Commission 

requirements prior to submitting them 

to the Commission. Furthermore, having 

a current Cellular applicant or licensee 

as a frequency coordinator would 

increase the likelihood of a conflict of 

interest—a problem the Commission 

wishes to avoid, as it could delay the 

processing of Cellular applications 

contrary to the goal to expedite new 

service. Therefore, the Commission 

proposes to make Cellular licensees 

ineligible to be certified as Cellular 

frequency coordinators. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

proposal to not certify Cellular 

frequency coordinators that are current 

or prospective Cellular Service 

licensees. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether a current Cellular 

applicant or licensee’s agent (e.g., a law 

firm or a consulting engineering firm), 

and affiliates of Cellular licensees and 

applicants, should also be prohibited 

from serving as a frequency coordinator. 

If not, how would potential conflicts of 

interest be resolved? Also, if the 

Commission decides not to certify 

affiliates of Cellular licensees and 

applicants as frequency coordinators, 

the Commission invites comment on 

how to define ‘‘affiliate’’ in this context. 

In particular, the Commission invites 

comment on whether the definition of 

affiliate used for purposes of 

determining whether an auction 

participant is a ‘‘designated entity’’ 

could also be used in this context. 

26. Under 47 CFR 0.131(m), the 

Bureau has delegated authority to certify 

frequency coordinators for the services 

that it administers, including the 

Cellular Service. The Commission 

proposes that, pursuant to this delegated 

authority, the Bureau would select the 

Cellular frequency coordinators using 

the same procedures that were adopted 

for WMTS and MBANs. Accordingly, in 

the event that the Commission 

ultimately adopts rules establishing the 

use of frequency coordinators for the 

Cellular Service, the Commission would 

direct the Bureau to issue a Public 

Notice announcing procedures for 

interested parties to submit requests to 

become coordinators. Thereafter, the 

Bureau would be directed to issue an 

Order to designate the coordinators and 

execute a Memorandum of 

Understanding (‘‘MOU’’) with those 

selected. The MOU would set forth the 

coordinators’ authority and 

responsibilities. The frequency 

coordinators would assume their duties 

upon execution of the MOU. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

this process, which worked well for 

selecting the WMTS coordinator, would 

permit the Commission to complete the 

coordinator selection process in a timely 

and efficient manner. The Commission 

seeks comment on all aspects of the 

frequency coordination certification and 

selection criteria. 

IV. Radiated Power Limit Rules for the 

Cellular Service 

A. Introduction and Background 

27. In this Section of the FNPRM, the 

Commission considers changes to the 

Cellular radiated power limits and 

related technical rules under the 

following specific topics: Power spectral 

density (‘‘PSD’’); power flux density 

(‘‘PFD’’); technological neutrality for 

field strength limits; height-power limit; 

mobile transmitters and auxiliary test 

transmitters; and power measurement. 

(For the purpose of this proceeding, PFD 

is the amount of radio frequency energy 

or power that would be present over a 

given unit of area (e.g., 100 microwatts 

per square meter). Therefore, PFD can 

be used to describe the strength of 

signals on the ground in a given 

location.) The Commission also 

addresses coordination requirements, 

including international coordination, 

and the SAB formula set forth in 

§ 22.911 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission takes this action with a 

goal of implementing technology neutral 

rules that allow licensees to choose 

technologies based upon their 

deployment plans without being 

hindered by an unnecessarily restrictive 

rule. The Commission also strives for 

regulatory parity among competing 

services with consideration of unique 

circumstances for the band at issue that 

may require special requirements to 

prevent interference. 

28. The Commission seeks comment 

on its proposals and those of the 

commenters as discussed herein; it also 

invites alternative ideas and proposals 

concerning the Cellular power rules and 

related provisions. The Commission 

encourages public safety entities at the 

local, regional, and national levels to 

submit their comments on revising the 

rules to permit all Cellular licensees 

nationwide to use, at their option, a PSD 

model. It asks that all commenters be 

specific, detailed, and include pertinent 

engineering data and technical analyses. 

To the extent commenters advocate an 

alternative or modification, they should 

include an explanation of the public 

interest benefits of such alternative or 

modification, and comment on the 

economic costs and benefits of the 

various possible approaches. All 

interested parties should also review 

and comment on the proposed rules in 

Appendix B of this FNPRM, including 

definitions. Alternative wording should 

be provided with comments that 

advocate additions or modifications to 

our proposals. 

29. In a Petition for Rulemaking filed 

by AT&T Services, Inc. on behalf of 

AT&T, Inc. and its subsidiaries 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76273 

(‘‘AT&T’’), AT&T seeks specifically to 

modify § 22.913 (47 CFR 22.913) to 

permit effective radiated power (‘‘ERP’’) 

measurement in terms of PSD, with 

limits of 250 watts (‘‘W’’) per MHz in 

non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz in rural 

areas. In response to a Public Notice 

released by the Bureau seeking 

comment on AT&T’s Petition, interested 

parties filed comments and reply 

comments, generally supporting a PSD 

model as an option for ERP 

measurement, although some expressed 

concerns or proposed modifications, as 

discussed below. AT&T also filed a 

request for interim waiver of § 22.913 to 

use a PSD model for certain Cellular 

stations in Florida, and subsequently 

filed a request for interim waiver to use 

the PSD model for certain Cellular 

operations in Vermont. The Bureau 

sought comment on them, and in the 

docket concerning the Florida PSD 

Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 13– 

202), several Florida public safety and 

critical infrastructure entities submitted 

comments; no public safety entities 

commented regarding the Vermont PSD 

Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 14– 

107). 

30. In 2007 and 2008, the Commission 

revised the radiated power rules for 

several other wireless services, 

implementing a PSD model (among 

other related technical rule 

modifications), but declined at that time 

to revise the Cellular ERP rules, 

primarily because of significant 

restructuring (800 MHz rebanding) 

ongoing in the immediately adjacent 

frequencies, which are used by public 

safety entities, and also because of a 

lack of industry support and the need 

for more time to assess the potential 

impact of using the PSD model in the 

Cellular band. Ultimately, the rebanding 

process will move public safety and 

other narrowband land mobile 

operations away from the Cellular and 

high-density ESMR base station 

transmitting frequencies, thereby 

reducing the potential for interference 

between incompatible services. 

However, in some parts of the country, 

the rebanding process is not completed 

and public safety operations continue 

using frequencies adjacent to the lower 

edge of the Cellular base station 

transmitting band at 869 MHz. Further, 

even after rebanding is accomplished in 

a region, some public safety entities may 

continue to use legacy radios that could 

be susceptible to Cellular base station 

interference because the filtering of the 

radio does not reflect the post-rebanding 

channel plan for public safety 

operations. The rebanding proceeding 

outlined the circumstances where 

legacy devices would be entitled to 

interference resolution procedures and 

also created information exchange 

procedures so public safety licensees 

could be notified of new or modified 

ESMR and Cellular base station 

activities. 

B. PSD Proposal for Non-rural and 

Rural Areas 

31. Based on the preliminary record, 

and consistent with the Commission’s 

prior revisions to, or newly adopted 

power rules for, other wireless services, 

the Commission proposes to revise 

§ 22.913 to permit measurement of base 

transmitter and Cellular repeater power 

using a PSD model. The goals are to 

promote spectral efficiency and provide 

licensees with flexibility to select the 

technology that best suits their needs, 

whether narrowband or wideband, and 

increase harmonization of the 

Commission’s rules across commercial 

wireless services to the extent 

practicable, taking into account the 

unique features of each service band. At 

the same time, the Commission is 

mindful of the need to protect systems 

in the immediately adjacent bands, 

particularly public safety operations. 

