[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61049-61062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20927]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90
[WT Docket No. 03-264; FCC 05-144]
Amendment of Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(``Commission'') streamlines and harmonizes licensing provisions in the
wireless radio services (WRS) that were identified in part during the
Commission's 2000 and 2002 biennial regulatory reviews. The Commission
concludes that streamlining and harmonizing these rules will clarify
spectrum rights and obligations for affected licensees and support
recent efforts to maximize the public benefits derived from the use of
the radio spectrum. Among other matters, the Commission retains the
references to ERP and EIRP in its rules, eliminates the transmitter-
specific posting requirement of part 22 licensees, conforms the
Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent mask that places no
limitation on the spectral power density profile within the maximum
authorized bandwidth, eliminates a rule which required the filing of
certain outdated supplemental information, and eliminates certain
transmitter output power limits rules. Further, in this document, the
Commission eliminates many filing and data reporting requirements, some
output power limits, and seeks comment on whether the Commission should
increase other power limits.
DATES: Effective December 19, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr. and/or B.C.
``Jay'' Jackson, Jr. of the Mobility Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418-0620 or via e-mail at
Wilbert.Nixon@fcc.gov and/or Jay.Jackson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order portion (Report and Order) of the Commission's Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-144, in WT
Docket Nos. 03-264, adopted July 22, 2005, and released August 9, 2005.
The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion (FNPRM) of the
document is summarized elsewhere in this publication. The full text of
the document is available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445
12th St., SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best
Copy & Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC, 20554, telephone 800-378-3160, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-
mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also be downloaded at:
http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202)
418-7365 or at Brian.Millin@fcc.gov.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and
agency comments are due December 19, 2005. In addition, the Commission
notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.''
Synopsis of the Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. On January 7, 2004, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, (NPRM) published at 69 FR 8132, February 23, 2004, which
commenced a proceeding to streamline and harmonize licensing provisions
in the wireless radio services (WRS) that were identified in part
during the Commission's 2000 and 2002 biennial regulatory reviews
pursuant to section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Communications Act'' or ``Act'') (47 U.S.C. 161). The Commission
proposed various amendments to parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 of the rules
to modify or eliminate provisions that treat licensees differently and/
or have become outdated as a result of technological change,
supervening changes to related Commission rules, and/or increased
competition within WRS. We believe streamlining and harmonizing these
rules will clarify spectrum rights and obligations and optimize
flexibility for WRS licensees, fulfill our mandate under Section 11 of
the Communications Act, and support efforts to maximize the public
benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum. Accordingly, in
this Report and Order, we:
Modify our rules to classify a deletion of a frequency
and/or transmitter site from a multi-site authorization under part 90
as a minor modification.
[[Page 61050]]
Retain the references to ERP and EIRP in our rules.
Eliminate the transmitter-specific posting requirement of
Part 22 licensees.
Eliminate part 24 transmitter output power limits.
Retain the frequency coordination requirement for
incumbent licensees operating on 800 MHz General Category frequencies
and for site-based 800 MHz General Category applications filed after
800 MHz rebanding.
Conform the Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent
mask that places no limitation on the spectral power density profile
within the maximum authorized bandwidth.
Eliminate Sec. 90.607(a) of our rules requiring the
filing of certain outdated supplemental information.
Eliminate the loading requirement and references to the
``waiting list'' in Sec. 90.631(d) of our rules, and eliminate Sec.
90.631(i) which is no longer necessary because the 900 MHz specialized
mobile radio (SMR) renewal period it references has long passed.
Modify Sec. 90.635 of our rules to remove the distinction
between urban and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and
antenna heights limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems.
Eliminate the power limitations on systems with operational radii of
less than 32 kilometers.
Eliminate Sec. 90.653 of our rules which specifies no
limitation on the number of system authorizations to operate within a
given geographic area as redundant.
Eliminate Sec. 90.658 of our rules which provides that
site-based licensees of trunked SMR systems must provide loading data
in order to either acquire additional channels or renew their
authorizations.
Modify Sec. 90.693 of our rules to eliminate the
necessity of incumbent 800 MHz SMR licensees filing notifications of
minor modifications in certain circumstances.
Eliminate Sec. 90.737 of our rules which requires the
filing of supplemental progress reports for 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
II. Background
2. In the 2000 Biennial Review Report (16 FCC Rcd 1207 (2001)) and
2002 Biennial Review Report (18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003)), the Commission
supported proposals to streamline, harmonize, and update a number of
regulations after reviewing various WRS rule parts pursuant to section
11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act requires the Commission to review
biennially its regulations that are applicable to providers of
telecommunications service in order to determine whether any rule is
``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of
meaningful economic competition.'' Following such reviews, the
Commission is required to modify or repeal any such regulations that
are no longer in the public interest. Since the release of the biennial
review reports, the Commission has considered modifying or repealing
certain regulations by issuing notices of proposed rulemakings as
appropriate. The NPRM addressed additional proposals, identified in the
2000 and/or 2002 biennial review reports, to streamline and harmonize
WRS rules that may no longer be necessary in the public interest
pursuant to section 11 of the Act.
3. To a great extent, technological changes and/or successive
changes to various Commission licensing rules have made it appropriate
to review whether many of these rules are obsolete and no longer in the
public interest. Accordingly, the NPRM sought comment on streamlining
and harmonizing these rules if they no longer serve the public interest
in their current form notwithstanding any findings regarding the level
of competition among existing services. In its 2002 Biennial Review
Report, the Commission clarified the scope and standard of review for
future proceedings conducted pursuant to section 11. In so doing, the
Commission acknowledged that it has broad discretion to review the
continued need for any rule even in the absence of a congressional
mandate such as section 11. Accordingly, the NPRM sought comment
pursuant to the Commission's broad authority to consider any proposed
modifications to, or elimination of, these existing rules under the
Commission's general public interest standard. The Commission also
provided notice of, and invited the public to review, various
administrative corrections that it intended to make at the conclusion
of this proceeding to update and/or clarify certain WRS rules. Although
it was not necessary pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act to
seek comment on all of the proposed rule changes in the NPRM, the
Commission did so to facilitate administrative efficiency. Thirteen
parties filed comments. Six parties filed reply comments.
III. Discussion
A. Classification of Part 90 Frequency and/or Transmitter Site
Deletions as Minor Modifications Under Part 1
4. Background. Section 1.929(c)(4) of the Commission's rules
requires that certain requests for modification to a site-specific part
90 authorization, including changes to the frequencies or locations of
base stations, are considered major modifications to the license which
require prior Commission approval. Pursuant to Sec. 90.135(b) of the
rules, a site-specific Part 90 licensee that makes a modification
request listed in Sec. 1.929(c)(4) must submit its request to the
applicable frequency coordinator, unless the request falls within one
of the specific exemptions listed in Sec. 90.175 of the rules.
5. The Commission tentatively concluded that a request to delete a
frequency or a site from a multi-site authorization under part 90
should be considered a minor modification that requires neither
frequency coordination nor the Commission's prior approval and
consequently proposed to amend its rules such that these actions would
be treated as minor modifications under part 1 of the Commission's
rules. The Commission invited comment on its tentative conclusion and
also sought comment on whether there remains any need for licensees to
notify the applicable frequency coordinator of any given deletion, if
the rules are modified as proposed.
6. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion which was
unanimously supported by the commenting parties. We conclude that
requiring frequency coordination for a part 90 frequency or site
deletion request is unnecessary given that the Universal Licensing
System (ULS) now provides frequency coordinators with immediate access
to frequency and site information. We agree with AAA's assessment that
it would be inconsistent to require coordination for a deletion of a
site or a frequency when it is not required for a request to cancel an
entire authorization. We also conclude that no further direct
notification of frequency coordinators by licensees is necessary. We
agree with NAM/MRFAC that licensees need provide no special
notification to coordinators of a frequency/site deletion because
licensees are generally required to file notifications of minor
modifications with the Commission within 30 days of the change pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 1.929 and 1.947, and that coordinators routinely obtain
such information via regular downloads from the ULS. We also clarify
that a deleted frequency and/or transmitter location becomes available
for the filing of applications, where applicable, when the ULS database
is updated to reflect the grant of the modification application seeking
deletion of a frequency and/or transmitter location.
