[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76268-76282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29848]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#41070202747175012722226f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6909595e3e6e296b0b5b5f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3dddaddd29dc0dbd2d5c1d2ddf3d5d0d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234d4a4d420d504b424551424d634540400d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d3b5b0b093b1b0a3baa4b6b1fdb0bcbe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f5f0f0d3f1f0e3fae4f6f1bdf0fcfe">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44222727717470042227276a232b32">[email protected]</a> or by calling the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

Comment Filing Instructions

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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.
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 76269]]

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6909595c3c6c2b6909595d8919980">[email protected]</a> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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, Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 76270]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 76272]]

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 pre-existing 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 76273]]

(``AT&T''), AT&T seeks specifically to modify Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:
    <bullet> AT&T's proposal of 250 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 500 
W/MHz ERP in rural areas;
    <bullet> Union Wireless's proposal of 500 W/MHz ERP in non-rural 
areas, 1000 W/MHz in rural areas; and
    <bullet> 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 x 500 W = 2000 W), or 
using every other GSM channel in 5 MHz for a total of 12 channels (12 x 
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

[[Page 76274]]

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 Miami-Dade 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

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 76276]]

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 dB[mu]V/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 
height-power limit if the licensee coordinates and obtains concurrence 
from all co-channel 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, Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 noise-like 
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-to-average 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-to-average 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 peak-to-
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 76278]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 CGSA-
expansion 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 dB[micro]V/m field strength limit 
and the ERP term of the related SAB distance formulas in Sec.  22.911 
``in terms of electric field spectral density and ERP spectral density 
(PSD) respectively for broadband carriers.'' If Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  22.907, but the 
Commission now seeks comment in this FNPRM on whether, in the event the 
Commission adopts a revised Sec.  22.913 to permit the use of a PSD 
model, the current coordination requirements under Sec.  22.907 are

[[Page 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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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--Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  22.955 and 22.957, preserving Sec.  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 Sec.  22.355 of our rules. The 
error was introduced inadvertently in the Federal Register when Sec.  
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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> 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.
    [cir] 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.

[[Page 76280]]

    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6808585d3d6d2a6808585c8818990">[email protected]</a> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Documents will generally be available electronically in 
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Additional Information. For further information, contact Nina 
Shafran of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, 
at (202) 418-2781, or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e3017101f502d161f180c1f103e181d1d50191108">[email protected]</a>.

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 Sec. Sec.  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

0
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.
0
2. Section 0.401 is amended by revising the note to paragraph (b)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  22.985, 90.127 and 90.175 of this chapter.)
* * * * *

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
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.

0
4. Section 1.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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

0
5. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.

0
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:


Sec.  22.99  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cellular system. An automated high-capacity 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 hand-off 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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 22.169 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  22.169  International coordination.

    Operation of systems and channel assignments under this part are 
subject

[[Page 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.
0
8. Section 22.317 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  22.947).
0
9. Section 22.355 is amended by revising Table C-1 to read as follows:


Sec.  22.355  Frequency tolerance.

* * * * *

                  Table C-1--Frequency Tolerance for Transmitters in the Public Mobile Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Base, fixed     Mobile > 3      Mobile <= 3
                     Frequency range  (MHz)                            (ppm)       watts  (ppm)    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
10. Section 22.913 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  22.913  Effective radiated power limits.

    Subject to Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.
0
11. Add Sec.  22.947 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec. Sec.  22.955 and 22.957   [Removed and Reserved]

0
12. Remove and Reserve Sec. Sec.  22.955 and 22.957.
0
13. Add Sec.  22.985 to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 76282]]

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 same-business-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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>