The Commission seeks comment in the 

Sections below on various options to 

achieve its goals. 

32. In considering a PSD model as an 

option for Cellular licensees deploying 

wideband technologies, the Commission 

discusses below and seeks comment on 

the following three proposals to develop 

a better record for determining what the 

appropriate PSD limits should be: 

• AT&T’s proposal of 250 W/MHz 

ERP in non-rural areas, 500 W/MHz ERP 

in rural areas; 

• Union Wireless’s proposal of 500 

W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 1000 W/ 

MHz in rural areas; and 

• Verizon Wireless’s proposal of 1000 

W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 2000 W/ 

MHz in rural areas. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on alternatives not considered in this 

FNPRM. Each of the proposals listed 

above specifies power limits that would 

supplement the current Cellular ERP 

limits of 500 W in non-rural areas and 

1000 W in rural areas. The distinction 

is that the current limits apply to each 

emission or channel, so that a licensee 

using narrow emissions can transmit 

more total power per MHz than a 

licensee using wideband emissions. For 

example, under the current rules, a 

Cellular licensee using a 5 MHz LTE 

emission in a non-rural area would be 

limited to 500 W in those 5 MHz (100 

W/MHz), while a licensee in the same 

5 MHz could deploy four CDMA 

channels with an aggregate power of 

2000 W ERP (400 W/MHz), or 12 GSM 

channels with an aggregate power of 

6000 W ERP (1200 W/MHz). (This 

assumes that the licensee is deploying 4 

CDMA channels in 5 MHz (4 × 500 W 

= 2000 W), or using every other GSM 

channel in 5 MHz for a total of 12 

channels (12 × 500 W = 6000 W).) 

33. In support of AT&T’s proposal, its 

Petition includes a study that purports 

to show that shifting to PSD-based 

power limits would create an 

interference environment that is ‘‘not 

appreciably different from that of 

existing Cellular deployments’’ and 

which, according to AT&T, is even 

better in some cases. AT&T states that 

the study looked at five different 

technological cases, including GSM, 

Universal Mobile Telecommunications 

System (‘‘UMTS’’), and LTE systems in 

various configurations in the Cellular 

band. According to AT&T, the study 

shows that deployments of 2X2 

Multiple Input Multiple Output 

(‘‘MIMO’’) LTE—using the PSD model 

with the limits advocated by AT&T— 

would maintain the status quo with 

respect to the potential interference 

impacts on adjacent services, and in 

particular, the Public Safety Services. 

34. Broadpoint, LLC d/b/a Cellular 

One, Cincinnati Bell Wireless LLC, NE 

Colorado Cellular, Inc., Smith Bagley, 

Inc., and Union Telephone Company d/ 

b/a Union Wireless (‘‘Union Wireless’’) 

(collectively, the ‘‘GSM Licensees’’), 

which own and operate GSM/EDGE 

Cellular networks, argue that imposing 

AT&T’s proposed PSD limits on carriers 

using such technologies would result in 

reducing their existing coverage, with a 

dramatic increase in roaming costs for 

customers or loss of signal altogether. 

One of the GSM Licensees, Union 

Wireless, adds that the revised rule 

should articulate measurement in terms 

of effective isotropically radiated power 

(‘‘EIRP’’), just as for certain other 

wireless services, including the 

Broadband Personal Communications 

Service (‘‘PCS’’). Specifically, it argues 

that carriers operating with less than 1 

MHz of bandwidth should be permitted 

up to 820 W EIRP in non-rural areas, 

1640 W EIRP in rural areas (equivalent 

to the current 500 W ERP and 1000 W 

ERP limit, respectively), and that 

corresponding PSD limits for carriers 

operating with more than 1 MHz of 

bandwidth should be 820 W/MHz EIRP 

non-rural, 1640 W/MHz EIRP rural 

(equivalent to 500 W/MHz ERP and 

1000 W/MHz ERP, respectively). 

Bluegrass Cellular, Inc. and Affiliates d/ 

b/a Bluegrass Wireless (collectively, 

‘‘Bluegrass’’), which is a CDMA carrier, 

contends that AT&T’s proposal would 

cause stronger signals into Bluegrass 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

markets, thereby increasing the noise 

level, and that carriers like Bluegrass 

need a sufficient transition period to 

renegotiate SAB extension agreements 

to prevent harmful interference. CTO 

supports a rulemaking to ensure equity 

among commercial licensees in different 

bands, but also expresses concern about 

the fiscal impact of changes in licensing 

rules on the budgets of public safety 

entities. In its reply comments, AT&T 

emphasizes that it seeks only to 

supplement the rule to permit carriers to 

use whichever model is better suited to 

their circumstances, and that, at the PSD 

limits AT&T advocates, the power 

injected into Bluegrass’s receivers in 

adjacent areas or co-located sites 

remains the same. 

35. Verizon Wireless argues that PSD 

limits should be added to the rule at 

significantly higher levels, mirroring the 

limits set for the 700 MHz Services: 

1000 W/MHz for non-rural areas, and 

2000 W/MHz for rural areas, for stations 

transmitting on bandwidths greater than 

1 MHz. For stations transmitting on 

bandwidths of 1 MHz or less, Verizon 

Wireless argues that the Commission 

should either retain the current ERP 

limits as an option, or adopt maximum 

power limits of 1000 W and 2000 W for 

non-rural and rural areas, respectively. 

According to Verizon Wireless, the 

limits proposed in the Petition will 

negatively impact both coverage and 

capacity, putting Cellular licensees that 

deploy broadband technologies at a 

significant disadvantage compared to 

carriers deploying such technologies in 

other service bands, especially in rural 

areas. Verizon Wireless argues that the 

Commission should also adopt a PFD 

limit (discussed in the next Section 

below). 

36. Several Florida public safety 

entities submitted ex parte letters 

regarding AT&T’s Florida PSD Waiver 

Request in WT Docket No. 13–202. They 

expressed a number of concerns, 

arguing that the technical study 

submitted by AT&T infers a burden on 

public safety licensees to incorporate 

new radios or additional filtering, that 

using a PSD model will result in a 

significant increase in power from 

AT&T, causing harmful interference to 

radio systems with multiple police users 

from federal, state, county, city, and 

Tribal organizations, that AT&T should 

conduct testing, and alleging increased 

costs for public safety licensees if a PSD 

model is adopted, not only in terms of 

dollars for new radio purchases, but also 

in terms of extra weight and size of the 

radios used, reduced sensitivity, and 

potential operational burdens. 

37. AT&T then sought and was 

granted an experimental special 

temporary authorization to conduct 

testing using a PSD model in Florida. 

Taking into account the results of the 

testing, as documented in ex parte 

letters submitted by AT&T and MiamiDade County, the Bureau recently 

granted the Florida PSD Waiver Request 

in part, conditioned on compliance with 

new rules that may be adopted in this 

rulemaking proceeding and subject to 

certain operational conditions to 

prevent harmful interference. (See DA 

14–1419 in WT Docket No. 13–202.) In 

addition, the Bureau granted the 

Vermont PSD Waiver Request, similarly 

conditioned, also noting the absence of 

public safety entities with licensed base 

stations in the Burlington, VT CMA. 

(See DA 14–1418 in WT Docket No. 14– 

107.) 