[[Page 61051]]
B. Effective Radiated Power/Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power
7. Background. In its comments in the 2000 biennial review
proceeding, the Wireless Communications Division of the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) argued that designating
FCC power limits in terms of ERP in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service
(cellular) rules and EIRP in the broadband Personal Communications
Service (PCS) rules is ``confusing to [its members'] customers since it
appears that a dual mode phone [transmits] at different power levels at
different frequencies.'' Although it recommended in the 2000 Biennial
Review Report that a rulemaking proposal be initiated to consider using
EIRP exclusively in Commission rules, the Commission tentatively
concluded that the costs of implementation and potential for greater
confusion that would likely be associated with making a wholesale
conversion from ERP limits to EIRP limits outweigh the potential
benefits to those licensees who do not possess the scientific or
engineering expertise to distinguish between the two standards and
sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
8. Discussion. We decide to leave unchanged the references to ERP
and EIRP in our rules and adopt our tentative conclusion. We agree with
AAA and Nextel that the costs associated with implementing the TIA
request, together with the potential for greater uncertainty, outweigh
its possible benefits. Because an EIRP limit is always a larger number
than the equivalent ERP limit, we believe that restating all ERP limits
as EIRP limits could likely cause some entities (e.g., licensees,
frequency coordinators, etc.) to mistakenly think that the Commission
has increased the permitted power.
C. Part 22 Transmitter Identification
9. Background. Section 22.303 of the Commission's rules provides,
inter alia, that ``[t]he station call sign must be clearly and legibly
marked on or near every transmitting facility, other than mobile
transmitters, of the station.'' In the 2002 biennial review proceeding,
CTIA and the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) recommended that the
Commission eliminate this requirement in the interest of commercial
wireless regulatory parity, since wireless services regulated under
other parts of the Commission's rules are not subject to a comparable
obligation to post call sign information on each transmitter. The
Commission agreed with CTIA and RCA that these rules should be
harmonized and tentatively concluded to delete the last sentence of
Sec. 22.303, thereby eliminating the transmitter-specific posting
requirement for cellular and other part 22 licensees. The Commission
requested comment on this proposal, including whether the absence of
call sign information on transmitting facilities associated with other
WRS that are not subject to part 22 has proved problematic to the
public or other carriers in any way.
10. Discussion. We eliminate the transmitter-specific posting
requirement of part 22 licensees and thereby adopt our tentative
proposal. All commenting parties, including AMTA, CTIA and Cingular,
support the proposal. AMTA asserts that the requirement for posting a
call sign at each transmitter location is a vestige of a time when
systems typically were licensed on a site-specific and frequency-
specific basis wherein each location had a unique call sign and claims
that now, a significant number of wireless systems, including part 22
systems, are licensed on a geographic basis with a single call sign
covering the entire authorization. Cingular states that ``[n]ot having
posted call sign information has not proved problematic for PCS and
other services governed by other parts of the rules. The proposed rule
change would harmonize the cellular and PCS rules and eliminate an
unnecessary obligation on licensees.'' We agree with the commenters'
analysis.
D. Part 24 Power and Antenna Height Limits
11. Background. Section 24.232 of the Commission's rules contains,
inter alia, limits on broadband PCS base station equivalent
isotropically radiated power and broadband PCS base station transmitter
output power. For the last ten years, the rule limited ``base station
power'' to 1640 watts peak EIRP for antenna heights up to 300 meters
height above average terrain (HAAT), and also limited transmitter
output power to 100 watts. When the Commission increased the PCS EIRP
limit from 100 watts to 1640 watts in 1994, it concurrently adopted the
100 watt peak transmitter power output limit to ensure that broadband
PCS licensees utilizing the increased EIRP would do so by employing
high-gain, directional antennas, rather than high power transmitters
with low-gain, non-directional antennas. Such use of directional
antennas, the Commission stated, would help reduce the likelihood of a
system imbalance in which PCS licensees would deploy base stations that
could transmit a strong signal over distances well beyond a mobile
unit's capability to respond. Also, the Commission stated that it would
not authorize a higher output power limit at that time because
``interference could result to fixed microwave operations and/or to
other PCS systems in adjacent service areas.'' As discussed in more
detail below, the Commission recently adopted the Rural Report and
Order, published at 69 FR 75144, December 15, 2004, and amended Sec.
24.232(b), the power rule for broadband PCS, to allow twice as much
radiated power (3280 watts EIRP) for use in rural areas, and also
increased the base station transmitter output power limit from 100
watts to 200 watts in rural areas. The Commission indicated that
increasing power limits in rural areas can benefit consumers in rural
areas by reducing the costs of infrastructure and otherwise making the
provision of spectrum-based services to rural areas more economic.
12. Powerwave, a manufacturer of Multi-Carrier Power Amplifiers
(MCPAs), filed comments in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, prior
to the Commission's release of the Rural Report and Order, and asserted
that the output power limitations contained in rule Sec. 24.232 are
overly restrictive. According to Powerwave, as subscriber growth in PCS
has increased dramatically since broadband PCS systems were first
authorized, the number of carriers (i.e., the individual electrical
signals that carry information) used to provide the additional voice
channels in a typical cell site has also increased. Powerwave asserted
that the need for higher power levels has also increased because, due
to increased local resistance to base station construction, more PCS
stations must be collocated with cellular stations and, therefore, are
spaced on a cellular design. As a result, PCS licensees, according to
Powerwave, are increasingly using MCPAs in their systems. Powerwave
contended that the output power limit in Sec. 24.232(a) has the
unintended effect of penalizing the use of an MCPA transmitter in the
place of multiple individual transmitters because the output power rule
limits power on a per transmitter basis rather than on a per carrier
basis. As a result, Powerwave proposed that the Commission eliminate
the output power restriction entirely, or at the very least, amend
Sec. 24.232 to provide that the output power of each carrier must not
exceed 100 watts, instead of each transmitter.
13. In the 2002 Biennial Review Staff Report, Commission staff
generally agreed with Powerwave and concluded that Sec. 24.232(a)
should be modified in order to regulate PCS base station
[[Page 61052]]
transmissions in a more technologically-neutral manner. Given the case
Powerwave presented and subsequent recommendations of staff, the
Commission sought comment on whether to relax the output power
limitations in Sec. 24.232(a) by either amending the rule to provide
that the output power limit of 100 watts applies on a ``per carrier''
basis in the case of MCPAs, or to simply eliminate the transmitter
output power restriction to allow increased flexibility for PCS
licensees in the configuration of their systems.
14. In addition, the Commission asked commenters to address whether
or not a radiated power rule can be devised that is technology-neutral,
given that the current ``per transmitter'' rule allows licensees
utilizing relatively narrower bandwidth technologies (e.g., GSM) to
operate with higher aggregate power across their authorized spectrum
than licensees utilizing relative broader bandwidth technologies such
as CDMA. The Commission suggested that parties consider other
alternatives, including whether or not a power spectral density limit
(i.e., power per unit bandwidth) would be more appropriate and thus
preferable to a ``per-carrier'' wording. In response to this latter
question, Motorola and Qualcomm argue that the Commission's current
rule favors narrowband technologies over wider bandwidth technologies
because it is on a ``per transmitter'' basis, and licensees using
narrow bandwidth technologies could operate multiple transmitters
resulting in a higher aggregate power per unit bandwidth. According to
Motorola and Qualcomm, this places wider bandwidth systems at a
competitive disadvantage because they need to deploy additional
infrastructure to maintain the same coverage area as narrower bandwidth
technologies.
15. Consequently, as a compromise between the narrowband and
wideband technologies, Motorola urges the Commission to modify Sec.
24.232(a) to apply the EIRP limits on a ``per MHz'' basis for
technologies with emission bandwidths exceeding 1 MHz, and on a ``per
carrier'' basis for technologies with emission bandwidths less than 1
MHz. Motorola argues that this adjustment would ensure that wideband
systems could be deployed on a competitive basis by being able to
radiate similar power per unit bandwidth, regardless of the technology
utilized. Motorola contends that this proposal, as opposed to applying
a universal power spectral density limit (as Qualcomm suggests) is more
fair to narrowband operations, because applying a power spectral
density universally would in effect impose limits in excess of those
currently applicable and could negatively impact current systems and
technologies.
16. Finally, CTIA, in ex parte submissions, proposes that EIRP
limits for PCS licensees be limited to the larger of either: (1) The
current rules; or (2) a power spectral density constraint of 3280
watts/MHz average EIRP for non-rural areas and 6560 watts average EIRP/
MHz for rural areas. In addition, CTIA proposes that the Commission
allow operators to measure power limits on an ``average'' as well as
``peak'' basis, as CTIA claims the term ``peak'' is subject to
interpretation and may lead to confusion. CTIA argues that replacing
the term ``peak'' with the term ``average'' or by simply removing
``peak'' (and thereby conform the form of the EIRP/ERP limits in parts
22 and 24) to permit measurements on either a peak or average basis,
without restriction, would remove the uncertainty associated with use
of the term peak in the current rules.
17. Discussion. After consideration of the record and the general
experience with the PCS and other new wireless services, we conclude
that the current base station transmitter output power limits should be
relaxed to afford more flexibility and achieve harmonization among
wireless radio services and competing technologies. The record
demonstrates that the transmitter output power limit has had an
undesirable effect in hindering the use of MCPAs. MCPAs may be a cost
effective way to construct base stations, and we wish to allow
licensees flexibility in their use. In view of these conclusions and
our policy to eliminate unnecessary, counterproductive or ineffective
rules, we are amending Sec. Sec. 24.232(a)-(b) to eliminate the 100-
watt and 200-watt base station transmitter output power limits for
urban and rural systems, respectively (We note that Motorola requested
that any changes made to Sec. 24.232 of our rules be uniformly applied
to our part 27 rules involving power for AWS systems, specifically
Sec. 27.50(d)(1). Motorola Comments at 2-5. While we are amending
Sec. Sec. 24.232(a) and (b) to eliminate the output power restriction
for part 24 broadband PCS systems, the NPRM did not specifically
address the proposed elimination of the output power restriction for
AWS systems under part 27. Accordingly, we believe that this issue
would be better addressed in our review of petitions for
reconsideration of the AWS Report and Order, published at 69 FR 5711,
February 6, 2004, where the identical form of relief was sought for AWS
systems. See In the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Report
and Order. As discussed, we believe that the remaining rule that limits
maximum EIRP is sufficient to serve our legitimate regulatory purposes
for the time being. We note that, in view of our elimination of the
broadband PCS base station transmitter output power limit rule, there
is no need to address the ``per transmitter'' vs. ``per carrier''
aspect with regard to base station transmitter output power.
18. We conclude that the current base station transmitter output
power limits have little or no role either in limiting interference or
in ensuring that wireless systems are not designed with an excessive
imbalance between the forward and reverse links. In light of our action
eliminating the output power limit, we need not address Qualcomm's
contention that establishing a per carrier limit would invariably cause
harmful interference as GSM and TDMA networks could operate base
stations at much greater power than CDMA and W-CDMA networks. We
believe that interference problems in PCS are largely avoided by
voluntary coordination between the licensees of adjacent systems of
facilities located in the area near the geographic boundary between
those systems, and by licensee compliance with existing EIRP limits. We
further believe that the demand for wireless spectrum and resulting
cost of obtaining access to that spectrum provide a strong incentive
for licensees to reuse frequencies efficiently within PCS systems. The
necessity for efficient re-use ensures that licensees carefully design
systems such that the base station transmit range does not exceed the
ability of mobile units to communicate back. Excess base transmit range
would have a negative impact on frequency re-use and intra-system
interference levels. Thus, we believe systems will continue to be
properly designed, even without our current output power rule. We also
believe that licensees are in the best position to decide what
combination of equipment will result in the most efficient provision of
service. For example, licensees may wish to utilize higher base station
output power with lower gain antennas while operating within our EIRP
limits, and we believe it is in the public interest to afford licensees
the flexibility to make these types of decisions regarding system
design.
19. With respect to the question of spectral power density limits,
we decide to maintain for the time being the radiated power limits as
recently increased in the Rural Report and
[[Page 61053]]
Order. Given these recent radiated power increases, we conclude that
the record developed in response to the NPRM does not adequately
support further EIRP increases. We find that the Commission and
industry should be afforded additional time to gain experience with,
and assess the effect of, the increased rural radiated power limits and
the elimination of part 24 transmitter output power limits. We also
note that the NPRM was issued in response to comments received in our
biennial review process and, with respect to possible EIRP increases,
was limited in scope to broadband PCS systems regulated under part 24
of our rules. Accordingly, the commenting parties largely responded to
the NPRM without knowledge of the Commission's rule changes as
ultimately adopted in the Rural Report and Order. Moreover, the Rural
Report and Order addressed rural system EIRP increases across multiple
radio services, and was not limited to part 24 broadband PCS systems.
Thus, in keeping with our objective to harmonize our rules across
similar services, we believe that the issue of increasing EIRP for
broadband PCS licensees must be examined in the larger context of
services governed by other rule parts, including cellular licensees
under part 22, and 700 MHz, WCS and Advanced Wireless Services under
part 27. We will explore these issues in the FNPRM.
20. Additionally, we note that a new dimension has been raised
relative to our examination of our rules to achieve better parity among
technologies. Specifically, CTIA has suggested a fundamental shift in
how base station transmitter power limits are determined. Rather than
simply increasing the permitted peak radiated power, CTIA asks that we
change from peak to average power while implementing a power spectral
density limit. While we appreciate that several major carriers and
equipment manufacturers are in agreement on such an approach, we
believe such a change raises a number of issues that need closer
examination and for which we have little record. For example, it is not
clear what impact changing from a peak power limit to an average power
limit may have on services operating in other parts of the spectrum,
particularly those in adjacent frequency bands. Because of the
significant issues that are raised by the CTIA proposal, and although
the proposal has promise, we decline to make any changes to the
Commission's current radiated power rules at this time. However, we
will consider this below among other issues in the FNPRM.
E. Proposed Modifications to Part 90
1. Frequency Coordination
21. Background. Section 90.175(j) includes exemptions from the
general frequency coordination obligation of part 90 license
applications. Previously, the Commission did not require evidence of
frequency coordination to accompany applications for 800 MHz Upper 200
and Lower 80 SMR frequencies. In the 2002 biennial review proceeding,
CTIA asked the Commission to expand the exceptions to the frequency
coordination requirements to include the 800 MHz General Category
frequencies. However, the Commission staff found that ``the possible
conversion of existing site-by-site licensed general category
frequencies to a different mode of operation (e.g., from conventional
to trunked use), and the potential shared use environment of the
frequencies, makes [wholesale] elimination of the coordination
requirement a concern,'' and that frequency coordination ``remains
beneficial in a shared use environment to ensure efficient use and
prevent interference.'' Consequently, the Commission sought comment on
whether to eliminate the frequency coordination requirement for
incumbent licensees operating on 800 MHz General Category frequencies
on a non-shared basis, where such licensees propose new and/or modified
facilities that do not expand the applicable interference contour.
22. Discussion. In light of the Commission's recent decision to
reconfigure the 800 MHz band, we believe this issue is moot (i.e.,
there is no longer any reason to expand the exceptions to the frequency
coordination requirements to include the band 806-809.75/851-854.75
MHz). Specifically, in the 800 MHz Order, published at 69 FR 67823,
November 22, 2004, the Commission decided to separate incompatible
technologies by moving enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR)
operations to the upper portion of the 800 MHz band and putting non-
ESMR operations in the lower portion of the band. Under this 800 MHz
reconfiguration plan, the 806-809 MHz/851-854 MHz segment of the
General Category spectrum was reallocated exclusively for site-based
public safety operations. The remaining segment of the General Category
spectrum, i.e. 806-806.75 MHz/809-809.75 MHz, is still designated as
General Category spectrum.
23. Although geographic area licensees operating in this segment
can remain under certain conditions pursuant to the 800 MHz Order, it
is likely that ESMR systems in this remaining segment of the General
Category will relocate to the ESMR portion of the band and the 806-
806.75 MHz/809-809.75 MHz segment will be used predominately for site-
based systems. For example, on the channels in this segment of the
General Category vacated by Nextel, applications for site-based
facilities will be accepted, exclusively from public safety entities
for the first three years, by public safety and CII entities for the
next two years, and thereafter by any entity eligible for use of 800
MHz channels. These site-based facilities, will require frequency
coordination in order to avoid interference. Therefore, we decline to
adopt the proposal that Sec. 90.175(j) be amended to exempt
applications in the General Category spectrum from frequency
coordination.
2. Emission Masks
24. Background. Section 90.210 of the Commission's rules describes
several emission masks applicable to part 90 transmitters. In comments
in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, Motorola notes that, while the
standards imposed by this rule section generally serve the public
interest by limiting unwanted emissions outside the authorized
bandwidth and thus minimizing adjacent channel interference, Emission
Mask G, set forth in Sec. 90.210(g), limits design flexibility without
any corresponding value in improved interference control. Motorola
recommended that the Commission conform the Emission Mask G rule to the
steps it has taken in recent years in adopting modulation-independent
masks (emission masks D, E, and F) that place no limitation on the
spectral power density profile within the maximum authorized bandwidth.