38. The Commission proposes to keep 

the current base station ERP limits 

(applied per channel or emission 

bandwidth) for those licensees that use 

technologies incompatible with a PSD 

ERP model (applied per MHz of channel 

or emission bandwidth), and also 

provide power flexibility to deploy 

wideband technologies. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that a 

PSD ERP model—as an option—would 

better accommodate newer technologies 

employing wider bandwidths, notably 

LTE, by establishing ERP caps per units 

of 1 MHz of an emission’s bandwidth 

rather than capping the ERP per each 

emission bandwidth. To minimize 

adverse effects on licensees operating 

with GSM and CDMA technologies in 

the Cellular band, the Commission 

proposes to permit licensees using 

narrowband technologies to comply 

with the current limits of 500 W ERP 

per emission in non-rural areas and 

1000 W ERP per emission in rural areas. 

Maintaining the existing power limits as 

an option would allow licensees to 

continue to operate as currently 

deployed, and would prevent potential 

power reductions for non-wideband 

technologies (e.g., GSM and CDMA) if a 

lower PSD limit is applied. (For 

example, a licensee deploying CDMA 

technology transmitting a signal with a 

bandwidth of 1.25 MHz could employ a 

power level of 500 W ERP under the 

legacy limit; alternatively, in a 250 W/ 

MHz scenario, the same licensee would 

have a maximum power level of 312.5 

W ERP in 1.25 MHz bandwidth.) The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there is a need to 

increase Cellular power levels 

consistent with other services (e.g., the 

700 MHz Services rules impose a limit 

of 1000 W ERP for emissions less than 

one MHz in non-rural areas, and 2000 

W ERP for emissions less than one MHz 

in rural areas), or whether the current 

limits are sufficient. If insufficient, what 

new limits would be the most 

appropriate for per-emission Cellular 

transmissions in rural and non-rural 

markets, respectively? The Commission 

also seeks comment on updating the 

terminology in the rule. Specifically, 

should the 500 W ERP be applied per 

channel, per channel bandwidth, per 

occupied bandwidth, or some other 

emission description? All commenters 

addressing this issue should support 

their arguments with technical 

showings. 

39. Verizon Wireless recommends 

applying a PSD limit only to Cellular 

base stations transmitting emissions 

greater than 1 MHz. The Commission 

does not propose any such bandwidth 

dividing line for the purposes of 

applying PSD in the Cellular Service 

because it could disadvantage certain 

carriers. For example, a licensee using a 

1.25 MHz CDMA technology would 

currently be permitted to use 500 W 

ERP across that channel, but under a 

250 W/MHz PSD requirement, that 

licensee would have to lower its power 

and reduce service coverage. The 

Commission invites comment on its 

proposal not to establish a bandwidth 

dividing line and on its assumption 

regarding the potential effect of such a 

dividing line on certain licensees. 

40. AT&T’s PSD proposal (250 W/

MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz 

in rural areas) would provide Cellular 

licensees with less power than other 

current CMRS providers, potentially 

placing Cellular licensees at a 

competitive disadvantage. Cellular 

licensees deploying LTE base stations 

might, as a result, have less reliable 

coverage, necessitating deployment of 

more base stations at a greater expense, 

and might have a difficult time 

supplementing existing service with 

Cellular spectrum because of the power 

discrepancy. This option would allow 

an LTE 5 MHz emission a total of 1250 

W ERP; however, the power would be 

spread across a wider bandwidth and 

unlikely in our view to present 

increased interference potential to other 

services. Under the current rules, a 

Cellular licensee using the same 5 MHz 

could deploy four CDMA channels with 

an aggregate power of 2000 W ERP, or 

12 GSM channels with an aggregate 

power of 6000 W ERP. The Commission 

seeks comment on all aspects of the 

AT&T PSD proposal, including the 

adequacy of the proposal to allow the 

full potential of wideband modulation 

schemes and services that Cellular 

licensees may wish to provide, and also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76275 

the potential to cause interference to 

other services. 

41. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment on Verizon Wireless’s 

proposal to adopt PSD limits similar to 

those adopted for upper 700 MHz 

licensees (1000 W/MHz in non-rural 

areas and 2000 W/MHz in rural areas), 

with a PFD limit to minimize the 

interference potential on the ground 

within one kilometer of a base station. 

The proposal would provide power 

consistent with certain other CMRS 

bands, thereby allowing Cellular 

licensees to compete on a level playing 

field and also allowing CMRS licensees 

holding both Cellular and other CMRS 

spectrum to deploy base stations with 

an expectation that they could achieve 

consistent and reliable coverage across 

different service bands. The increased 

power does, however, come with an 

increased risk of potential interference 

to adjacent public safety operations that 

have not gone through rebanding or that 

use radios less capable of filtering out 

emissions from Cellular base stations. 

As discussed in more detail below in 

the next section, Verizon Wireless 

contends that the increased PSD limits 

paired with a PFD limit would address 

the increased interference potential 

around the base station, and the 

Commission seeks comment on Verizon 

Wireless’s proposal, its adequacy to 

address the needs of Cellular licensees 

seeking to deploy wideband 

technologies, and its potential to cause 

interference to public safety operations 

or any other licensees in adjacent 

markets or service bands. 

42. Further, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the interference 

resolution provisions adopted in the 

rebanding proceeding allow us to adopt 

Cellular power rules consistent with 

other CMRS bands with the assurance 

that any unacceptable interference that 

does occur will be appropriately 

addressed pursuant to §§ 22.970 through 

22.973 of our rules. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on other 

commenters’ PSD approaches, including 

the proposal by Union Wireless, which 

specifies power in terms of EIRP and 

proposes power limits of 820 W/MHz 

EIRP for non-rural and 1640 W/MHz 

EIRP for rural areas. 

43. The Commission also proposes to 

allow the doubling of the PSD limit in 

rural counties, as in other CMRS bands. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and also on whether the 

Commission should adopt a staggered 

power limit, whereby the licensee 

would operate at the suggested AT&T 

limits (250 W/MHz in non-rural areas 

and 500 W/MHz in rural areas) if 

narrowband land mobile operations 

exist in adjacent spectrum, and at higher 

power limits after such entities are 

rebanded to a new location. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how base station power limits should be 

applied in the deployment of base 

stations. That is, should the limit be 

applied per emission or channel, per 

transmitter, per sector, or for the entire 

base station, and how is this application 

affected by MIMO antenna 

configurations? For example, if a 

licensee uses 2x2 or 4x4 MIMO, should 

it be forced to divide its power 

accordingly? 

44. The Commission seeks comment 

on all aspects of its proposals and others 

on the record, and also invites 

commenters to submit alternative 

proposals and ideas that would advance 

the goals to provide power flexibility, 

ensure parity among competing or 

complementary services, and safeguard 

spectral compatibility with licensees in 

adjacent markets and adjacent bands. 

The Commission reiterates that 

commenters should provide engineering 

data and technical analysis as well as 

specific wording for the applicable rules 

to support their showings, particularly if 

advocating alternatives not discussed in 

this FNPRM. 

C. Power Flux Density 

45. Verizon Wireless argues that the 

Commission should adopt a PFD limit 

to mitigate the potential for interference 

around Cellular base station 

transmitters, particularly to public 

safety operations. According to Verizon 

Wireless, PFD limits permit the licensee 

to aim the signal away from the ground, 

limit signal strength in close proximity 

to the base station, and allow licensees 

to operate at greater power levels 

without sacrificing protection. It further 

contends that the PFD limit applicable 

to the upper 700 MHz band is 

appropriate for the Cellular band and 

that, with PSD limits of 1000 W/MHz 

non-rural and 2000 W/MHz rural, the 

PFD that would be produced by such 

stations through a combination of 

antenna height and vertical gain pattern 

must not exceed 3000 microwatts per 

square meter on the ground over the 

area extending to 1 km from the base of 

the antenna mounting structure. Verizon 

Wireless includes a summary of results 

of testing conducted by V–COMM. 

46. It appears that Verizon Wireless 

intends its proposed PFD limit of 3000 

microwatts per square meter to apply to 

any base station with emissions 

exceeding 1000 W ERP, similar to the 

limit for the upper 700 MHz band. For 

the upper 700 MHz band, the 

Commission established a PFD limit 

that applies to emissions greater than 

1000 W ERP, regardless of the 

bandwidth of the emission. For the 

lower 700 MHz band where there was 

no public safety spectrum, the 

Commission established PFD limits that 

apply, in non-rural areas, to emissions 

that exceed 1000 W and 1000 W/MHz, 

and in rural areas to emissions that 

exceed 2000 W and 2000 W/MHz, 

allowing more power relative to the 

upper 700 MHz band before PFD limits 

apply. This approach might be an 

effective tool to limit the amount of 

potentially interfering energy on the 

ground around base stations if the 

Commission ultimately decides to adopt 

higher PSD levels for the Cellular 

Service than what AT&T proposed. 

Notably, however, the Commission did 

not adopt PFD limits for PCS or certain 

AWS when it revised the radiated 

power rules for those services to permit 

use of a PSD model. 

47. A factor in the upper 700 MHz 

band’s PFD limit that is shared with the 

Cellular band is a desire to reduce the 

interference potential to adjacent 

channel public safety operations. If the 

Commission adopts AT&T’s proposed 

PSD limits, or some other PSD limits 

lower than what is proposed by Verizon 

Wireless, should the Commission also 

adopt a PFD limit? If so, should the PFD 

limit only apply if the ERP exceeds a 

certain level (e.g., 1000 W, as in the 

upper 700 MHz band, or some other 

level)? Is 3000 microwatts per square 

meter on the ground over the area 

extending to 1 km from the base of the 

antenna mounting structure the 

appropriate PFD level to protect public 

safety operations? Is a different 

applicable area more appropriate than 

Verizon Wireless’s proposed area? 

Should a PFD limit only be applicable 

in areas where the rebanding process 

has not been completed? Should it be 

applicable only to those Cellular carriers 

using the PSD model to measure their 

ERP, or to all Cellular carriers? 

48. The Commission also seeks 

comment on several other issues raised 

by Verizon Wireless’s proposal. How 

should the microwatts-per-square-meter 

level, whether it is 3000 microwatts or 

some other value, be measured? Should 

the parameter have a reference or 

measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, or 

some other value, to ensure uniform 

measurement regardless of channel 

width? Should the PFD value be an 

average limit, or a peak value that 

should not be exceeded at any point 

within the specified area? Would 

licensees perform a predictive modeling 

of this parameter before deployment, or 

is it a measured value? If the PFD is a 

modeled parameter, would it be better 

to establish some allowance for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

exceeding the PFD over a small portion 

of the subject area? For example, the 

Commission could require that the PFD 

not be exceeded over more than 5% or 

10% of the area within 1 km of the 

transmitting structure. Such an 

allowance may be needed in areas 

where rolling terrain could increase the 

PFD over a small portion of the 

applicable area. What challenges may be 

created in enforcing a PFD limit, 

including consistency and parity in 

application among different 

technologies? 

49. The Commission seeks detailed 

and specific comments on all questions 

and issues mentioned above 

surrounding the establishment of a PFD 

limit, and any other issues that 

commenters believe are related and 

pertinent. All commenters, whether 

supporting or opposing the 

establishment of a PFD limit, should 

provide a technical demonstration 

substantiating their position. 

D. Technological Neutrality for Field 

Strength Measurement 

50. In its Report and Order in the 

proceeding concerning AWS–3, the 

Commission stated that boundary limits 

that adjust for large differences in 

channel bandwidth may be appropriate. 

However, the Commission stated that it 

intended to explore the issue of a 

measurement bandwidth to co-channel 

boundary field strength limits in a 

future proceeding due to a lack of 

consensus on how to apply boundary 

limits for AWS–3. With the introduction 

of power flexibility in the Cellular band, 

licensees could be deploying different 

technologies with emission bandwidths 

ranging from 200 kHz to 10 MHz. 

Therefore, to promote technological 

neutrality in our rules among different 

technologies and licensees, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the new Cellular field strength limit of 

40 dBmV/m, which the Commission 

adopted in its companion R&O in this 

proceeding, can be applied in a 

technology neutral fashion or whether 

the Commission should adopt a specific 

measurement bandwidth for field 

strength measurements or some other 

limit or metric at the license boundary. 

51. Given that the Cellular Service is 

well-established, what are the 

considerations for or against specifying 

a measurement bandwidth for the field 

strength limit? To ensure uniform 

application of the limit, would a 100 

kHz or 1 MHz measurement bandwidth 

be appropriate or would that be too 

stringent, and what would the 

consequences be? If the Commission 

adopts a measurement bandwidth that is 

too wide, would it be potentially 

difficult to meet the limit and still have 

adequate signal to provide service at the 

boundary area? Is a field strength limit 

with a measurement bandwidth the best 

metric to address service area boundary 

interference? If not, what limit and type 

should be applied? It is appropriate that 

commenters address application of the 

field strength limit in a technology 

neutral fashion, and the Commission 

encourages all commenting parties to 

support their position with technical 

demonstrations. The Commission seeks 

comment on any other part 22 Cellular 

rules that may not be technology neutral 

and invites specific proposals on how 

they should be amended, with analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits of 

such changes. 

E. Height-Power Limit 

52. Section 22.913(b) currently limits 

the height of a base station antenna such 

that the ERP may not exceed an amount 

that would result in the average distance 

to the SAB being 79.1 km for licensees 

authorized to serve the Gulf of Mexico 

market (the ‘‘Gulf’’), 40.2 km for all 

other licensees. Section 22.913(c) 

provides an exemption from the heightpower limit if the licensee coordinates 

and obtains concurrence from all cochannel licensees within 121 km. No 

commenter on the record in this 

proceeding has mentioned changing 

these height-power provisions. In some 

other flexible wireless services where 

the Commission has instituted PSD 

limits, however, it has also limited the 

antenna height in which the maximum 

power may be transmitted and allowed 

higher antennas if the installation scaled 

down the power proportionally for 

antennas above the height allowed for 

maximum power. For example, under 

the 700 MHz Services and PCS rules, 

licensees are required to scale down 

their power from the maximum levels 

for antenna heights over 300 and 305 

meters, respectively. Other services, 

such as AWS, are not subject to such 

limitations. 

53. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether and how the Commission 

should amend the Cellular height-power 

limit and exemption rules. Does the 

Commission need a scaled height-power 

requirement similar to the one 

applicable in the 700 MHz band, and if 

so, what should the values be? With the 

adoption in the companion R&O in this 

proceeding of a field strength limit rule 

to protect neighboring Cellular 

licensees’ CGSA boundaries, the 

Commission seeks detailed comment, 

including technical analysis and 

proposed wording of rules, on whether 

it is appropriate to delete the current 

Cellular height-power limit altogether, 

or whether a limit is still necessary, at 

least for CGSA expansions into 

Unserved Area. 

F. Mobile Transmitters and Auxiliary 

Test Transmitters 

54. At this time, the Commission is 

proposing to permit Cellular licensees to 

use a PSD model only for base station 

transmitters and Cellular repeaters. No 

commenter on the record in this 

proceeding has suggested changing the 

power limit for Cellular mobile or 

portable transmitters. Currently, 

§ 22.913(a)(2) sets a limit of 7 W ERP for 

mobile and auxiliary test transmitters. 