The Commission sought comment on the potential benefits to the public
of making this change, and whether this proposed revision would,
despite Commission intent, potentially increase interference. Also, the
Commission tentatively concluded that it should revise Sec. 90.210(m)
of its rules to conform to ITU Regulation S3.10, because it believed
this revision will provide greater protection against interference. The
Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
25. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion to conform the
Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent mask that places no
limitation on the spectral power density profile within
[[Page 61054]]
the maximum authorized bandwidth. We also revise Sec. 90.210(m) of our
rules to conform to ITU Regulation S3.10. All of the commenting
parties, including CTIA, Motorola and Nextel, support the Commission's
emission mask proposal. We agree with the commenters' assertion that
elimination of the rule will afford greater flexibility to
manufacturers and will conform this emission mask rule with other
emission mask provisions applicable to part 90 services.
3. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Supplemental Information
26. Background. Section 90.607 of the Commission's rules describes
the supplemental information that must be furnished by applicants for
800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR systems. Under paragraph (a) of this rule,
applicants proposing to provide service on a commercial basis in these
bands must supply, among other things, a statement of their ``planned
mode of operation'' and a statement certifying that only eligible
persons would be provided service on the licensee's base station
facility. In comments filed in the 2002 biennial review proceeding,
PCIA advocated eliminating Sec. 90.607(a). Specifically, PCIA stated
that the system diagrams that were used when the 800 MHz band was
originally conceived have not been used by the Commission for years and
are no longer necessary. Moreover, PCIA asserted that the eligibility
statement is no longer needed because the eligibility rules for SMR
end-users have been eliminated. The Commission, therefore, tentatively
concluded that it should delete Sec. 90.607(a) to eliminate the above-
mentioned reporting requirements.
27. Discussion. We eliminate Sec. 90.607(a) from our rules as it
is no longer relevant to our regulatory scheme. The supplemental
information required under this rule section was previously used in the
Commission's analysis of site-based operations in the SMR service and
assisted the Commission in determining to what extent single-site
facilities were operating as part of a larger network. Further, prior
Commission rules required that SMR end-users meet certain eligibility
requirements and the Commission relied upon an applicant's separate
certification regarding compliance. The Commission has shifted from
site-based licensing of SMR channels to geographic-area licensing
through competitive bidding, where SMR systems are routinely part of
larger, integrated networks consisting of multiple transmitter sites.
We therefore find it unnecessary to require applicants to provide a
statement of planned mode of operation. We also agree with PCIA that
the separate eligibility certification is no longer necessary as the
eligibility rules for SMR users have been eliminated. We also believe
meaningful competition among the various wireless services has rendered
such requirements no longer necessary in the public interest and market
forces should encourage applicants to operate their facilities in the
proper manner without Commission involvement.
4. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Trunked Systems Loading, Construction and
Authorization Requirements
28. Background. Section 90.631 of the Commission's rules contains
various requirements for the authorization, construction, and loading
of 800 MHz and 900 MHz trunked systems. PCIA and CTIA request that the
Commission modify two of these requirements that they assert are no
longer necessary. Section 90.631(d) of the Commission's rules allows a
licensee of an 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR trunked system to request an
additional five channels than it has constructed without meeting the
loading requirements if the licensee operates in a ``rural area.'' The
rule defines a ``rural area'' as either (1) an area which is beyond the
100-mile radius of the designated center of urbanized areas listed in
the rule, or (2) an area that has a ``waiting list.'' In comments in
the 2002 biennial review proceeding, PCIA noted that waiting lists for
800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR frequencies were eliminated by the Commission
in 1995 when the Commission switched to competitive bidding and
geographic area licensing. As a result, PCIA requested that the
Commission amend Sec. 90.631(d) to delete the ``waiting list''
exception to the definition of a rural area. The Commission agreed with
PCIA and sought comment on a tentative conclusion to delete this
exception to the definition of a rural area. The Commission also sought
comment on eliminating other references to waiting lists contained in
Sec. 90.631(d) of the rules.
29. Section 90.631(i) provides that an incumbent (i.e., pre-
auction, site-by site authorized) 900 MHz SMR licensee that has not met
the loading requirements set forth in Sec. 90.631(b) at the end of its
initial five-year license term will only be granted a renewal period of
two years, in which time the licensee must satisfy the loading
requirements. CTIA stated that the requirement is obsolete because the
``timeframe for site-specific SMR 900 MHz systems to meet the loading
requirements has since expired.'' The Commission agreed that the period
of renewing incumbent 900 MHz SMR licenses subject to this requirement
has ended. Therefore, the Commission tentatively concluded to eliminate
paragraph (i) of Sec. 90.631 from its rules, as well as references to
paragraph (i) in Sec. 90.631(b) of the rules.
30. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusions. We agree with
all of the commenting parties, including AMTA, CTIA, Nextel, and PCIA,
that support the Commission's tentative conclusion on this issue urging
the Commission to eliminate both the loading requirement and references
to the ``waiting list'' in Sec. 90.631(d) of the rules and to
eliminate Sec. 90.631(i), which is no longer necessary since the 900
MHz SMR renewal period it references has long passed. These rules are
no longer relevant to our regulatory scheme.
5. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Power and Antenna Height
31. Background. Section 90.635 of our rules sets forth the
limitations on power and antenna height for 800 MHz and 900 MHz
systems. In its comments in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, PCIA
asked the Commission to modify or eliminate the restrictions placed on
two particular types of 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems--those located in
``suburban'' areas as defined in the rule and those whose service area
requirements are less than 32 kilometers.
32. First, Sec. 90.635(a)-(c) differentiates between ``urban'' and
``suburban'' conventional (i.e., non-trunked) systems, allowing a
greater maximum power (1000 watts vs. 500 watts ERP) at a given antenna
height above average terrain for urban conventional systems than
suburban conventional systems. The 90.635 chart (Table 2) limits
maximum radiated power on a sliding scale based upon antenna height
above average terrain. For example, urban conventional systems and all
trunked systems are permitted to operate with a radiated power of 65
Watts ERP with an antenna height above average terrain of 4500 feet and
above to a maximum of 1000 Watts ERP from an antenna height above
average terrain of no greater than 1000 feet. In contrast, suburban
conventional licensees are limited to a maximum power of 15 Watts ERP
with an antenna height above average terrain of 4500 feet and above to
a maximum of 500 Watts ERP from an antenna height above average terrain
of no greater than 500 feet. PCIA argued that such a distinction ``no
longer serves a useful purpose and should be eliminated.'' PCIA
justified this conclusion by asserting that suburban
[[Page 61055]]
systems frequently must cover larger service areas than urban systems,
and therefore, a smaller maximum power limit economically restricts the
ability of these licensees to serve the suburban areas. Moreover, PCIA
asserted that the restrictions on suburban sites also prevent these
licensees from counteracting interference from cellular systems to the
same extent as urban sites. The Commission sought comment on PCIA's
proposal to modify Sec. 90.635 to remove the distinction between urban
and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and antenna height
limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems, stating that it
believed there is a significant question as to whether the
justification for such distinction remains relevant in today's
marketplace.
33. Second, PCIA asked the Commission to eliminate the power
restrictions on 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems with an operational radius
of less than 32 kilometers in radius. PCIA stated that although it
``appreciates the Commission's original goal to maximize the number of
radio systems that could be accommodated on a single frequency, by
limiting the ERP of small footprint systems,'' the possibility of
additional channel use is effectively prohibited by the requirement in
Sec. 90.621(b)(4) that applicants protect all existing stations as if
the incumbent system was operating at 1000 watts ERP. PCIA also
asserted that the power limitation prevents these smaller systems from
limiting interference from cellular systems. Therefore, PCIA requested
that the power limitations on 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems with an
operational radius below 32 kilometers be eliminated. The Commission
sought comment on this proposal and asked that interested parties
address the use of such systems in light of the Commission's original
goal of increasing the use of single frequencies, and whether lifting
of these restrictions will help eliminate interference from cellular
systems.
34. Discussion. We adopt PCIA's proposal to modify Sec. 90.635 to
remove the distinction between urban and suburban sites when setting
the maximum power and antenna height limits for conventional 800 MHz
and 900 MHz systems and eliminate power limitations on systems with
operational radii of less than 32 kilometers. All of the commenting
parties, including AMTA, CTIA, Motorola, NAM/MRFAC, Nextel, and PCIA
support the PCIA proposal. We agree with AMTA that several decades of
experience have confirmed that there is no bright line distinction
between the operational requirements of systems in these two areas.