While the Commission tentatively 

concludes that the 7 W ERP limit is 

adequate even for 10 MHz channel 

widths, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether the current limit should be 

updated or changed, including whether 

it should be lowered to be consistent 

with other CMRS bands. While the 

Commission has not adopted PSD for 

mobile stations in other services such as 

PCS or the 700 MHz Services, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a PSD limit should be established for 

mobile and portable Cellular 

transmitters, and if so, what that limit 

should be. Does the use of MIMO 

antenna techniques affect how power is 

measured and how it should be 

regulated in mobile devices? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether auxiliary test transmitters are 

still in use and whether a provision 

applying to such transmitters is still 

warranted in § 22.913(a)(2). Are there 

other types of Cellular transmitters that 

should be addressed in the radiated 

power rules? Does it serve the public 

interest to treat Cellular mobile 

transmitters differently from auxiliary 

test transmitters, and if so, what should 

the respective treatments be? The 

Commission emphasizes that, even if it 

decides to adopt changes to 

§ 22.913(a)(2), its environmental 

regulations will still apply. 

G. Power Measurement 

55. Because mobile devices often 

operate across multiple service bands, 

the Commission tentatively concludes 

that it would serve the public interest to 

establish consistent measurement 

techniques for equipment to ease the 

equipment authorization process, while 

also taking into account unique factors 

presented by the band, and seeks 

comment on whether the measurement 

techniques for the Cellular Service 

should be updated. The Commission’s 

Cellular power rules were created when 

analog technologies were predominantly 

used, and are not necessarily applicable 

to current technologies. Here, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76277 

Commission discusses peak power 

versus average power, peak-to-average 

power ratio, resolution bandwidth, EIRP 

versus ERP, and accommodating MIMO 

antenna techniques. 

56. Section 22.913 does not specify 

how power is to be measured, i.e., peak 

or average power. Digital modulation 

techniques often produce instantaneous 

short duration spikes such that the 

overall power of the emission is lower 

under average power measurement 

compared to peak measurement. In 

revising the radiated power rules for 

PCS and AWS, the Commission 

concluded that, for non-constant 

envelope technologies such as CDMA, 

WCDMA, and OFDM, limiting PCS and 

AWS power on an average basis would 

more accurately predict the interference 

potential for such technologies. The 

record in that proceeding demonstrated 

that using peak power measurements for 

non-constant envelope technologies 

inaccurately suggested a much higher 

overall operational power, compared to 

average power levels, due to short 

duration power spikes. The Commission 

further found that measurement of 

average power for PCS and AWS 

operations must be made during a 

period of continuous transmission based 

on a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth. 

Because the average power approach 

allows for emissions higher than those 

under peak power limits, the 

Commission also concluded that it 

would serve the public interest to adopt 

a peak-to-average ratio limit to mitigate 

the potential for undesirable 

interference that could result otherwise. 

The current rules for PCS and AWS 

reflect these various measurement 

decisions. 

57. No one on the record in this 

proceeding has thus far addressed how 

PSD should be measured if the 

Commission introduces this model into 

the Cellular radiated power rules. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that, 

to account for the characteristics of 

digital modulation techniques, Cellular 

radiated power limits—both the legacy 

limits the Commission proposes to 

maintain as an option for narrowband 

technologies and the PSD limits the 

Commission proposes as an option for 

wideband technologies—should be 

measured in terms of maximum average 

power as measured with a root mean 

square power averaging detector. 

Averaging would, under this approach, 

be permitted only over the various 

power levels associated with different 

symbol states while the device is 

transmitting at maximum power levels 

(i.e., averaging during any transmitter 

quiescent periods or reduced power 

transmissions is not permitted). Because 

the peak power associated with a noiselike signal is a random variable and, as 

such, can place unachievable 

requirements on the measuring 

instrumentation (e.g., a resolution/

measurement bandwidth that exceeds 

the signal bandwidth), the Commission 

tentatively concludes that the Cellular 

output power should not be specified in 

terms of peak, unless limited to peak 

PSD (in which case a reference 

bandwidth should also be specified). 

The Commission also proposes to 

specify that power should be measured 

with a resolution bandwidth, but seeks 

comment on what that resolution 

bandwidth should be. The current 

resolution bandwidth for measuring 

unwanted emissions outside of the 

Cellular band is 100 kHz or greater, but 

the PCS resolution bandwidth for 

measuring in-band power is specified as 

being equal to or greater than the 

authorized bandwidth. The Commission 

seeks comment on how the Commission 

should craft the Cellular power 

measurement rules to accommodate the 

various technologies used in the band 

and others that may be used in the 

future. 

58. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, if the 

Commission adopts an average power 

requirement for Cellular licensees, it 

should be accompanied by a peak-toaverage ratio, as the Commission has 

adopted for PCS and AWS. If the 

Commission adopts a peak-to-average 

ratio to be applied over an emission’s 

bandwidth, the Commission proposes 

that the limit apply to the highest peak 

power density relative to the highest 

average power density measured over 

the entire occupied bandwidth. The 

reason for specifying the peak-toaverage ratio within a reference 

bandwidth is to be clear the 

Commission is not referring to the 

absolute peak power within the total 

signal but, rather, to the peak within 

some defined bandwidth, making it a 

realizable measurement even when the 

signal greatly exceeds the available 

resolution/measurement bandwidth. In 

addition, the peak-to-average ratio 

would not apply within each and every 

reference bandwidth bin, as the 

Commission’s Laboratory finds that a 

peak-to-average ratio limit can be 

exceeded on a bin-by-bin basis due to 

intermodulation products, but can be 

compliant when the overall maximum 

values are considered. Finally, if the 

Commission adopts a peak-to-average 

ratio, the Commission proposes that it 

be specified on a statistical basis to 

reflect the fact that the peak power of a 

‘‘noise-like’’ signal is a statistical 

parameter (e.g., peak-to-average ratio 

level must comply with the limit 99% 

of the time). The PCS peak-to-average 

ratio is 13 dB. The Commission seeks 

comment on all aspects of applying a 

peak-to-average ratio to the Cellular 

band, including whether the PCS peakto-average ratio or some other value is 

most appropriate for Cellular licensees. 

59. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should convert our Cellular power 

requirements to EIRP instead of ERP, as 

suggested by Union Wireless. While 

these two power specifications entail a 

simple mathematical conversion from 

one to another, EIRP may make more 

sense for the Cellular Service, 

particularly for mobile and portable 

devices that have integrated antennas. It 

is our understanding that dipole 

antennas are infrequently used to 

perform compliance measurements and 

that practically all measurement 

antennas in use today provide gain 

values in terms of dBi. Further, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

impact of MIMO antenna techniques on 

our radiated power rules and 

measurement procedures. Through 

MIMO, a Cellular base station would 

deploy multiple antennas, each 

intended to transmit and receive the 

same signals, allowing increased 

throughput and reliability by having 

multiple signals to add together or to 

compensate for multipath fading. Does 

the use of MIMO techniques require a 

modification to the way the Commission 

specifies Cellular power or perform 

measurements for equipment 

authorization? If so, how should the 

Commission modify the rules and 

policies to account for MIMO? 

60. The Commission seeks comment 

also on whether any other part 22 rules 

regarding equipment standards and 

measurement need to be updated or 

modified to be consistent with the 

equipment certification rules in part 2. 

For instance, part 2 requirements related 

to spurious emissions at an antenna 

terminal assume that the unwanted 

emissions are measured at the antenna 

terminals (i.e., a conducted 

measurement). Section 22.917 is not 

clear on whether the Cellular 

measurement is conducted or radiated. 

Should § 22.917 be modified to be 

consistent with this part 2 requirement? 

61. The Commission urges all 

interested parties, including not only 

Cellular licensees but also licensees in 

the immediately adjacent bands, 

equipment manufacturers, and entities 

that test Cellular equipment, to provide 

comments on these questions and issues 

related to power measurement. 

Commenters should be specific and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

detailed, explaining the technical 

reasons for their views, including 

whether and how the public interest 

would be served by adopting any or all 

of the possible revisions discussed in 

these paragraphs concerning average 

power, peak-to-average ratio, related 

measurement techniques, and other 

technical requirements needed to obtain 

equipment certification. 

H. Out of Band Emission Limits 

62. Section 22.917 (47 CFR 22.917) 

outlines the current Cellular out of band 

emission (‘‘OOBE’’) limits and how 

these limits are measured. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

whether, given technological 

developments, the Commission should 

increase the suppression levels set forth 

in § 22.917. Would increasing the OOBE 

limits facilitate higher PSD limits 

without increasing the potential for 

unacceptable interference to legacy 

public safety operations? If so, what 

should the increased OOBE limits be? 

Given that changing filtering 

requirements may temporarily increase 

the cost of radio equipment, what would 

be the costs and benefits of increasing 

the Cellular OOBE limits to protect 

services outside the Cellular band, 

including legacy public safety 

operations that are intended to relocate 

as part of the 800 MHz rebanding 

proceeding? 

63. In measuring Cellular OOBE in 

close proximity to the authorized 

frequency band edge, the Commission 

permits the use of a narrower-resolution 

bandwidth (of at least 1% of the 

emission bandwidth of the fundamental 

emission) to measure the unwanted 

emissions that are on frequencies 

‘‘immediately outside and adjacent to 

the frequency block’’ without any 

requirement for subsequently 

integrating the results over the full 

reference bandwidth. The Commission 

proposes to clarify that this provision 

only applies in the first 100 kHz 

immediately outside and adjacent to the 

authorized frequency block/band, and 

seeks comment on the proposal. 

Further, this methodology (i.e., allowing 

a reduced bandwidth as a percentage of 

the fundamental emission (occupied) 

bandwidth) introduces a bias toward 

narrowband technologies. Therefore, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

a standard reference resolution 

bandwidth (e.g., 10 kHz) that would be 

applicable to all cases irrespective of the 

signal bandwidth, and thus not create 

any unnecessary limit discrepancies. 

The Commission seeks comment 

generally on revising our Cellular OOBE 

limits, given the changing 800 MHz 

spectrum environment, technological 

developments, and compliance 

measurement techniques. 

I. Other Measures 

1. Modification of Section 22.911 

64. Section 22.911 (47 CFR 22.911) 

sets forth the formula for calculating 

SAB and CGSA contours. The formula, 

which uses height above average terrain 

(H) and power (P) values of the 

proposed new or modified Cellular base 

station along eight cardinal radials, is 

designed to establish a uniform license 

boundary determination method. Under 

the new rules the Commission adopted 

in the R&O in this proceeding, Cellular 

licensees are still permitted to expand 

their CGSAs and have added flexibility 

to extend their SABs beyond their CGSA 

boundaries. The Commission indicated 

that, for purposes of measuring the 

service area within an SAB extension or 

CGSA expansion, the § 22.911 formula 

is a proven method. Now, in the context 

of considering the adoption of a PSD 

model for the Cellular band, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

ensure a technology neutral application 

of the SAB formula, given that P could 

vary widely depending on the 

technology chosen by the licensee. 

65. Changing the value could have a 

significant impact on the CGSAexpansion process because, if the 

Commission adopts a PSD model as 

proposed above, P could be increased 

from a value of 500 W to several 

thousand W depending on the occupied 

bandwidth and the specific PSD value. 

The GSM Licensees argue that the rules 

should be modified to express what they 

reference as the 32 dBmV/m field 

strength limit and the ERP term of the 

related SAB distance formulas in 

§ 22.911 ‘‘in terms of electric field 

spectral density and ERP spectral 

density (PSD) respectively for 

broadband carriers.’’ If § 22.913 is 

revised to include a PSD model without 

some form of normalization, the 

Commission is concerned that this 

could unfairly penalize licensees using 

narrowband technologies and thus 

would not serve the public interest. 

Accordingly, while the Commission 

concluded in the R&O that the § 22.911 

formula should continue to be used for 

the purpose of calculating SAB contours 

and CGSAs, the Commission tentatively 

concludes that a normalization method 

needs to be developed to accommodate 

higher ERP values created by wideband 

emissions. 

66. The Commission proposes, in the 

event that it ultimately adopts a PSD 

model for the Cellular band in this 

proceeding, to establish some method to 

allow P in the formula to vary so as to 

equalize the effects of PSD when 

applying for Unserved Area to expand a 

CGSA, or when extending an SAB into 

Unserved Area and providing service on 

a secondary basis only, in compliance 

with the new rules adopted in the R&O 

in this proceeding. One option could be 

to require licensees using a PSD model 

for their Cellular operations to use only 

the power (P value) contained in 1 MHz 

or 2 MHz of their occupied bandwidth 

for the purpose of determining the 

contour of the new or modified cell site. 

If the Commission adopts higher PSD 

limits, the power in 1 MHz of the 

emission bandwidth could be the 

appropriate value for P, but if the 

Commission adopts lower PSD limits, 

then 2 MHz may be more appropriate. 

The Commission could allow licensees 

using the legacy ERP limits to apply in 

the formula an aggregate ERP value for 

P that the station would use over a 1 

MHz or 2 MHz reference bandwidth. 

Alternatively, should a separate formula 

be added to § 22.911 for use by those 

licensees that opt to use the PSD model 

in measuring their maximum ERP? If so, 

how should this formula be different 

from the current one? 

67. The Commission seeks comment 

on the issues raised in the preceding 

paragraphs and invites suggestions as to 

any potential methods of addressing the 

contour calculation under § 22.911 so 

that applicants seeking to establish new 

Cellular systems or expand existing 

systems into Unserved Area are treated 

on par with one another regardless of 

the technology they choose. All 

suggestions and comments should 

include a thorough technical analysis 

and a demonstration of how the various 

technologies would be impacted. Given 

the specific provisions in § 22.911(a)(1) 

and (2), the Commission also seeks 

comment on whether any revisions to 

those provisions are warranted in the 

context of the proposal to permit use of 

a PSD model for Cellular licensees. 

2. Domestic Coordination Requirements 

68. Under § 22.907 of the 

Commission’s rules, Cellular licensees 

are required to coordinate channel usage 

at each transmitter location within 121 

kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter 

locations that are authorized to other 

licensees or proposed (except those with 

mutually exclusive applications). In its 

companion R&O in this proceeding, the 

Commission did not change § 22.907, 

but the Commission now seeks 

comment in this FNPRM on whether, in 

the event the Commission adopts a 

revised § 22.913 to permit the use of a 

PSD model, the current coordination 

requirements under § 22.907 are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76279 

sufficient, or whether they need to be 

enhanced. Is the coordination distance 

of 75 miles still adequate? Is there a 

need for channel coordination if 

licensees convert to wideband channels 

of 10 MHz? To the extent commenters 

argue that the current rule needs to be 

enhanced or otherwise revised, they 

should propose specific wording for the 

new/revised provisions of § 22.907 and 

explain in detail why the public interest 

would be served by such changes. 

3. International Coordination 

Requirements 

69. Cellular licensees are currently 

subject to three separate part 22 rules 

governing coordination between the 

United States government and the 

governments of Canada and Mexico. 

The generic rule applicable to all Public 

Mobile Services licensees, § 22.169, 

states that channel assignments are 

‘‘subject to the applicable provisions 

and requirements of treaties and other 

international agreements between the 

United States government and the 

governments of Canada and Mexico.’’ 