AMTA contends that suburban facilities arguably could require greater
power since they might need to cover larger geographic areas than their
urban counterparts. AMTA argues that this rule is not needed to protect
against inter-system interference in these bands and has not proven
reflective of the real world operational requirements of operators. In
that regard, CTIA contends that under the current rule, an ``urban''
system operating 24 km from the geographic center of the top 50
urbanized areas could operate with a higher power and antenna height
than a system located 25 km from an urban center, which would instead
be classified as a ``suburban'' system. CTIA argues that such a bright-
line distinction makes little, if any, sense from an engineering
perspective. Furthermore, CTIA argues, the existence of the ``urban''
versus ``suburban'' thresholds increases infrastructure and compliance
costs, without providing any countervailing public interest benefit.
35. With regard to the reduced power requirements for this type of
system, Motorola notes that the reduced power requirements may affect
coverage well within the 32-kilometer service border by providing
reduced building penetration. However, PCIA argues that such
restrictions in today's operating environment should not lead to any
allocations of additional spectrum for other licensees. Specifically,
PCIA continues, since Sec. 90.621(b)(4) requires that licensees be
protected at 1000 watts ERP, even if the station is licensed for less,
the reduced ERP for such systems provides no spectrum benefit. PCIA
contends that conversely, the reduced ERP makes some operations more
difficult for these types of systems. For example, PCIA continues,
airlines do not serve a large operational area, but must be able to
communicate into the lower reaches of terminal buildings. PCIA contends
that the ERP limits of Sec. 90.635 restrict the ability of airlines to
serve these areas. PCIA also argues that one of the most effective
means of coping with in-band interference is to increase the signal
level of the desired signal. In other words, PCIA argues, a private
radio or public safety licensee, experiencing interference from an
adjacent channel cellular system, should increase the signal level of
their system to override the cellular interference. PCIA states that in
the context of these systems, constructing an additional transmitter
site is an expensive and needless solution. Further, PCIA states that
in the context of an airport facility, constructing an additional
transmitter site is often not an option. PCIA claims that no licensees
would be harmed by the ability of a licensee to utilize increased ERP,
and such licensees should have the operational flexibility to utilize
an ERP that does not cause interference to co-channel users. We agree.
6. System Authorization Limit in Geographic Areas
36. Background. Section 90.653 of the rules states that ``[t]here
shall be no limit on the number of systems authorized to operate in any
one given area except that imposed by allocation limitations.'' The
Commission adopted this rule in 1982 pursuant to its decision to not
restrict equipment manufacturers from holding 800 MHz SMR licenses.
CTIA asserted that ``[t]he rule is redundant and no longer serves any
regulatory purpose.'' Based on the fact that it has licensed and will
continue to license 800 and 900 MHz SMR frequencies using competitive
bidding for geographic-area authorizations, the Commission agreed with
CTIA that this rule is no longer in the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission tentatively concluded that Sec. 90.653 should be removed.
The Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
37. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion and eliminate
Sec. 90.653 of our rules. We agree with all of the commenting parties,
including AMTA, CTIA, and Nextel, that support the Commission's
tentative conclusion that rule Sec. 90.653 is redundant ``and no
longer serves any regulatory purpose'' due to the Commission's general
shift to competitive bidding for geographic area licensing in most
cases.
7. Reporting Requirement for Trunked SMR Loading Data
38. Background. Section 90.658 of the Commission's rules provides
that site-based licensees of trunked SMR systems licensed before June
1, 1993 must provide loading data in order to either acquire additional
channels or renew their authorizations. Both PCIA and CTIA noted that
all SMR licenses issued prior to June 1, 1993 have now been through at
least one renewal period and, therefore, advocated eliminating the
rule. The Commission staff found that this provision may be an outdated
and burdensome requirement on SMR licensees, especially in light of the
competition among cellular, PCS, and 800/900 MHz SMR services.
Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concluded that it will
eliminate Sec. 90.658 as no longer necessary in the public interest.
39. Discussion. We adopt our tentative proposal and eliminate Sec.
90.658. The
[[Page 61056]]
Commission previously stated in the CMRS Third Report and Order,
published at 59 FR 59945, November 21, 1994, that loading requirements
are ``one of the mechanisms we employ under our rules to ensure that
mobile service licensees make efficient use of spectrum and offer
service to customers within their service area.'' Previously, SMR
licensees were required to meet mobile loading requirements to obtain
exclusive use of existing channels, obtain additional channels, serve
areas within 40 miles of existing channels, and avoid automatic
cancellation of authorization for unloaded channels at renewal.
However, the Commission eliminated mobile loading requirements for CMRS
licensees in the CMRS Third Report and Order and we eliminate Sec.
90.658 consistent with that action. We also note that all of the
commenting parties, including CTIA, Nextel and PCIA, support the
Commission's tentative conclusion to eliminate Sec. 90.658 because
competitive market forces among wireless services have replaced the
need to closely monitor traffic loading on SMR systems.
8. Grandfathering Provisions for 800 MHz SMR Incumbent Licensees
40. Background. In general, Sec. 90.621(b) requires a fixed
mileage separation of 113 km (70 miles) between co-channel 800 and 900
MHz systems. However, Sec. 90.621(b)(4) provides that co-channel
stations may be separated by less than 113 km (70 miles) by meeting
certain transmitter ERP and antenna height criteria, as listed in the
Commission's ``Short-Spacing Separation Table.'' Previously,
engineering showings were submitted with applications demonstrating
that a certain addition or modification would not cause interference to
other licensees, even though the stations would be spaced less than 70
mi (113 km) apart. Currently, stations meeting the parameters set forth
in the Short-Spacing Separation Table need not submit an engineering
analysis demonstrating interference protection to co-channel licensees.
Section 90.693 of the Commission's rules requires that 800 MHz
incumbent SMR licensees ``notify the Commission within 30 days of any
changes in technical parameters or additional stations constructed that
fall within the short-spacing criteria.'' It has been standard practice
for incumbents to notify the Commission of all changes and additional
stations constructed in cases where such stations are in fact located
less than the required 70 mile distance separation, and are therefore
technically ``short-spaced,'' but are in fact fully compliant with the
parameters of the Commission's Short-Spacing Separation Table.
41. Discussion. Although we did not propose in the NPRM to revise
Sec. 90.693, we will delete Sec. 90.693's notification requirement
for incumbents wishing to locate stations closer than the minimum
distance separation rules allow, but that fall within the parameters of
the Short-Spacing Separation Table under Sec. 90.621 of our rules.
Because incumbents are not allowed under the rules to expand their
interference contours, this approach will not lead to interference
among licensees.
42. Although we eliminate a substantial number of filings to reduce
burdens on licensees, we clarify that notification of minor
modifications within 30 days will still be required under Sec. 90.693
in two areas involving short-spaced systems. First, Sec. 90.621(b)(4)
allows stations to be licensed at distances less than those prescribed
in the Short-Spacing Separation Table where applicants ``secure a
waiver.'' Second, Sec. 90.621(b)(5) permits stations to be located
closer than the required separation, so long as the applicant provides
letters of concurrence indicating that the applicant and each co-
channel licensee within the specified separation agree to accept any
interference resulting from the reduced separation between systems.
9. 220 MHz Phase I Supplemental Progress Reports
43. Background. Section 90.737 of the Commission's rules sets forth
the supplemental progress reports that 220 MHz Phase I licensees must
file with the Commission. The Commission staff recommended that the
Commission consider whether certain rules applicable to 220 MHz Phase I
licensees continue to be necessary in the public interest in light of
increased competition among commercial mobile radio services (CMRS)
providers. In particular, staff identified section 90.737 as imposing
certain reporting requirements and restrictions on assignments of
unconstructed, site-based, 220 MHz Phase I licenses that were intended
to prevent speculation and trafficking in licenses awarded by lottery.
The Commission tentatively concluded that Sec. 90.737 should be
eliminated as no longer necessary in the public interest given recent
competitive and other developments. The Commission sought comment on
this tentative conclusion.
44. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion to eliminate
Sec. 90.737. Licensing by lottery has been eliminated in the 220 MHz
Service and a continuation of these reporting requirements may ``impede
the transferability of 220 MHz spectrum'' in a competitive CMRS
marketplace. Both commenting parties, AMTA and CTIA support the
Commission's tentative conclusion to eliminate Sec. 90.737 because
``future 220 MHz licenses will be awarded by auction, not lottery'' and
the rule is no longer needed to prevent trafficking in unconstructed
stations.
F. Corrections and Updates to WRS Rules
45. In the NPRM, we described a series of administrative changes we
proposed to make in this Report and Order. Generally, the changes
entail correcting, updating, and eliminating various rules in parts 1,
22, 24, 27, and 90. We received no comment on any of the proposed
administrative changes. Consequently, based on the record before us, we
adopt those administrative changes. The specific administrative changes
are as follows:
Part 1, subpart F--Title. Correct the term ``Wireless
Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.''
Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.
1.948(h)(2) with Sec. 1.948(i)(2).
Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which
states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the
Commission's former office location.
Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.
1.948(c) with Sec. 1.946(c).
Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489
with Form 601.
Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.
22.144(b) with Sec. 1.955.
Section 22.947(c). Update the location for filing a
cellular system information update (SIU) to ``Federal Communications
Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.''
Section 22.948(d). Delete the cross-reference to Sec.
22.144(a).
Section 22.949(d). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.
22.122 with Sec. 1.927.
Section 22.953(b). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.
1.929(h) with Sec. 1.929(a)-(b).
Finally, we also received a request from Motorola to address the
station identification rules applicable to 700 MHz public safety
licensees. Specifically, Motorola contends that unlike the rules for
800 MHz public safety licensees operating digital transmitting
equipment on exclusive channels, the rules do not explicitly
[[Page 61057]]
provide similarly situated 700 MHz licensees with the ability to
transmit their station identification in the digital mode. We note that
the Commission recently sought comment on this issue in another
proceeding.
G. Procedural Matters
1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) (See 5
U.S.C. 601-612) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be
prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small business
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
47. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM, which commenced a
proceeding to streamline and harmonize licensing provisions in the
wireless radio services (WRS). The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification conforms to the RFA.
48. This Report and Order adopts several measures intended to
streamline and harmonize certain licensing provisions in the wireless
radio services (WRS) and further Commission efforts to maintain clear
spectrum rights and obligations for these licensees, fulfill the
Commission's mandate under section 11 of the Communications Act to
conduct biennial reviews, support recent efforts to maximize the public
benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum, and increase the
ability of wireless service providers to use licensed spectrum
resources flexibly and efficiently to offer a variety of services in a
cost-effective manner.
49. The Report and Order resolves the question of whether relevant
provisions should be (1) streamlined as a result of competitive,
technological, or subsequent administrative rule changes and/or (2)
harmonized because they treat similarly situated services differently.
The Order accomplishes this primarily by eliminating provisions when
necessary and modifying provisions when appropriate. For example, as we
have done in recent years in adopting modulation-independent masks
(emission masks D, E, and F), we conform the Emission Mask G rule to
the others and place no limitation on the spectral power density
profile within the maximum authorized bandwidth. This action, supported
by all commenting parties, will improve design flexibility while
maintaining interference control, thus creating, we believe, no
significant adverse economic impact.
50. Also, we modified our rules to remove the distinction between
urban and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and antenna
height limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems. Our
experience has been that there is no bright line distinction between
the operational requirements of urban and suburban systems. In fact,
because they might need to cover larger geographic areas than their
urban counterparts, suburban facilities arguably could require greater
power. In general, we found that ``urban'' versus ``suburban''
thresholds actually increase infrastructure and compliance costs,
without providing any countervailing public interest benefit. We found
that removing those distinctions might actually eliminate or
significantly reduce those compliance costs. Therefore, we certify that
the requirements of the Report and Order will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
2. Congressional Review Act
51. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in
a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (See 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Report and Order and the final
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register (See 5 U.S.C.
605(b)).
3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
52. This document does not contain any proposed, new, or modified
information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
4. Contact Information
53. The primary Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contacts for
this proceeding are Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr., and B.C. ``Jay'' Jackson,
Jr. of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Mobility Division (202-
418-0620). Press inquiries should be directed to Chelsea Fallon,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7991, TTY at (202)
418-7233, or e-mail at Chelsea.Fallon@fcc.gov.
IV. Ordering Clauses
54. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 7, 11, 303(c),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, the
rule changes specified in the Report and Order are adopted.
55. The rule changes set forth in the Report and Order will become
effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
56. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common
carriers, Radio, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 22
Communications common carriers, Radio.
47 CFR Part 24
Personal communications services, Radio.
47 CFR Part 27
Wireless communications services.
47 CFR Part 90
Business and industry, Common carriers, Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
[[Page 61058]]
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, and 303(r).
0
2. The heading of Subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--Wireless Radio Services Applications and Proceedings
0
3. Section 1.927 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.927 Amendment of applications.
* * * * *
(g) Where an amendment to an application specifies a substantial
change in beneficial ownership or control (de jure or de facto) of an
applicant, the applicant must provide an exhibit with the amendment
application containing an affirmative, factual showing as set forth in
Sec. 1.948(i)(2).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.929 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.929 Classification of filings as major or minor.
* * * * *
(c) In addition to those changes listed in paragraph (a) in this
section, the following are major changes applicable to stations
licensed to provide base-to-mobile, mobile-to-base, mobile-to-mobile on
a site-specific basis:
(1) In the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone
Service and 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (SMR), any change
that would increase or expand the applicant's existing composite
interference contour.
(2) In the 900 MHz SMR and 220 MHz Service, any change that would
increase or expand the applicant's service area as defined in the rule
parts governing the particular radio service.
(3) In the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone
Service, Offshore Radiotelephone Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio
Service:
(i) Request an authorization or an amendment to a pending
application that would establish for the filer a new fixed transmission
path;
(ii) Request an authorization or an amendment to a pending
application for a fixed station (i.e., control, repeater, central
office, rural subscriber, or inter-office station) that would increase
the effective radiated power, antenna height above average terrain in
any azimuth, or relocate an existing transmitter;
(4) In the Private Land Mobile Radio Services (PLMRS), the remote
pickup broadcast auxiliary service, and GMRS systems licensed to non-
individuals;
(i) Change in frequency or modification of channel pairs, except
the deletion of one or more frequencies from an authorization;
(ii) Change in the type of emission;
(iii) Change in effective radiated power from that authorized or,
for GMRS systems licensed to non-individuals, an increase in the
transmitter power of a station;
(iv) Change in antenna height from that authorized;
(v) Change in the authorized location or number of base stations,
fixed, control, except for deletions of one or more such stations or,
for systems operating on non-exclusive assignments in GMRS or the 470-
512 MHz, 800 MHz or 900 MHz bands, a change in the number of mobile
transmitters, or a change in the area of mobile transmitters, or a
change in the area of mobile operations from that authorized;
(vi) Change in the class of a land station, including changing from
multiple licensed to cooperative use, and from shared to unshared use.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 1.939 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.939 Petitions to deny.
* * * * *
(b) Filing of petitions. Petitions to deny and related pleadings
may be filed electronically via ULS. Manually filed petitions to deny
must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, 445 Twelfth Street,
SW., Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554. Attachments to manually filed
applications may be filed on a standard 31/4'' agnetic diskette
formatted to be readable by high density floppy drives operating under
MS-DOS (version 3.X or later compatible versions). Each diskette
submitted must contain an ASCII text file listing each filename and a
brief description of the contents of each file on the diskette. The
files on the diskette, other than the table of contents, should be in
Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) whenever possible.
Petitions to deny and related pleadings must reference the file number
of the pending application that is the subject of the petition.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 1.955 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.955 Termination of authorizations.
(a) * * *
(2) Failure to meet construction or coverage requirements.
Authorizations automatically terminate, without specific Commission
action, if the licensee fails to meet applicable construction or
coverage requirements. See Sec. 1.946(c) of this part.
* * * * *
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
0
7. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.
0
8. Section 22.303 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.303 Retention of station authorizations; identifying
transmitters.
The current authorization for each station, together with current
administrative and technical information concerning modifications to
facilities pursuant to Sec. 1.929 of this chapter, and added
facilities pursuant to Sec. 22.165 must be retained as a permanent
part of the station records. A clearly legible photocopy of the
authorization must be available at each regularly attended control
point of the station, or in lieu of this photocopy, licensees may
instead make available at each regularly attended control point the
address or location where the licensee's current authorization and
other records may be found.
0
9. Section 22.947 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 22.947 Five year build-out period.
* * * * *
(c) System information update. Sixty days before the end of the
five year build-out period, the licensee of each cellular system
authorized on each channel block in each cellular market must file, in
triplicate, a system information update (SIU), comprising a full size
map, a reduced map, and an exhibit showing technical data relevant to
determination of the system's CGSA. Separate maps must be submitted for
each market into which the CGSA extends, showing the extension area in
the adjacent market. Maps showing extension areas must be labeled (i.e.
marked with the market number and channel block) for the market into
which the CGSA extends. SIUs must accurately depict the relevant cell
locations and coverage of the system at the end of the five year build-
out period. SIUs must be filed at the Federal Communications
Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. If any changes to the system
occur after the filing of the SIU, but before the end of the five year
[[Page 61059]]
build-out period, the licensee must file, in triplicate, additional
maps and/or data as necessary to insure that the cell locations and
coverage of the system as of the end of the five year build-out period
are accurately depicted.
0
10. Section 22.948 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.948 Partitioning and Disaggregation.
* * * * *
(d) License Term. The license term for the partitioned license area
and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original
cellular licensee's or the unserved area licensee's license term.
0
11. Section 22.949 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 22.949 Unserved area licensing process.
* * * * *
(d) Limitations on amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Sec. 1.927 of this chapter, Phase I applications are subject to the
following additional limitations in regard to the filing of amendments.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 22.953 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 22.953 Content and form of applications.
* * * * *
(b) Existing systems--major modifications. Licensees making major
modifications pursuant to Sec. 1.929(a) and (b) of this chapter, must
file FCC Form 601 and need only contain the exhibits required by
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
(c) Existing systems--minor modifications. Licensees making minor
modifications pursuant to Sec. 1.929(k) of this chapter--in which the
modification causes a change in the CGSA boundary (including the
removal of a transmitter or transmitters)--must notify the FCC (using
FCC Form 601) and include full-sized maps, reduced maps, and supporting
engineering exhibits as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section. If the modification involves a contract SAB extension, it
must include a statement as to whether the five-year build-out for the
system on the relevant channel block in the market into which the SAB
extends has elapsed, and as to whether the SAB extends into any
unserved area in that market.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
13. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
0
14. Section 24.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.12 Eligibility.
Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
hold a license under this part.
0
15. Section 24.232 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.232 Power and antenna height limits.
(a) Base stations are limited to 1640 watts peak equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with an antenna height up to 300
meters HAAT, except as described in paragraph (b) below. See Sec.
24.53 for HAAT calculation method. Base station antenna heights may
exceed 300 meters with a corresponding reduction in power; see Table 1
of this section. The service area boundary limit and microwave
protection criteria specified in Sec. Sec. 24.236 and 24.237 apply.
Table 1.--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
HAAT in meters EIRP watts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 300..................................................... 1640
<= 500..................................................... 1070
<= 1000.................................................... 490
<= 1500.................................................... 270
<= 2000.................................................... 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Base stations that are located in counties with population
densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
are limited to 3280 watts peak equivalent isotropically radiated power
(EIRP) with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT; See Sec. 24.53
for HAAT calculation method. Base station antenna heights may exceed
300 meters with a corresponding reduction in power; see Table 2 of this
section. The service area boundary limit and microwave protection
criteria specified in Sec. Sec. 24.236 and 24.237 apply. Operation
under this paragraph must be coordinated in advance with all PCS
licensees within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base station and is
limited to base stations located more than 120 kilometers (75 miles)
from the Canadian border and more than 75 kilometers (45 miles) from
the Mexican border.
Table 2.--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
HAAT in meters EIRP watts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 300..................................................... 3280
<= 500..................................................... 2140
<= 1000.................................................... 980
<= 1500.................................................... 540
<= 2000.................................................... 320
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Mobile/portable stations are limited to 2 watts EIRP peak power
and the equipment must employ means to limit the power to the minimum
necessary for successful communications.
(d) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of
continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an
rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
emission bandwidth, sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak
measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the
channel.
Sec. 24.843 [Removed]
0
16. Section 24.843 is removed.
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
17. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and
337 unless otherwise noted.
0
18. Section 27.3 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (o) and (p) as
(p) and (q) and adding new paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.3 Other applicable rule parts.
* * * * *
(o) Part 74. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions
applicable to experimental radio, auxiliary, special broadcast and
other program distributional services.
* * * * *
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
19. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of
[[Page 61060]]
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
Sec. 90.20 [Amended]
0
20. Amend Sec. 90.20 as follows:
0
a. Amend the Public Safety Pool Frequency Table of Section 90.20(c)(3)
(Frequencies.) by revising the entries for frequencies 35.02, 156.1725,
156.1875, 156.195, 156.2025, 156.2325, 158.9925, 159.0075, 159.0225,
159.0525, 159.0675, 159.0825, 159.1125, 159.1275, 159.135, 159.1425,
159.1725, 155.325, 155.3325, 155.355, 155.3625, 155.385, 155.3925,
155.400, 155.4075, 462.950, 462.95625, 462.9625, 462.96875, 462.975,
462.98125, 462.9875, and 462.99375 Megahertz to read as set forth
below;
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(38); and
0
c. The entries for 467.950, 467.95625, 467.9625, 467.96875, 467.975,
467.98125, 467.9875 and 467.99375 Megahertz are amended by removing
limitation 38 and adding in its place 10.
Public Safety Pool Frequency Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency or brand Class of station(s) Limitations Coordinator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megahertz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
35.02.................................. Mobile.................... 12, 78 PS
* * * * * * *
155.325................................ ......do.................. 10, 39 PM
155.3325............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 39 PM
* * * * * * *
155.355................................ ......do.................. 10, 39 PM
155.3625............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 39 PM
* * * * * * *
155.385................................ ......do.................. 10, 39 PM
155.3925............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 39 PM
155.400................................ ......do.................. 10, 39 PM
155.4075............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 39 PM
* * * * * * *
156.1725............................... ......do.................. 27, 42 PH
* * * * * * *
156.1875............................... ......do.................. 27, 42 PH
156.195................................ ......do.................. .............. PH
156.2025............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
156.2325............................... ......do.................. 27, 10 PH
* * * * * * *
158.9925............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.0075............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.0225............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.0525............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.0675............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.0825............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.1125............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.1275............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
159.135................................ ......do.................. .............. PH
159.1425............................... ......do.................. 27 PH
* * * * * * *
159.1725............................... ......do.................. 27, 43 PH
* * * * * * *
462.950................................ Base or mobile............ 10, 65 PM
[[Page 61061]]
462.95625.............................. ......do.................. 10, 44, 65 PM
462.9625............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 65 PM
462.96875.............................. ......do.................. 10, 44, 65 PM
462.975................................ ......do.................. 10, 65 PM
462.98125.............................. ......do.................. 10, 44, 65 PM
462.9875............................... ......do.................. 27, 10, 65 PM
462.99375.............................. ......do.................. 10, 44, 65 PM
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 90.35 [Amended]
0
21. Section 90.35 is amended by removing one of the duplicate entries
of ``Frequency 35.48 Megahertz'' of the Industrial/Business Pool
Frequency Table of paragraph (b)(3) and by removing and reserving
paragraph (c)(45).
0
22. Section 90.149 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.149 License term.
(a) Except as provided in subpart R of this part, licenses for
stations authorized under this part will be issued for a term not to
exceed ten (10) years from the date of the original issuance or
renewal.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 90.175 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.175 Frequency coordinator requirements.
* * * * *
(j) The following applications need not be accompanied by evidence
of frequency coordination:
(1) Applications for frequencies below 25 MHz.
(2) Applications for a Federal Government frequency.
(3) Applications for frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band except for
mobile frequencies subject to Sec. 90.35(c)(77).
(4) Applications for a frequency to be used for developmental
purposes.
(5) Applications in the Industrial/Business Pool requesting a
frequency designated for itinerant operations, and applications
requesting operation on 154.570 MHz, 154.600 MHz, 151.820 MHz, 151.880
MHz, and 151.940 MHz.
(6) Applications in the Radiolocation Service.
(7) Applications filed exclusively to modify channels in accordance
with band reconfiguration in the 806-824/851-869 band.
(8) Applications for frequencies listed in the SMR tables contained
in Sec. Sec. 90.617 and 90.619.
(9) Applications indicating license assignments such as change in
ownership, control or corporate structure if there is no change in
technical parameters.
(10) Applications for mobile stations operating in the 470-512 MHz
band, 764-776/794-806 MHz band, or above 800 MHz if the frequency pair
is assigned to a single system on an exclusive basis in the proposed
area of operation.
(11) Applications for add-on base stations in multiple licensed
systems operating in the 470-512 MHz, 764-776/794-806 MHz band, or
above 800 MHz if the frequency pair is assigned to a single system on
an exclusive basis.
(12) Applications for control stations operating below 470 MHz,
764-776/794-806 MHz, or above 800 MHz and meeting the requirements of
Sec. 90.119(b).
(13) Except for applications for the frequencies set forth in
Sec. Sec. 90.719(c) and 90.720, applications for frequencies in the
220-222 MHz band.
(14) Applications for a state license under Sec. 90.529.
(15) Applications for narrowband low power channels listed for
itinerant use in Sec. 90.531(b)(4).
(16) Applications for DSRCS licenses (as well as registrations for
Roadside Units) in the 5850-5925 GHz band.
(17) Applications for the deletion of a frequency and/or
transmitter site location.
0
24. Section 90.210 is amended by removing paragraph (g)(1) and
redesignating paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) as paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2), and by revising paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.210 Power and antenna height limits.
* * * * *
(o) Instrumentation. The reference level for showing compliance
with the emission mask shall be established, except as indicated in
Sec. Sec. 90.210 (d), (e), and (k), using standard engineering
practices for the modulation characteristic used by the equipment under
test. When measuring emissions in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands
the following procedures will apply. A sufficient number of sweeps must
be measured to insure that the emission profile is developed. If video
filtering is used, its bandwidth must not be less than the instrument
resolution bandwidth. For frequencies more than 50 kHz removed from the
edge of the authorized bandwidth a resolution of at least 100 kHz must
be used for frequencies below 1000 MHz. Above 1000 MHz the resolution
bandwidth of the instrumentation must be at least 1 MHz. If it can be
shown that use of the above instrumentation settings do not accurately
represent the true interference potential of the equipment under test,
then an alternate procedure may be used provided prior Commission
approval is obtained.
Sec. 90.607 [Amended]
0
24a. Section 90.607 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and
redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), and (d).
0
25. Section 90.631 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) and
removing paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.631 Trunked systems loading, construction and authorization
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Each applicant for a non-SMR trunked system must certify that a
minimum of seventy (70) mobiles for each channel authorized will be
placed into operation within five (5) years of the initial license
grant.
* * * * *
(d) In rural areas, a licensee of a trunked system may request to
increase its system capacity by five more channels than it has
constructed without meeting the loading requirements specified in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. A rural area is defined for
purposes of this section as being beyond a 100-mile radius of the
designated centers of the following
[[Page 61062]]
urbanized areas: New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; Chicago, IL;
Philadelphia, PA: San Francisco, CA; Detroit, MI; Boston, MA; Houston,
TX; Washington, DC; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH;
St. Louis, MO; Atlanta, GA; Pittsburgh, PA; Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis-
St. Paul, MN; Seattle, WA; San Diego, CA; and Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL.
The coordinates for the centers of these areas are those referenced in
Sec. 90.635, except that the coordinates (referenced to North American
Datum 1983 (NAD83)) for Tampa-St. Petersburg are latitude
28[deg]00'1.1'' N, longitude 82[deg]26'59.3'' W.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 90.635 is revised read as follows:
Sec. 90.635 Limitations on power and antenna height.
(a) The effective radiated power and antenna height for base
stations may not exceed 1 kilowatt (30 dBw) and 304 m. (1,000 ft.)
above average terrain (AAT), respectively, or the equivalent thereof as
determined from the Table. These are maximum values, and applicants
will be required to justify power levels and antenna heights requested.
(b) The maximum output power of the transmitter for mobile stations
is 100 watts (20 dBw).
Table.--Equivalent Power and Antenna Heights for Base Stations in the
851-869 MHz and 935-940 MHz Bands Which Have a Requirement for a 32 km
(20 mi) Service Area Radius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
Antenna height (ATT) meters (feet) radiated power
(watts) 1 2 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 1,372 (4,500)..................................... 65
Above 1,220 (4,000) to 1,372 (4,500).................... 70
Above 1,067 (3,500) to 1,220 (4,000).................... 75
Above 915 (3,000) to 1,067 (3,500)...................... 100
Above 763 (2,500) to 915 (3,000)........................ 140
Above 610 (2,000) to 763 (2,500)........................ 200
Above 458 (1,500) to 610 (2,000)........................ 350
Above 305 (1,000) to 458 (1,500)........................ 600
Up to 305 (1,000)....................................... \3\ 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Power is given in terms of effective radiated power (ERP).
\2\ Applicants in the Los Angeles, CA, area who demonstrate a need to
serve both the downtown and fringe areas will be permitted to utilize
an ERP of 1 kw at the following mountaintop sites: Santiago Park,
Sierra Peak, Mount Lukens, and Mount Wilson.
\3\ Stations with antennas below 305 m (1,000 ft) (AAT) will be
restricted to a maximum power of 1 kw (ERP).
\4\ Licensees in San Diego, CA, will be permitted to utilize an ERP of
500 watts at the following mountaintop sites: Palomar, Otay, Woodson
and Miguel.
Sec. 90.653 [Removed]
0
27. Section 90.653 is removed.
Sec. 90.658 [Removed]
0
28. Section 90.658 is removed.
Sec. 90.693 [Removed]
0
29. Section 90.693 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 90.693 Grandfathering provisions for incumbent licensees.
* * * * *
(b) Spectrum blocks A through V. An incumbent licensee's service
area shall be defined by its originally licensed 40 dB[mu]V/m field
strength contour and its interference contour shall be defined as its
originally-licensed 22 dB[mu]V/m field strength contour. The
``originally-licensed'' contour shall be calculated using the maximum
ERP and the actual height of the antenna above average terrain (HAAT)
along each radial. Incumbent licensees are permitted to add, remove or
modify transmitter sites within their original 22 dB[mu]V/m field
strength contour without prior notification to the Commission so long
as their original 22 dB[mu]V/m field strength contour is not expanded.
Incumbent licensee protection extends only to its 40 dB[mu]V/m signal
strength contour. Pursuant to the minor modification notification
procedures set forth in 1.947(b), the incumbent licensee must notify
the Commission within 30 days of any change in technical parameters for
stations that are authorized under a waiver of 90.621(b)(4), or that
are authorized under 90.621(b)(5).
(c) Special provisions for spectrum blocks F1 through V. Incumbent
licensees that have received the consent of all affected parties or a
certified frequency coordinator to utilize an 18 dB[mu]V/m signal
strength interference contour shall have their service area defined by
their originally-licensed 36 dB[mu]V/m field strength contour and their
interference contour shall be defined as their originally-licensed 18
dB[mu]V/m field strength contour. The ``originally-licensed'' contour
shall be calculated using the maximum ERP and the actual HAAT along
each radial. Incumbent licensees seeking to utilize an 18 dB[mu]V/m
signal strength interference contour shall first seek to obtain the
consent of affected co-channel incumbents. When the consent of a co-
channel licensee is withheld, an incumbent licensee may submit to any
certified frequency coordinator an engineering study showing that
interference will not occur, together with proof that the incumbent
licensee has sought consent. Incumbent licensees are permitted to add,
remove or modify transmitter sites within their original 18 dB[mu]V/m
field strength contour without prior notification to the Commission so
long as their original 18 dB[mu]V/m field strength contour is not
expanded. Incumbent licensee protection extends only to its 36 dB[mu]V/
m signal strength contour. Pursuant to the minor modification
notification procedures set forth in 1.947(b), the incumbent licensee
must notify the Commission within 30 days of any change in technical
parameters for stations that are authorized under a waiver of
90.621(b)(4), or that are authorized under 90.621(b)(5).
* * * * *
Sec. 90.737 [Removed]
0
30. Section 90.737 is removed.
0
31. Section 90.743 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.743 Renewal expectancy.
(a) All licensees seeking renewal of their authorizations at the
end of their license term must file a renewal application in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 1.949 of this chapter. Licensees must
demonstrate, in their application, that:
* * * * *
(c) Phase I non-nationwide licensees have license terms of 10
years, and therefore must meet these requirements 10 years from the
date of initial authorization in order to receive a renewal expectancy.
Phase I nationwide licensees and all Phase II licensees have license
terms of 10 years, and therefore must meet these requirements 10 years
from the date of initial authorization in order to receive a renewal
expectancy.
[FR Doc. 05-20927 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P