The other two rules—§§ 22.955 and 

22.957—are in subpart H (Cellular 

Service-specific), and each sets forth the 

text of a condition that is to be placed 

on authorizations for all Cellular 

systems, requiring them to coordinate 

any transmitter installations within 72 

kilometers (45 miles) of the U.S.- 

Canadian or U.S.-Mexican border, as 

applicable. 

70. The Commission proposes to 

streamline the rules by eliminating 

§§ 22.955 and 22.957, preserving 

§ 22.169 with a minor revision to add a 

reference to ‘‘operation of systems.’’ 

This would advance our regulatory 

reform agenda by deleting unnecessary 

or redundant provisions. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

having the proposed single, slightly 

revised rule for all part 22 licensees is 

sufficient and consistent with the 

international coordination requirements 

set forth in other rule parts, such as in 

part 27 governing various flexible 

wireless services, for example, and 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

4. Proposed Correction of Section 

22.355 (Frequency tolerance) 

71. The Commission proposes to 

correct a clerical error in the third 

column heading of the table in § 22.355 

of our rules. The error was introduced 

inadvertently in the Federal Register 

when § 22.355 was revised in 1996. The 

proposed correction is included in 

Appendix B (Proposed Rules) of this 

FNPRM. 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

72. This FNPRM seeks comment on 

potential new and revised information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts new or revised 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on the requirement, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

73. As required by the RFA, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules proposed in the FNPRM. The 

analysis is found in Appendix D. The 

Commission requests written public 

comment on the analysis. Comments 

must be filed in accordance with the 

same deadlines as comments filed in 

response to the FNPRM, and must have 

a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

C. Ex Parte Presentations 

74. Permit-But-Disclose. The 

Commission will continue to treat this 

proceeding as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making presentations must file a copy of 

any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’) available for 

that proceeding, and must be filed in 

their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 

searchable .pdf). Participants in this 

proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

D. Filing Requirements 

75. Comments and Replies. Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, interested parties 

may file comments and reply comments 

concerning the FNPRM on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. All filings related to this 

FNPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 

12–40. Comments may be filed using 

ECFS. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 Documents will generally be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or 

Adobe Acrobat. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

76. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

77. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be publically 

available online via ECFS.1 These 

documents will also be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, which is located in 

Room CY–A257 at FCC Headquarters, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The Reference Information 

Center is open to the public Monday 

through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 

a.m. 

78. Additional Information. For 

further information, contact Nina 

Shafran of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility 

Division, at (202) 418–2781, or by email: 

Nina.Shafran@fcc.gov. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

79. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 

301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(j), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

and 332, that this report and order and 

this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12–40 are 

adopted. 

80. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on the 

further notice of proposed rulemaking 

on or before 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register and reply 

comments on or before 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

81. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send 

a copy of this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking to Congress and to the 

Government Accountability Office. 

82. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 0 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

47 CFR Part 1 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 22 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 0, 1, and 22 as follows: 

PART 0—COMMISSION 

ORGANIZATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 0 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 0.401 is amended by 

revising the note to paragraph (b)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 0.401 Location of Commission offices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Note to paragraph (b)(1): Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau 

applications that require frequency 

coordination by certified coordinators 

must be submitted to the appropriate 

certified frequency coordinator before 

filing with the Commission. After 

coordination, the applications are filed 

with the Commission as set forth herein. 

(See §§ 22.985, 90.127 and 90.175 of this 

chapter.) 

* * * * * 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 3. 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, 227, 303(r), 

309, 1403, 1404, 1451 and 1452. 

■ 4. Section 1.1204 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1204 Exempt ex parte presentations 

and proceedings. 

(a) * * * 

(7) The presentation is between 

Commission staff and an advisory 

coordinating committee member with 

respect to the coordination of frequency 

assignments to stations in the private 

land mobile services, fixed services, or 

Cellular Radiotelephone Service as 

authorized by 47 U.S.C. 332; 

* * * * * 

PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 332. 

■ 6. Section 22.99 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Cellular 

system’’ and adding definitions for 

‘‘Frequency coordinator’’ and ‘‘Power 

spectral density’’, in alphabetical order, 

to read as follows: 

§ 22.99 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cellular system. An automated highcapacity system of one or more base 

stations designed to provide radio 

telecommunication services to mobile 

stations over a wide area in a spectrally 

efficient manner. Cellular systems 

employ techniques such as low 

transmitting power and automatic handoff between base stations of 

communications in progress to enable 

channels to be reused at relatively short 

distances. 

* * * * * 

Frequency coordinator. In the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service, a person or 

organization certified by the FCC to 

review applications submitted by 

applicants, including any exhibits and 

electronic maps, to ensure that the 

applications are in compliance with all 

rules applicable to the Cellular Service. 

See § 22.985. 

* * * * * 

Power spectral density (PSD). The 

power of an emission in a frequency 

domain, such as ERP or EIRP, stated per 

unit bandwidth, e.g., watts/MHz. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 22.169 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.169 International coordination. 

Operation of systems and channel 

assignments under this part are subject 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76281 

to the applicable provisions and 

requirements of treaties and other 

international agreements between the 

United States government and the 

governments of Canada and Mexico. 

■ 8. Section 22.317 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.317 Discontinuance of station 

operation. 

If the operation of a Public Mobile 

Services station is permanently 

discontinued, the licensee shall send 

authorization for cancellation by 

electronic filing via the ULS on FCC 

Form 601. For purposes of this section, 

any station that has not provided service 

to subscribers for 90 continuous days is 

considered to have been permanently 

discontinued, unless the applicant 

notified the FCC otherwise prior to the 

end of the 90 day period and provided 

a date on which operation will resume, 

which date must not be in excess of 30 

additional days. This section does not 

apply to the Cellular Radiotelephone 

Service (see § 22.947). 

■ 9. Section 22.355 is amended by 

revising Table C–1 to read as follows: 

§ 22.355 Frequency tolerance. 

* * * * * 

TABLE C–1—FREQUENCY TOLERANCE FOR TRANSMITTERS IN THE PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES

Frequency range 

(MHz) 

Base, fixed 

(ppm) 

Mobile > 3 

watts 

(ppm) 

Mobile ≤ 3 

watts 

(ppm) 

25 to 50 ........................................................................................................................................ 20.0 20.0 50.0 

50 to 450 ...................................................................................................................................... 5.0 5.0 50.0 

450 to 512 .................................................................................................................................... 2.5 5.0 5.0 

821 to 896 .................................................................................................................................... 1.5 2.5 2.5 

928 to 929 .................................................................................................................................... 5.0 n/a n/a 

929 to 960 .................................................................................................................................... 1.5 n/a n/a 

2110 to 2220 ................................................................................................................................ 10.0 n/a n/a 

■ 10. Section 22.913 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 22.913 Effective radiated power limits. 

Subject to § 22.169, the effective 

radiated power (ERP) of transmitters in 

the Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

must not exceed the limits in this 

section. 

(a) Maximum ERP. The effective 

radiated power (ERP) in the Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service must not exceed 

the following limits: 

(1) The ERP of base transmitters and 

Cellular repeaters must not exceed 500 

watts per authorized bandwidth or XXX 

watts/MHz. 

(2) For Cellular systems operating in 

areas more than 72 kilometers (45 miles) 

from international borders 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, or that 

extend coverage into Unserved Area (see 

§ 22.949), the ERP of base transmitters 

and Cellular repeaters must not exceed 

1000 watts per authorized bandwidth or 

XXX watts/MHz. 

(3) The ERP of mobile transmitters 

and auxiliary test transmitters must not 

exceed 7 watts. 

(b) Power measurement. The ERP 

limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section must be measured in terms of 

average power over a resolution 

bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Height-power limit. The ERP of 

base transmitters must not exceed the 

amount that would result in an average 

distance to the service area boundary of 

79.1 kilometers (49 miles) for Cellular 

systems authorized to serve the Gulf of 

Mexico Service Area and 40.2 

kilometers (25 miles) for all other 

Cellular systems. The average distance 

to the service area boundary is 

calculated by taking the arithmetic 

mean of the distances determined using 

the procedures specified in § 22.911 for 

the eight cardinal radial directions. 

(e) Coordination exemption. Licensees 

need not comply with the height-power 

limit in paragraph (d) of this section if 

the proposed operation is coordinated 

with the licensees of all affected 

Cellular systems on the same channel 

block within 121 kilometers (75 miles) 

and concurrence is obtained. 

■ 11. Add § 22.947 to read as follows: 

§ 22.947 Discontinuance of service. 

(a) Termination of authorization. (1) 

Except with respect to CMA672–A (see 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section), a 

licensee’s Cellular Geographic Service 

Area authorization will automatically 

terminate, without specific Commission 

action, if the licensee permanently 

discontinues service after expiration of 

the construction period specified in 

§ 22.946. 

(2) CMA672–A (Chambers, TX). The 

licensee’s authorization for CMA672–A 

will automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if the 

licensee permanently discontinues 

service after meeting its interim 

construction requirement as specified in 

§ 22.961(b)(1). 

(b) Permanent discontinuance. 

Permanent discontinuance of service is 

defined as 180 consecutive days during 

which a licensee does not operate or, in 

the case of a commercial mobile radio 

service provider, does not provide 

service to at least one subscriber that is 

not affiliated with, controlled by, or 

related to the providing carrier. 

(c) Filing requirements. A licensee 

that permanently discontinues service 

as defined in this section must notify 

the Commission of the discontinuance 

within 10 days by filing, via the ULS, 

FCC Form 601 requesting license 

cancellation. An authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

permanently discontinued as defined in 

this section, even if a licensee fails to 

file the required form requesting license 

cancellation. 

§§ 22.955 and 22.957 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 12. Remove and Reserve §§ 22.955 

and 22.957. 

■ 13. Add § 22.985 to subpart H to read 

as follows: 

§ 22.985 Frequency coordination. 

(a) A frequency coordinator in the 

Cellular Radiotelephone Service shall 

perform the following functions: 

(1) Review applications (including all 

exhibits and attachments) listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section for 

compliance with all rules applicable to 

the Cellular Service. 

(2) If, in the coordinator’s assessment, 

an application is not in compliance with 

applicable rules, the coordinator shall 

notify the applicant about the 

noncompliance. The applicant may then 

correct the application and resubmit the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

application to the coordinator for 

review. 

(3) If, in the coordinator’s assessment, 

an application is in compliance with all 

applicable rules, the coordinator shall 

submit the application to the 

Commission for processing. The 

coordinator shall also submit along with 

the application a statement that 

indicates the application is compliant 

with all applicable rules and 

recommends that the FCC grant the 

application. 

(b) The functions and 

recommendations of a frequency 

coordinator under this section are 

advisory in nature for the applicant and 

the Commission, and its 

recommendations are not binding upon 

either the applicant or the Commission. 

If there is a disagreement between an 

applicant and a coordinator regarding 

the coordinator’s recommendation, the 

coordinator and applicant are jointly 

responsible for taking action to resolve 

the disagreement, up to and including 

notifying the Commission that the 

disagreement cannot be resolved. In the 

event of such an irresolvable dispute, 

the applicant may direct the reviewing 

coordinator to submit the application to 

the Commission without the 

coordinator’s recommendation. Such an 

application should indicate that the 

applicant sought frequency coordination 

and be accompanied by a statement 

from the coordinator explaining its 

reasons for not recommending the 

proposed operations. The affected 

applicant shall bear the burden of 

proceeding and the burden of proof in 

requesting that the Commission 

overturn a coordinator’s 

recommendation. 

(c) An applicant that files any of the 

following types of applications must 

first submit them to a certified 

frequency coordinator in the Cellular 

Service for review: 

(1) A major modification application 

claiming at least 130 square kilometers 

(50 contiguous square miles) of 

Unserved Area as Cellular Geographic 

Service Area (CGSA); 

(2) An application seeking 

authorization for a new Cellular system; 

and 

(3) Any other application when 

submitted together with an application 

type that is listed in paragraph (c)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(d) Within one business day of 

making a recommendation, a frequency 

coordinator must notify and provide the 

information listed in paragraph (e) of 

this section to all other coordinators 

who are certified to review Cellular 

applications. A coordinator that does 

not make any recommendations 

regarding Cellular applications on a 

given day must notify all other certified 

coordinators for the Cellular Service of 

such fact. A notification under this 

paragraph (d) of this section must be 

made to all the other certified 

coordinators at approximately the same 

time and can be made using any method 

that ensures compliance with this samebusiness-day requirement. 

(e) At a minimum, the following 

information must be included in each 

notification that is required under 

paragraph (d) of this section: 

(1) Name of the applicant; 

(2) The type of application under 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(3) CMA designator(s) pertaining to 

where the applicant is expanding its 

CGSA or starting a new system; 

(4) For an application type under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

license (call sign) at issue, and the CMA 

description and channel block; 

(5) New or modified transmitter 

location(s) along with coordinates and 

antenna height; 

(6) Effective radiated power (ERP), 

antenna center of radiation height above 

average terrain (HAAT), height above 

sea level (HASL) or height above mean 

sea level (HAMSL) and distance to the 

SAB and to the CGSA for the eight 

radials of each new/modified location; 

and 

(7) Date and time of the 

recommendation. 

(f) Upon request, each frequency 

coordinator for the Cellular Service 

must provide any additional 

information requested by another 

certified coordinator regarding a 

Cellular application already reviewed 

by the coordinator but still pending 

before the Commission. 

(g) It is the responsibility of each 

frequency coordinator to ensure that its 

recommendations do not conflict with 

the recommendations of any other 

certified coordinator for the Cellular 

Service. Should a conflict arise, the 

affected coordinators are jointly 

responsible for taking action to resolve 

the conflict, up to and including 

notifying the Commission that an 

application may have to be returned. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29848 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 27 and 73 

[GN Docket No. 12–268; ET Docket Nos. 

13–26 and 14–14; FCC 14–157] 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on proposed rules to govern 

the interference relationship between 

broadcast television and wireless 

service in the 600 MHz Band following 

the incentive auction. The Commission 

anticipates that after the auction some 

broadcast television stations may 

operate on channels in the 600 MHz 

Band as a result of market variation. The 

Commission proposes to allow no 

harmful interference from wireless 

operations to reception of television 

service; the Commission proposes to 

require wireless licensees to use 

proposed OET Bulletin No. 74 (OET–74) 

before deploying base stations; and 

seeks comment on how the ISIX 

Methodology and inputs adopted in the 

companion Second Report & Order can 

be adapted to predict inter-service 

interference between wireless services 

and analog television stations in Canada 

and Mexico, for purposes of identifying 

license impairments during the auction. 

In addition, the Commission proposes 

not to permit broadcast licensees who 

operate in the 600 MHz Band to expand 

their noise-limited or protected contours 

if doing so would increase the potential 

for interference to a wireless licensee’s 

service area. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 21, 2015, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

February 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 12–268 and 

ET Docket Nos. 13–26 and 14–14, by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Email: [Optional: Include the Email 

address only if you plan to accept 

comments from the general public]. 

Include the docket number(s) in the 

subject line of the message. 

D Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk or CD–ROM 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS