[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76268-76282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29848]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 22
[WT Docket No. 12-40; RM Nos. 11510 and 11660; FCC 14-181]
FCC Seeks Comment on Cellular Service Reform of Licensing and
Technical Rules, Including Power Limits
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on
reforms of its rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular (``Cellular'')
Service. The proposals include a geographic-based discontinuance of
operations rule to replace the current site-based approach, and the
establishment of frequency coordinators to review certain applications
prior to their submission to the Commission. In addition, the
Commission proposes revised Cellular radiated power provisions and
related technical rules, including use of a power spectral density
(``PSD'') model. The goals of the proposed reforms are to provide
licensees with increased flexibility, achieve greater efficiency in the
provision of new service to consumers, and facilitate deployment of
next-generation wireless broadband networks that use advanced
technologies.
DATES: Submit comments on or before January 21, 2015 and reply comments
on or before February 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 12-40,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC
Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC
20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and
boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC
20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Shafran, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2781, TTY (202) 418-7233,
or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') in WT Docket No. 12-
40, RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, FCC 14-181, adopted November 7, 2014, and
released November 10, 2014. The full text of this document is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, (202)488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via
email at [email protected]. The full text may also be downloaded at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1110/FCC-14-181A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
Comment Filing Instructions
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (``ECFS''). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Parties should only file
in WT Docket No. 12-40.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
[[Page 76269]]
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must
be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this document, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on
several additional reforms of the Cellular Service to establish a more
flexible and efficient licensing approach and to facilitate the use of
more advanced wireless technologies, as explained in detail in the
sections below. The Commission also invites comment on the costs and
benefits of all the proposals discussed herein.
II. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
2. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on a new rule
governing the permanent discontinuance of operations, which is intended
to afford licensees operational flexibility to use their spectrum
efficiently while ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle for extended
periods. Under 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is
``permanently discontinued.'' The current Sec. 22.317 of the
Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.317) applicable to part 22 Public Mobile
Services stations, including Cellular Service stations, defines
permanent discontinuance as the failure to provide service to
subscribers for 90 continuous days (up to 120 continuous days with an
extension). If a Cellular site is permanently discontinued under Sec.
22.317, the licensee's Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') is
modified accordingly to reflect the reduction in licensed area. Through
ex parte letters, a coalition of associations--CTIA, the Rural Wireless
Association (``RWA''), and the National Telecommunications Cooperative
Association (``NTCA'') (collectively, the ``Coalition'')--proposes that
a Cellular licensee should be required to file to report a reduction in
service area only when it's ``actual coverage area drops below 50
percent of its coverage area . . . for more than 12 months.''
3. Consistent with its approach in recent proceedings involving
other flexible commercial wireless services, notably certain Advanced
Wireless Services (``AWS'') bands and the 600 MHz band, the Commission
now proposes a new Cellular Service-specific rule, Sec. 22.947 (47 CFR
22.947), defining permanent discontinuance as 180 consecutive days
during which the licensee does not operate or, in the case of a
Cellular commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') provider, does not
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to the providing carrier. The Commission also
proposes to revise Sec. 22.317 to make it clear that it would no
longer apply to the Cellular Service. As in the Commission's
proceedings concerning the rules governing other flexibly licensed
wireless services (e.g., AWS-3 and 600 MHz), the Commission's proposed
new definition recognizes that, while most Cellular licensees use their
systems to provide CMRS offerings, flexibility is needed where Cellular
licensees use their systems for private, internal communications
because such licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated
subscribers. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this
proposal.
4. The Commission also proposes that the new service discontinuance
rule be applied to the entire geographic license area, i.e., the CGSA,
rather than individual cell sites. Affording Cellular licensees a
discontinuance of service period longer than 90 (or 120) days, and
applying it on a geographic license area basis, might better enable
them to implement technology upgrades involving reconfiguration and
possible relocation of cell sites and other network elements. Following
the effective date of the new discontinuance rule adopted in this
proceeding, a Cellular system not in operation or not providing service
within the CGSA to at least one unaffiliated subscriber for the defined
permanent discontinuance period--180 consecutive days under our
proposal--would terminate automatically.
5. If an Unserved Area application is filed by a new entrant and
granted for a new Cellular system (versus an incumbent's CGSA
expansion) in compliance with the Commission's applicable rules, the
Commission proposes that the new Cellular system licensee would not be
subject to the proposed 180-day permanent discontinuance rule until the
expiration of the one-year construction period for that system
(including extensions, if any), so as not to penalize new entrants that
choose to operate and provide service early in their construction
periods.
6. In addition, consistent with 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), the Commission
proposes that, if a Cellular licensee permanently discontinues service,
the licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10
days by filing FCC Form 601 so that the Commission can update its
Universal Licensing System (``ULS'') to reflect the cancellation for
the entire CGSA. The license would automatically terminate without
specific Commission action if service is permanently discontinued, even
if the licensee fails to file the required FCC Form.
7. The Commission tentatively concludes that the approach described
above increases licensee flexibility and serves the public interest,
and seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal, including the
associated costs and benefits. Also, comment is invited on the
alternative advocated by the Coalition and on any additional
alternatives not discussed in this FNPRM, including the expected costs
and benefits and how it would better serve the public interest.
III. Frequency Coordinators
A. Introduction and Background
8. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment on requiring that
frequency coordinators perform review of new-system and CGSA-expansion
applications in the Cellular Service, pursuant to a new proposed rule
(47 CFR 22.985), as it tentatively concludes that frequency
coordination will result in authorizing Cellular service more
efficiently and effectively. The Commission proposes to require that
frequency coordinators perform the first-line review of Cellular
applications, including exhibits and attachments such
[[Page 76270]]
as the electronic map files, for CGSA expansions and new Cellular
systems, and to advise the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(``Bureau'') on whether, in the coordinator's assessment, these
applications comply with applicable Commission rules. Many Cellular
applications contain inaccuracies, even when resubmitted after return
by Bureau staff for correction, and errors delay service and also
needlessly consume Commission resources. The Commission tentatively
concludes that having frequency coordinators review certain major
applications under the new Cellular licensing paradigm would further
advance the goal of better focusing limited Commission staff resources.
9. Frequency coordination in other wireless services generally
involves third parties who advise the Commission on whether potential
or actual licensees' proposed operations comply with the applicable
technical rules of a particular service, while also working to minimize
interference to licensees operating in a given frequency block, band,
or geographic area. Depending on the service, they may recommend
restrictions to appear on licenses and comment on other technical
issues in applications. In services with multiple frequency
coordinators, the Commission often requires a frequency coordinator to
notify and transmit certain information to other coordinators certified
to coordinate in the affected frequency(ies). A prominent example is in
the part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio (``PLMR'') Service, including the
806-824/851-869 MHz and 896-901/935-940 MHz bands that are adjacent to
the Cellular band. The Commission has recognized the value of PLMR
frequency advisory committees since the 1950s, and by the late 1980s,
the Commission had mandated the use of private frequency coordinators
for most PLMR frequencies. Frequency coordination also is used in a
variety of other wireless services, such as certain part 80 maritime
and part 87 aviation frequencies, in which frequency coordinators must
consider interference to all other similar frequencies within a
specific geographic range. More recently, the Commission decided to
require the use of frequency coordinators for licensees operating in
the part 95 WMTS and Medical Device Radiocommunication Service
(``MedRadio'').
10. In its November 2013 ex parte letter, the Coalition suggests
that, if the Commission opts to use frequency coordination for the
Cellular Service, it should give the designated coordinators full
authority to approve applications. This would include, the Coalition
asserts, authorization of proposed CGSA-expansions, and that such
authorizations ``would become effective 30 days after the frequency
coordinator notifies'' the Commission. By this FNPRM, the Commission
seeks comment generally on the use of Cellular frequency coordinators,
and specifically on the details of our proposal outlined below.
However, in light of a federal court decision, USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d
554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the Commission does not seek comment on the
suggestion to delegate authority to coordinators to grant applications.
We especially urge all parties that preliminarily determine they would
be interested in being frequency coordinators to indicate such interest
during the comment or reply comment period.
11. All commenters should be specific and detailed, and should
review the proposed new rule in Appendix B of this FNPRM and comment on
its wording. To the extent commenters offer alternative ideas not
considered herein, they should explain how such alternatives would
better serve the public interest and achieve the Commission's goals,
consistent with Commission precedent and current spectrum management
policies.
B. Coordinator Duties
12. In the Report and Order released November 10, 2014 in this
proceeding (`R&O''), the Commission eliminated the need for many
different types of Cellular applications. Of the applications that will
continue to be filed, the Commission proposes to require the use of
Cellular frequency coordinators to review the following: (1) Major
modification applications claiming at least 50 contiguous square miles
of Unserved Area as CGSA; and (2) applications seeking authorization
for new Cellular systems. Under this proposal, all other applications,
including construction notifications and renewal applications, for
example, would continue to be filed directly with the Commission. The
Commission further proposes, however, that to the extent such other
filings are submitted with a CGSA-expansion or new-system application,
those other filings would also need to be filed with a Cellular
frequency coordinator for initial review. For example, an application
that modifies and/or adds a location requiring an Environmental
Assessment, which normally would come directly to the Commission, would
have to be submitted to a frequency coordinator if such application is
filed along with a CGSA-expansion or new-system application. Using
frequency coordinators in this manner could greatly assist in
developing and managing the Cellular spectrum.
13. The Commission proposes that Cellular frequency coordinators be
private organizations certified by the Commission to review certain
categories of applications (as outlined above), including any exhibits,
FCC Form Schedules, and electronic maps required with those
applications, to ensure compliance with all rules applicable to the
Cellular Service. Cellular coordinators would review only applicable
technical information for compliance with the rules; they would not,
for example, review an applicant's financial or ownership information
that may accompany or be linked in an application. Frequency
coordinators would work with the applicants to resolve any inaccuracies
involving technical information, including the service area boundary
(``SAB'') and CGSA calculations, ensure compliance with all applicable
rules, and submit the application to the Commission. Consistent with
rules governing frequency coordination in other wireless services, the
Commission proposes that the frequency coordinators' recommendations be
purely advisory, not binding on either the applicant or the Commission.
However, the Commission proposes that, in the event of a dispute
between an applicant and a frequency coordinator, an applicant would be
able to direct the coordinator to submit the application at issue to
the Commission without the coordinator's recommendation. In that event,
the application would need to explain that the applicant sought
frequency coordination but the coordinator did not recommend the
proposed operations. The Commission proposes that the applicant have
the burden of proceeding and the burden of proof in requesting the
Commission to grant its application notwithstanding a coordinator's
unfavorable recommendation.
14. Part 90 PLMR frequency coordinators are required to file
applications electronically using the ULS electronic batch format. The
Commission seeks comment on whether Cellular frequency coordinators
should be subject to the same requirement. The Commission also seeks
comment on what preparations the Commission would have to make before
implementing a frequency coordination regime, such as modifying ULS to
accommodate frequency coordinator information and receive electronic
batch filing of the applications, including any maps submitted
electronically, and
[[Page 76271]]
educating the frequency coordinators. The Commission seeks comment also
on whether Cellular frequency coordinators should have additional
duties. Commenters are invited to address all these issues surrounding
the appropriate duties of frequency coordinators for the Cellular
Service and they should indicate how their positions serve the public
interest, including a cost-benefit analysis.
C. Commission's Continued Role
15. If it appears that a Cellular frequency coordinator's
performance is inconsistent with the public interest obligations that
would be imposed on it through this proceeding, an inquiry would be
initiated that could lead to its decertification, as with other
wireless services for which frequency coordinators are used. The
Commission would also continue to maintain the Cellular license data,
including the online CGSA map files. Given that frequency coordinator
recommendations are proposed to be advisory and not binding upon either
the applicant or the Commission, we envision that Cellular applications
would continue to go on public notice once received by the Commission
and that the Commission would resolve competing applications and
petitions to deny, if any.
16. Many part 90 PLMR applicants that undergo frequency
coordination receive conditional authority; that is, they are permitted
to commence their proposed operations once the application has been
favorably reviewed and submitted by a frequency coordinator and is
pending before the Commission. In that situation, a minimum wait time
of ten days is imposed between submission of the application and the
onset of operation, during which the Commission can evaluate the
proposed operations, including the frequency coordinator's
recommendation, and take adverse action if necessary. The Commission
seeks comment on whether Cellular applicants should receive similar
conditional operating authority while their applications are pending
before the Commission. Making conditional authorization available
following the frequency coordinator's recommendation--if the Commission
does not find a problem with the recommendation--could provide
flexibility to Cellular applicants and benefit consumers by permitting
more rapid deployment of proposed service. Commenters are invited
specifically to address whether sound administrative principles support
permitting conditional operation before the 30-day public comment
period ends, and whether it should continue even if a competing
application or petition to deny is filed.
17. In addition, the Commission proposes to oversee the Cellular
frequency coordinators and their processes on an ongoing basis, and to
work to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved between an applicant
and frequency coordinator. The Commission seeks comment on the
circumstances under which the Commission should become involved in such
a dispute, and the timing. Should the Commission specify a reasonable
timeframe, e.g., 60 days following the frequency coordinator's
recommendation to the applicant, during which the applicant and the
frequency coordinator are to endeavor in good faith to resolve the
matter before appealing to the Commission? Once the dispute is brought
before the Commission, what procedures are appropriate for Commission
staff to resolve the dispute? The Commission seeks comment on all
aspects of the continued role for the Commission.
D. Number of Coordinators and Fees
18. In 1997, the Commission generally permitted certain frequency
coordinators in the PLMR Industrial/Business Pool band below 512 MHz to
coordinate any frequency in the pool, thus ending exclusive frequency
coordination and allowing competition among coordinators on certain
frequencies. The Bureau subsequently introduced competitive
coordination to other part 90 PLMR bands. The introduction of
competition among coordinators was intended to promote lower
coordination costs for applicants and foster better service to the
public, and it has accomplished this purpose. Consequently, the
Commission proposes to authorize multiple frequency coordinators for
the Cellular Service.
19. If there are multiple Cellular frequency coordinators, the
Commission proposes that they have notification requirements similar to
those for part 90 PLMR frequency coordinators. In particular, a
Cellular frequency coordinator would be required to notify other
Cellular frequency coordinators within one business day of making a
coordination recommendation and on any day when it does not make a
recommendation. At a minimum, the notification would include the
following information: Name of the applicant; type of application at
issue; license (call sign) of the applicant (if applicable); CMA
description and channel block of the existing license (if applicable);
CMA designator(s) and channel block pertaining to where the applicant
is expanding its CGSA or starting a new system; new or modified
transmitter location(s) along with coordinates and the antenna height;
effective radiated power, antenna center of radiation height above
average terrain, height above sea level or height above mean sea level,
and distance to the SAB and to the CGSA for the eight radials of each
new/modified location; and date and time of the recommendation. Upon
request, the notifying frequency coordinator would provide any
additional information requested by another certified coordinator
regarding a Cellular application already reviewed by the notifying
coordinator but still pending before the Commission.
20. Under the Commission's proposal, it would be the responsibility
of each Cellular frequency coordinator to ensure that its
recommendations do not conflict with the recommendations of any other
Cellular frequency coordinator. Should a conflict arise, the affected
coordinators would be jointly responsible for taking action to resolve
the conflict, up to and including notifying the Commission that an
application may have to be returned. The Commission seeks comment on
the proposed notification process, including what information should be
provided to coordinators with each notification, and the timing of
notifications.
21. The Commission also invites commenters, including parties that
at least preliminarily have an interest in being a frequency
coordinator candidate, to address whether the market for Cellular
frequency coordination is likely to support multiple entities, as well
as whether they perceive any problems in allowing more than one
frequency coordinator for the Cellular Service.
22. Fees. Because the Commission proposes to have multiple
coordinators, the Commission proposes that market forces determine the
Cellular frequency coordinators' fees, rather than have the Commission
regulate fees. Given that the Commission would continue to process and
act on the reviewed applications, as proposed above, applicants would
continue to pay Commission application fees (and also regulatory fees).
Should the Commission adopt a pricing scheme for the frequency
coordinators? If so, what should it be, and how would such an approach
better serve the public interest? What are the costs and benefits of a
particular scheme? If there is only one frequency coordinator, should
the Commission regulate the coordinator fees?
23. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to certify more
than one
[[Page 76272]]
frequency coordinator and to allow market forces to govern
coordinators' processing fees. Commenters should include an analysis of
the costs and benefits of whatever proposal they advocate.
E. Coordinator Certification Criteria and Selection Process
24. The Commission proposes that, at a minimum, Cellular frequency
coordinators must have the following qualifications: knowledge of the
Cellular Unserved Area licensing process (as revised by the companion
R&O in this proceeding); ability to register and maintain application
information and transmit such information to ULS; technical capability
to review applicants' proposed licensing areas to determine compliance
with all rules and procedures applicable to the Cellular Service; and
both ability and willingness to develop procedures to work with
Cellular applicants, which includes offering coordination services on a
non-discriminatory basis and responding to applicant requests or
concerns on a timely basis. The Commission also expects that the
frequency coordinators would not have a conflict of interest when
reviewing applications (or can show that any pre-existing conflict of
interest has been resolved). Although we do not propose at this time to
require that the coordinators be national in scope and representative
of all eligible Cellular licensees, the Commission expresses strong
preference for those characteristics.
25. Permitting current Cellular applicants or licensees to serve as
frequency coordinators--either for themselves or for other applicants--
could run counter to the public interest and undermine the goals of the
proposal. As discussed above, a key goal is to have frequency
coordinators resolve the high volume of inaccuracies in Cellular
applications so that new service is not delayed, and also so that
Commission staff resources are no longer needed for repeated review and
return of such filings. The Commission expects that frequency
coordinators specifically dedicated to this task would ensure that
applications are accurate and compliant with Commission requirements
prior to submitting them to the Commission. Furthermore, having a
current Cellular applicant or licensee as a frequency coordinator would
increase the likelihood of a conflict of interest--a problem the
Commission wishes to avoid, as it could delay the processing of
Cellular applications contrary to the goal to expedite new service.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to make Cellular licensees
ineligible to be certified as Cellular frequency coordinators. The
Commission seeks comment on the proposal to not certify Cellular
frequency coordinators that are current or prospective Cellular Service
licensees. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a current
Cellular applicant or licensee's agent (e.g., a law firm or a
consulting engineering firm), and affiliates of Cellular licensees and
applicants, should also be prohibited from serving as a frequency
coordinator. If not, how would potential conflicts of interest be
resolved? Also, if the Commission decides not to certify affiliates of
Cellular licensees and applicants as frequency coordinators, the
Commission invites comment on how to define ``affiliate'' in this
context. In particular, the Commission invites comment on whether the
definition of affiliate used for purposes of determining whether an
auction participant is a ``designated entity'' could also be used in
this context.
26. Under 47 CFR 0.131(m), the Bureau has delegated authority to
certify frequency coordinators for the services that it administers,
including the Cellular Service. The Commission proposes that, pursuant
to this delegated authority, the Bureau would select the Cellular
frequency coordinators using the same procedures that were adopted for
WMTS and MBANs. Accordingly, in the event that the Commission
ultimately adopts rules establishing the use of frequency coordinators
for the Cellular Service, the Commission would direct the Bureau to
issue a Public Notice announcing procedures for interested parties to
submit requests to become coordinators. Thereafter, the Bureau would be
directed to issue an Order to designate the coordinators and execute a
Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') with those selected. The MOU
would set forth the coordinators' authority and responsibilities. The
frequency coordinators would assume their duties upon execution of the
MOU. The Commission seeks comment on whether this process, which worked
well for selecting the WMTS coordinator, would permit the Commission to
complete the coordinator selection process in a timely and efficient
manner. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the frequency
coordination certification and selection criteria.
IV. Radiated Power Limit Rules for the Cellular Service
A. Introduction and Background
27. In this Section of the FNPRM, the Commission considers changes
to the Cellular radiated power limits and related technical rules under
the following specific topics: Power spectral density (``PSD''); power
flux density (``PFD''); technological neutrality for field strength
limits; height-power limit; mobile transmitters and auxiliary test
transmitters; and power measurement. (For the purpose of this
proceeding, PFD is the amount of radio frequency energy or power that
would be present over a given unit of area (e.g., 100 microwatts per
square meter). Therefore, PFD can be used to describe the strength of
signals on the ground in a given location.) The Commission also
addresses coordination requirements, including international
coordination, and the SAB formula set forth in Sec. 22.911 of the
Commission's rules. The Commission takes this action with a goal of
implementing technology neutral rules that allow licensees to choose
technologies based upon their deployment plans without being hindered
by an unnecessarily restrictive rule. The Commission also strives for
regulatory parity among competing services with consideration of unique
circumstances for the band at issue that may require special
requirements to prevent interference.
28. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals and those of the
commenters as discussed herein; it also invites alternative ideas and
proposals concerning the Cellular power rules and related provisions.
The Commission encourages public safety entities at the local,
regional, and national levels to submit their comments on revising the
rules to permit all Cellular licensees nationwide to use, at their
option, a PSD model. It asks that all commenters be specific, detailed,
and include pertinent engineering data and technical analyses. To the
extent commenters advocate an alternative or modification, they should
include an explanation of the public interest benefits of such
alternative or modification, and comment on the economic costs and
benefits of the various possible approaches. All interested parties
should also review and comment on the proposed rules in Appendix B of
this FNPRM, including definitions. Alternative wording should be
provided with comments that advocate additions or modifications to our
proposals.
29. In a Petition for Rulemaking filed by AT&T Services, Inc. on
behalf of AT&T, Inc. and its subsidiaries
[[Page 76273]]
(``AT&T''), AT&T seeks specifically to modify Sec. 22.913 (47 CFR
22.913) to permit effective radiated power (``ERP'') measurement in
terms of PSD, with limits of 250 watts (``W'') per MHz in non-rural
areas and 500 W/MHz in rural areas. In response to a Public Notice
released by the Bureau seeking comment on AT&T's Petition, interested
parties filed comments and reply comments, generally supporting a PSD
model as an option for ERP measurement, although some expressed
concerns or proposed modifications, as discussed below. AT&T also filed
a request for interim waiver of Sec. 22.913 to use a PSD model for
certain Cellular stations in Florida, and subsequently filed a request
for interim waiver to use the PSD model for certain Cellular operations
in Vermont. The Bureau sought comment on them, and in the docket
concerning the Florida PSD Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 13-202),
several Florida public safety and critical infrastructure entities
submitted comments; no public safety entities commented regarding the
Vermont PSD Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 14-107).
30. In 2007 and 2008, the Commission revised the radiated power
rules for several other wireless services, implementing a PSD model
(among other related technical rule modifications), but declined at
that time to revise the Cellular ERP rules, primarily because of
significant restructuring (800 MHz rebanding) ongoing in the
immediately adjacent frequencies, which are used by public safety
entities, and also because of a lack of industry support and the need
for more time to assess the potential impact of using the PSD model in
the Cellular band. Ultimately, the rebanding process will move public
safety and other narrowband land mobile operations away from the
Cellular and high-density ESMR base station transmitting frequencies,
thereby reducing the potential for interference between incompatible
services. However, in some parts of the country, the rebanding process
is not completed and public safety operations continue using
frequencies adjacent to the lower edge of the Cellular base station
transmitting band at 869 MHz. Further, even after rebanding is
accomplished in a region, some public safety entities may continue to
use legacy radios that could be susceptible to Cellular base station
interference because the filtering of the radio does not reflect the
post-rebanding channel plan for public safety operations. The rebanding
proceeding outlined the circumstances where legacy devices would be
entitled to interference resolution procedures and also created
information exchange procedures so public safety licensees could be
notified of new or modified ESMR and Cellular base station activities.
B. PSD Proposal for Non-rural and Rural Areas
31. Based on the preliminary record, and consistent with the
Commission's prior revisions to, or newly adopted power rules for,
other wireless services, the Commission proposes to revise Sec. 22.913
to permit measurement of base transmitter and Cellular repeater power
using a PSD model. The goals are to promote spectral efficiency and
provide licensees with flexibility to select the technology that best
suits their needs, whether narrowband or wideband, and increase
harmonization of the Commission's rules across commercial wireless
services to the extent practicable, taking into account the unique
features of each service band. At the same time, the Commission is
mindful of the need to protect systems in the immediately adjacent
bands, particularly public safety operations. The Commission seeks
comment in the Sections below on various options to achieve its goals.
32. In considering a PSD model as an option for Cellular licensees
deploying wideband technologies, the Commission discusses below and
seeks comment on the following three proposals to develop a better
record for determining what the appropriate PSD limits should be:
AT&T's proposal of 250 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 500
W/MHz ERP in rural areas;
Union Wireless's proposal of 500 W/MHz ERP in non-rural
areas, 1000 W/MHz in rural areas; and
Verizon Wireless's proposal of 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-rural
areas, 2000 W/MHz in rural areas.
The Commission also seeks comment on alternatives not considered in
this FNPRM. Each of the proposals listed above specifies power limits
that would supplement the current Cellular ERP limits of 500 W in non-
rural areas and 1000 W in rural areas. The distinction is that the
current limits apply to each emission or channel, so that a licensee
using narrow emissions can transmit more total power per MHz than a
licensee using wideband emissions. For example, under the current
rules, a Cellular licensee using a 5 MHz LTE emission in a non-rural
area would be limited to 500 W in those 5 MHz (100 W/MHz), while a
licensee in the same 5 MHz could deploy four CDMA channels with an
aggregate power of 2000 W ERP (400 W/MHz), or 12 GSM channels with an
aggregate power of 6000 W ERP (1200 W/MHz). (This assumes that the
licensee is deploying 4 CDMA channels in 5 MHz (4 x 500 W = 2000 W), or
using every other GSM channel in 5 MHz for a total of 12 channels (12 x
500 W = 6000 W).)
33. In support of AT&T's proposal, its Petition includes a study
that purports to show that shifting to PSD-based power limits would
create an interference environment that is ``not appreciably different
from that of existing Cellular deployments'' and which, according to
AT&T, is even better in some cases. AT&T states that the study looked
at five different technological cases, including GSM, Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (``UMTS''), and LTE systems in various
configurations in the Cellular band. According to AT&T, the study shows
that deployments of 2X2 Multiple Input Multiple Output (``MIMO'') LTE--
using the PSD model with the limits advocated by AT&T--would maintain
the status quo with respect to the potential interference impacts on
adjacent services, and in particular, the Public Safety Services.
34. Broadpoint, LLC d/b/a Cellular One, Cincinnati Bell Wireless
LLC, NE Colorado Cellular, Inc., Smith Bagley, Inc., and Union
Telephone Company d/b/a Union Wireless (``Union Wireless'')
(collectively, the ``GSM Licensees''), which own and operate GSM/EDGE
Cellular networks, argue that imposing AT&T's proposed PSD limits on
carriers using such technologies would result in reducing their
existing coverage, with a dramatic increase in roaming costs for
customers or loss of signal altogether. One of the GSM Licensees, Union
Wireless, adds that the revised rule should articulate measurement in
terms of effective isotropically radiated power (``EIRP''), just as for
certain other wireless services, including the Broadband Personal
Communications Service (``PCS''). Specifically, it argues that carriers
operating with less than 1 MHz of bandwidth should be permitted up to
820 W EIRP in non-rural areas, 1640 W EIRP in rural areas (equivalent
to the current 500 W ERP and 1000 W ERP limit, respectively), and that
corresponding PSD limits for carriers operating with more than 1 MHz of
bandwidth should be 820 W/MHz EIRP non-rural, 1640 W/MHz EIRP rural
(equivalent to 500 W/MHz ERP and 1000 W/MHz ERP, respectively).
Bluegrass Cellular, Inc. and Affiliates d/b/a Bluegrass Wireless
(collectively, ``Bluegrass''), which is a CDMA carrier, contends that
AT&T's proposal would cause stronger signals into Bluegrass
[[Page 76274]]
markets, thereby increasing the noise level, and that carriers like
Bluegrass need a sufficient transition period to renegotiate SAB
extension agreements to prevent harmful interference. CTO supports a
rulemaking to ensure equity among commercial licensees in different
bands, but also expresses concern about the fiscal impact of changes in
licensing rules on the budgets of public safety entities. In its reply
comments, AT&T emphasizes that it seeks only to supplement the rule to
permit carriers to use whichever model is better suited to their
circumstances, and that, at the PSD limits AT&T advocates, the power
injected into Bluegrass's receivers in adjacent areas or co-located
sites remains the same.
35. Verizon Wireless argues that PSD limits should be added to the
rule at significantly higher levels, mirroring the limits set for the
700 MHz Services: 1000 W/MHz for non-rural areas, and 2000 W/MHz for
rural areas, for stations transmitting on bandwidths greater than 1
MHz. For stations transmitting on bandwidths of 1 MHz or less, Verizon
Wireless argues that the Commission should either retain the current
ERP limits as an option, or adopt maximum power limits of 1000 W and
2000 W for non-rural and rural areas, respectively. According to
Verizon Wireless, the limits proposed in the Petition will negatively
impact both coverage and capacity, putting Cellular licensees that
deploy broadband technologies at a significant disadvantage compared to
carriers deploying such technologies in other service bands, especially
in rural areas. Verizon Wireless argues that the Commission should also
adopt a PFD limit (discussed in the next Section below).
36. Several Florida public safety entities submitted ex parte
letters regarding AT&T's Florida PSD Waiver Request in WT Docket No.
13-202. They expressed a number of concerns, arguing that the technical
study submitted by AT&T infers a burden on public safety licensees to
incorporate new radios or additional filtering, that using a PSD model
will result in a significant increase in power from AT&T, causing
harmful interference to radio systems with multiple police users from
federal, state, county, city, and Tribal organizations, that AT&T
should conduct testing, and alleging increased costs for public safety
licensees if a PSD model is adopted, not only in terms of dollars for
new radio purchases, but also in terms of extra weight and size of the
radios used, reduced sensitivity, and potential operational burdens.
37. AT&T then sought and was granted an experimental special
temporary authorization to conduct testing using a PSD model in
Florida. Taking into account the results of the testing, as documented
in ex parte letters submitted by AT&T and Miami-Dade County, the Bureau
recently granted the Florida PSD Waiver Request in part, conditioned on
compliance with new rules that may be adopted in this rulemaking
proceeding and subject to certain operational conditions to prevent
harmful interference. (See DA 14-1419 in WT Docket No. 13-202.) In
addition, the Bureau granted the Vermont PSD Waiver Request, similarly
conditioned, also noting the absence of public safety entities with
licensed base stations in the Burlington, VT CMA. (See DA 14-1418 in WT
Docket No. 14-107.)
38. The Commission proposes to keep the current base station ERP
limits (applied per channel or emission bandwidth) for those licensees
that use technologies incompatible with a PSD ERP model (applied per
MHz of channel or emission bandwidth), and also provide power
flexibility to deploy wideband technologies. The Commission tentatively
concludes that a PSD ERP model--as an option--would better accommodate
newer technologies employing wider bandwidths, notably LTE, by
establishing ERP caps per units of 1 MHz of an emission's bandwidth
rather than capping the ERP per each emission bandwidth. To minimize
adverse effects on licensees operating with GSM and CDMA technologies
in the Cellular band, the Commission proposes to permit licensees using
narrowband technologies to comply with the current limits of 500 W ERP
per emission in non-rural areas and 1000 W ERP per emission in rural
areas. Maintaining the existing power limits as an option would allow
licensees to continue to operate as currently deployed, and would
prevent potential power reductions for non-wideband technologies (e.g.,
GSM and CDMA) if a lower PSD limit is applied. (For example, a licensee
deploying CDMA technology transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of
1.25 MHz could employ a power level of 500 W ERP under the legacy
limit; alternatively, in a 250 W/MHz scenario, the same licensee would
have a maximum power level of 312.5 W ERP in 1.25 MHz bandwidth.) The
Commission seeks comment on this approach. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there is a need to increase Cellular power levels
consistent with other services (e.g., the 700 MHz Services rules impose
a limit of 1000 W ERP for emissions less than one MHz in non-rural
areas, and 2000 W ERP for emissions less than one MHz in rural areas),
or whether the current limits are sufficient. If insufficient, what new
limits would be the most appropriate for per-emission Cellular
transmissions in rural and non-rural markets, respectively? The
Commission also seeks comment on updating the terminology in the rule.
Specifically, should the 500 W ERP be applied per channel, per channel
bandwidth, per occupied bandwidth, or some other emission description?
All commenters addressing this issue should support their arguments
with technical showings.
39. Verizon Wireless recommends applying a PSD limit only to
Cellular base stations transmitting emissions greater than 1 MHz. The
Commission does not propose any such bandwidth dividing line for the
purposes of applying PSD in the Cellular Service because it could
disadvantage certain carriers. For example, a licensee using a 1.25 MHz
CDMA technology would currently be permitted to use 500 W ERP across
that channel, but under a 250 W/MHz PSD requirement, that licensee
would have to lower its power and reduce service coverage. The
Commission invites comment on its proposal not to establish a bandwidth
dividing line and on its assumption regarding the potential effect of
such a dividing line on certain licensees.
40. AT&T's PSD proposal (250 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz
in rural areas) would provide Cellular licensees with less power than
other current CMRS providers, potentially placing Cellular licensees at
a competitive disadvantage. Cellular licensees deploying LTE base
stations might, as a result, have less reliable coverage, necessitating
deployment of more base stations at a greater expense, and might have a
difficult time supplementing existing service with Cellular spectrum
because of the power discrepancy. This option would allow an LTE 5 MHz
emission a total of 1250 W ERP; however, the power would be spread
across a wider bandwidth and unlikely in our view to present increased
interference potential to other services. Under the current rules, a
Cellular licensee using the same 5 MHz could deploy four CDMA channels
with an aggregate power of 2000 W ERP, or 12 GSM channels with an
aggregate power of 6000 W ERP. The Commission seeks comment on all
aspects of the AT&T PSD proposal, including the adequacy of the
proposal to allow the full potential of wideband modulation schemes and
services that Cellular licensees may wish to provide, and also
[[Page 76275]]
the potential to cause interference to other services.
41. Next, the Commission seeks comment on Verizon Wireless's
proposal to adopt PSD limits similar to those adopted for upper 700 MHz
licensees (1000 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 2000 W/MHz in rural
areas), with a PFD limit to minimize the interference potential on the
ground within one kilometer of a base station. The proposal would
provide power consistent with certain other CMRS bands, thereby
allowing Cellular licensees to compete on a level playing field and
also allowing CMRS licensees holding both Cellular and other CMRS
spectrum to deploy base stations with an expectation that they could
achieve consistent and reliable coverage across different service
bands. The increased power does, however, come with an increased risk
of potential interference to adjacent public safety operations that
have not gone through rebanding or that use radios less capable of
filtering out emissions from Cellular base stations. As discussed in
more detail below in the next section, Verizon Wireless contends that
the increased PSD limits paired with a PFD limit would address the
increased interference potential around the base station, and the
Commission seeks comment on Verizon Wireless's proposal, its adequacy
to address the needs of Cellular licensees seeking to deploy wideband
technologies, and its potential to cause interference to public safety
operations or any other licensees in adjacent markets or service bands.
42. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
interference resolution provisions adopted in the rebanding proceeding
allow us to adopt Cellular power rules consistent with other CMRS bands
with the assurance that any unacceptable interference that does occur
will be appropriately addressed pursuant to Sec. Sec. 22.970 through
22.973 of our rules. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other
commenters' PSD approaches, including the proposal by Union Wireless,
which specifies power in terms of EIRP and proposes power limits of 820
W/MHz EIRP for non-rural and 1640 W/MHz EIRP for rural areas.
43. The Commission also proposes to allow the doubling of the PSD
limit in rural counties, as in other CMRS bands. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and also on whether the Commission should
adopt a staggered power limit, whereby the licensee would operate at
the suggested AT&T limits (250 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz
in rural areas) if narrowband land mobile operations exist in adjacent
spectrum, and at higher power limits after such entities are rebanded
to a new location. The Commission also seeks comment on how base
station power limits should be applied in the deployment of base
stations. That is, should the limit be applied per emission or channel,
per transmitter, per sector, or for the entire base station, and how is
this application affected by MIMO antenna configurations? For example,
if a licensee uses 2x2 or 4x4 MIMO, should it be forced to divide its
power accordingly?
44. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of its proposals
and others on the record, and also invites commenters to submit
alternative proposals and ideas that would advance the goals to provide
power flexibility, ensure parity among competing or complementary
services, and safeguard spectral compatibility with licensees in
adjacent markets and adjacent bands. The Commission reiterates that
commenters should provide engineering data and technical analysis as
well as specific wording for the applicable rules to support their
showings, particularly if advocating alternatives not discussed in this
FNPRM.
C. Power Flux Density
45. Verizon Wireless argues that the Commission should adopt a PFD
limit to mitigate the potential for interference around Cellular base
station transmitters, particularly to public safety operations.
According to Verizon Wireless, PFD limits permit the licensee to aim
the signal away from the ground, limit signal strength in close
proximity to the base station, and allow licensees to operate at
greater power levels without sacrificing protection. It further
contends that the PFD limit applicable to the upper 700 MHz band is
appropriate for the Cellular band and that, with PSD limits of 1000 W/
MHz non-rural and 2000 W/MHz rural, the PFD that would be produced by
such stations through a combination of antenna height and vertical gain
pattern must not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground
over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting
structure. Verizon Wireless includes a summary of results of testing
conducted by V-COMM.
46. It appears that Verizon Wireless intends its proposed PFD limit
of 3000 microwatts per square meter to apply to any base station with
emissions exceeding 1000 W ERP, similar to the limit for the upper 700
MHz band. For the upper 700 MHz band, the Commission established a PFD
limit that applies to emissions greater than 1000 W ERP, regardless of
the bandwidth of the emission. For the lower 700 MHz band where there
was no public safety spectrum, the Commission established PFD limits
that apply, in non-rural areas, to emissions that exceed 1000 W and
1000 W/MHz, and in rural areas to emissions that exceed 2000 W and 2000
W/MHz, allowing more power relative to the upper 700 MHz band before
PFD limits apply. This approach might be an effective tool to limit the
amount of potentially interfering energy on the ground around base
stations if the Commission ultimately decides to adopt higher PSD
levels for the Cellular Service than what AT&T proposed. Notably,
however, the Commission did not adopt PFD limits for PCS or certain AWS
when it revised the radiated power rules for those services to permit
use of a PSD model.
47. A factor in the upper 700 MHz band's PFD limit that is shared
with the Cellular band is a desire to reduce the interference potential
to adjacent channel public safety operations. If the Commission adopts
AT&T's proposed PSD limits, or some other PSD limits lower than what is
proposed by Verizon Wireless, should the Commission also adopt a PFD
limit? If so, should the PFD limit only apply if the ERP exceeds a
certain level (e.g., 1000 W, as in the upper 700 MHz band, or some
other level)? Is 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over
the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting
structure the appropriate PFD level to protect public safety
operations? Is a different applicable area more appropriate than
Verizon Wireless's proposed area? Should a PFD limit only be applicable
in areas where the rebanding process has not been completed? Should it
be applicable only to those Cellular carriers using the PSD model to
measure their ERP, or to all Cellular carriers?
48. The Commission also seeks comment on several other issues
raised by Verizon Wireless's proposal. How should the microwatts-per-
square-meter level, whether it is 3000 microwatts or some other value,
be measured? Should the parameter have a reference or measurement
bandwidth of 1 MHz, or some other value, to ensure uniform measurement
regardless of channel width? Should the PFD value be an average limit,
or a peak value that should not be exceeded at any point within the
specified area? Would licensees perform a predictive modeling of this
parameter before deployment, or is it a measured value? If the PFD is a
modeled parameter, would it be better to establish some allowance for
[[Page 76276]]
exceeding the PFD over a small portion of the subject area? For
example, the Commission could require that the PFD not be exceeded over
more than 5% or 10% of the area within 1 km of the transmitting
structure. Such an allowance may be needed in areas where rolling
terrain could increase the PFD over a small portion of the applicable
area. What challenges may be created in enforcing a PFD limit,
including consistency and parity in application among different
technologies?
49. The Commission seeks detailed and specific comments on all
questions and issues mentioned above surrounding the establishment of a
PFD limit, and any other issues that commenters believe are related and
pertinent. All commenters, whether supporting or opposing the
establishment of a PFD limit, should provide a technical demonstration
substantiating their position.
D. Technological Neutrality for Field Strength Measurement
50. In its Report and Order in the proceeding concerning AWS-3, the
Commission stated that boundary limits that adjust for large
differences in channel bandwidth may be appropriate. However, the
Commission stated that it intended to explore the issue of a
measurement bandwidth to co-channel boundary field strength limits in a
future proceeding due to a lack of consensus on how to apply boundary
limits for AWS-3. With the introduction of power flexibility in the
Cellular band, licensees could be deploying different technologies with
emission bandwidths ranging from 200 kHz to 10 MHz. Therefore, to
promote technological neutrality in our rules among different
technologies and licensees, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
new Cellular field strength limit of 40 dB[mu]V/m, which the Commission
adopted in its companion R&O in this proceeding, can be applied in a
technology neutral fashion or whether the Commission should adopt a
specific measurement bandwidth for field strength measurements or some
other limit or metric at the license boundary.
51. Given that the Cellular Service is well-established, what are
the considerations for or against specifying a measurement bandwidth
for the field strength limit? To ensure uniform application of the
limit, would a 100 kHz or 1 MHz measurement bandwidth be appropriate or
would that be too stringent, and what would the consequences be? If the
Commission adopts a measurement bandwidth that is too wide, would it be
potentially difficult to meet the limit and still have adequate signal
to provide service at the boundary area? Is a field strength limit with
a measurement bandwidth the best metric to address service area
boundary interference? If not, what limit and type should be applied?
It is appropriate that commenters address application of the field
strength limit in a technology neutral fashion, and the Commission
encourages all commenting parties to support their position with
technical demonstrations. The Commission seeks comment on any other
part 22 Cellular rules that may not be technology neutral and invites
specific proposals on how they should be amended, with analysis of the
potential costs and benefits of such changes.
E. Height-Power Limit
52. Section 22.913(b) currently limits the height of a base station
antenna such that the ERP may not exceed an amount that would result in
the average distance to the SAB being 79.1 km for licensees authorized
to serve the Gulf of Mexico market (the ``Gulf''), 40.2 km for all
other licensees. Section 22.913(c) provides an exemption from the
height-power limit if the licensee coordinates and obtains concurrence
from all co-channel licensees within 121 km. No commenter on the record
in this proceeding has mentioned changing these height-power
provisions. In some other flexible wireless services where the
Commission has instituted PSD limits, however, it has also limited the
antenna height in which the maximum power may be transmitted and
allowed higher antennas if the installation scaled down the power
proportionally for antennas above the height allowed for maximum power.
For example, under the 700 MHz Services and PCS rules, licensees are
required to scale down their power from the maximum levels for antenna
heights over 300 and 305 meters, respectively. Other services, such as
AWS, are not subject to such limitations.
53. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how the Commission
should amend the Cellular height-power limit and exemption rules. Does
the Commission need a scaled height-power requirement similar to the
one applicable in the 700 MHz band, and if so, what should the values
be? With the adoption in the companion R&O in this proceeding of a
field strength limit rule to protect neighboring Cellular licensees'
CGSA boundaries, the Commission seeks detailed comment, including
technical analysis and proposed wording of rules, on whether it is
appropriate to delete the current Cellular height-power limit
altogether, or whether a limit is still necessary, at least for CGSA
expansions into Unserved Area.
F. Mobile Transmitters and Auxiliary Test Transmitters
54. At this time, the Commission is proposing to permit Cellular
licensees to use a PSD model only for base station transmitters and
Cellular repeaters. No commenter on the record in this proceeding has
suggested changing the power limit for Cellular mobile or portable
transmitters. Currently, Sec. 22.913(a)(2) sets a limit of 7 W ERP for
mobile and auxiliary test transmitters. While the Commission
tentatively concludes that the 7 W ERP limit is adequate even for 10
MHz channel widths, the Commission seeks comment on whether the current
limit should be updated or changed, including whether it should be
lowered to be consistent with other CMRS bands. While the Commission
has not adopted PSD for mobile stations in other services such as PCS
or the 700 MHz Services, the Commission seeks comment on whether a PSD
limit should be established for mobile and portable Cellular
transmitters, and if so, what that limit should be. Does the use of
MIMO antenna techniques affect how power is measured and how it should
be regulated in mobile devices? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether auxiliary test transmitters are still in use and whether a
provision applying to such transmitters is still warranted in Sec.
22.913(a)(2). Are there other types of Cellular transmitters that
should be addressed in the radiated power rules? Does it serve the
public interest to treat Cellular mobile transmitters differently from
auxiliary test transmitters, and if so, what should the respective
treatments be? The Commission emphasizes that, even if it decides to
adopt changes to Sec. 22.913(a)(2), its environmental regulations will
still apply.
G. Power Measurement
55. Because mobile devices often operate across multiple service
bands, the Commission tentatively concludes that it would serve the
public interest to establish consistent measurement techniques for
equipment to ease the equipment authorization process, while also
taking into account unique factors presented by the band, and seeks
comment on whether the measurement techniques for the Cellular Service
should be updated. The Commission's Cellular power rules were created
when analog technologies were predominantly used, and are not
necessarily applicable to current technologies. Here, the
[[Page 76277]]
Commission discusses peak power versus average power, peak-to-average
power ratio, resolution bandwidth, EIRP versus ERP, and accommodating
MIMO antenna techniques.
56. Section 22.913 does not specify how power is to be measured,
i.e., peak or average power. Digital modulation techniques often
produce instantaneous short duration spikes such that the overall power
of the emission is lower under average power measurement compared to
peak measurement. In revising the radiated power rules for PCS and AWS,
the Commission concluded that, for non-constant envelope technologies
such as CDMA, WCDMA, and OFDM, limiting PCS and AWS power on an average
basis would more accurately predict the interference potential for such
technologies. The record in that proceeding demonstrated that using
peak power measurements for non-constant envelope technologies
inaccurately suggested a much higher overall operational power,
compared to average power levels, due to short duration power spikes.
The Commission further found that measurement of average power for PCS
and AWS operations must be made during a period of continuous
transmission based on a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth. Because the average
power approach allows for emissions higher than those under peak power
limits, the Commission also concluded that it would serve the public
interest to adopt a peak-to-average ratio limit to mitigate the
potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise. The
current rules for PCS and AWS reflect these various measurement
decisions.
57. No one on the record in this proceeding has thus far addressed
how PSD should be measured if the Commission introduces this model into
the Cellular radiated power rules. The Commission tentatively concludes
that, to account for the characteristics of digital modulation
techniques, Cellular radiated power limits--both the legacy limits the
Commission proposes to maintain as an option for narrowband
technologies and the PSD limits the Commission proposes as an option
for wideband technologies--should be measured in terms of maximum
average power as measured with a root mean square power averaging
detector. Averaging would, under this approach, be permitted only over
the various power levels associated with different symbol states while
the device is transmitting at maximum power levels (i.e., averaging
during any transmitter quiescent periods or reduced power transmissions
is not permitted). Because the peak power associated with a noise-like
signal is a random variable and, as such, can place unachievable
requirements on the measuring instrumentation (e.g., a resolution/
measurement bandwidth that exceeds the signal bandwidth), the
Commission tentatively concludes that the Cellular output power should
not be specified in terms of peak, unless limited to peak PSD (in which
case a reference bandwidth should also be specified). The Commission
also proposes to specify that power should be measured with a
resolution bandwidth, but seeks comment on what that resolution
bandwidth should be. The current resolution bandwidth for measuring
unwanted emissions outside of the Cellular band is 100 kHz or greater,
but the PCS resolution bandwidth for measuring in-band power is
specified as being equal to or greater than the authorized bandwidth.
The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission should craft the
Cellular power measurement rules to accommodate the various
technologies used in the band and others that may be used in the
future.
58. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if the Commission
adopts an average power requirement for Cellular licensees, it should
be accompanied by a peak-to-average ratio, as the Commission has
adopted for PCS and AWS. If the Commission adopts a peak-to-average
ratio to be applied over an emission's bandwidth, the Commission
proposes that the limit apply to the highest peak power density
relative to the highest average power density measured over the entire
occupied bandwidth. The reason for specifying the peak-to-average ratio
within a reference bandwidth is to be clear the Commission is not
referring to the absolute peak power within the total signal but,
rather, to the peak within some defined bandwidth, making it a
realizable measurement even when the signal greatly exceeds the
available resolution/measurement bandwidth. In addition, the peak-to-
average ratio would not apply within each and every reference bandwidth
bin, as the Commission's Laboratory finds that a peak-to-average ratio
limit can be exceeded on a bin-by-bin basis due to intermodulation
products, but can be compliant when the overall maximum values are
considered. Finally, if the Commission adopts a peak-to-average ratio,
the Commission proposes that it be specified on a statistical basis to
reflect the fact that the peak power of a ``noise-like'' signal is a
statistical parameter (e.g., peak-to-average ratio level must comply
with the limit 99% of the time). The PCS peak-to-average ratio is 13
dB. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of applying a peak-to-
average ratio to the Cellular band, including whether the PCS peak-to-
average ratio or some other value is most appropriate for Cellular
licensees.
59. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission
should convert our Cellular power requirements to EIRP instead of ERP,
as suggested by Union Wireless. While these two power specifications
entail a simple mathematical conversion from one to another, EIRP may
make more sense for the Cellular Service, particularly for mobile and
portable devices that have integrated antennas. It is our understanding
that dipole antennas are infrequently used to perform compliance
measurements and that practically all measurement antennas in use today
provide gain values in terms of dBi. Further, the Commission seeks
comment on the impact of MIMO antenna techniques on our radiated power
rules and measurement procedures. Through MIMO, a Cellular base station
would deploy multiple antennas, each intended to transmit and receive
the same signals, allowing increased throughput and reliability by
having multiple signals to add together or to compensate for multipath
fading. Does the use of MIMO techniques require a modification to the
way the Commission specifies Cellular power or perform measurements for
equipment authorization? If so, how should the Commission modify the
rules and policies to account for MIMO?
60. The Commission seeks comment also on whether any other part 22
rules regarding equipment standards and measurement need to be updated
or modified to be consistent with the equipment certification rules in
part 2. For instance, part 2 requirements related to spurious emissions
at an antenna terminal assume that the unwanted emissions are measured
at the antenna terminals (i.e., a conducted measurement). Section
22.917 is not clear on whether the Cellular measurement is conducted or
radiated. Should Sec. 22.917 be modified to be consistent with this
part 2 requirement?
61. The Commission urges all interested parties, including not only
Cellular licensees but also licensees in the immediately adjacent
bands, equipment manufacturers, and entities that test Cellular
equipment, to provide comments on these questions and issues related to
power measurement. Commenters should be specific and
[[Page 76278]]
detailed, explaining the technical reasons for their views, including
whether and how the public interest would be served by adopting any or
all of the possible revisions discussed in these paragraphs concerning
average power, peak-to-average ratio, related measurement techniques,
and other technical requirements needed to obtain equipment
certification.
H. Out of Band Emission Limits
62. Section 22.917 (47 CFR 22.917) outlines the current Cellular
out of band emission (``OOBE'') limits and how these limits are
measured. The Commission seeks comment on whether, given technological
developments, the Commission should increase the suppression levels set
forth in Sec. 22.917. Would increasing the OOBE limits facilitate
higher PSD limits without increasing the potential for unacceptable
interference to legacy public safety operations? If so, what should the
increased OOBE limits be? Given that changing filtering requirements
may temporarily increase the cost of radio equipment, what would be the
costs and benefits of increasing the Cellular OOBE limits to protect
services outside the Cellular band, including legacy public safety
operations that are intended to relocate as part of the 800 MHz
rebanding proceeding?
63. In measuring Cellular OOBE in close proximity to the authorized
frequency band edge, the Commission permits the use of a narrower-
resolution bandwidth (of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission) to measure the unwanted emissions that are on
frequencies ``immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block''
without any requirement for subsequently integrating the results over
the full reference bandwidth. The Commission proposes to clarify that
this provision only applies in the first 100 kHz immediately outside
and adjacent to the authorized frequency block/band, and seeks comment
on the proposal. Further, this methodology (i.e., allowing a reduced
bandwidth as a percentage of the fundamental emission (occupied)
bandwidth) introduces a bias toward narrowband technologies. Therefore,
the Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
adopt a standard reference resolution bandwidth (e.g., 10 kHz) that
would be applicable to all cases irrespective of the signal bandwidth,
and thus not create any unnecessary limit discrepancies. The Commission
seeks comment generally on revising our Cellular OOBE limits, given the
changing 800 MHz spectrum environment, technological developments, and
compliance measurement techniques.
I. Other Measures
1. Modification of Section 22.911
64. Section 22.911 (47 CFR 22.911) sets forth the formula for
calculating SAB and CGSA contours. The formula, which uses height above
average terrain (H) and power (P) values of the proposed new or
modified Cellular base station along eight cardinal radials, is
designed to establish a uniform license boundary determination method.
Under the new rules the Commission adopted in the R&O in this
proceeding, Cellular licensees are still permitted to expand their
CGSAs and have added flexibility to extend their SABs beyond their CGSA
boundaries. The Commission indicated that, for purposes of measuring
the service area within an SAB extension or CGSA expansion, the Sec.
22.911 formula is a proven method. Now, in the context of considering
the adoption of a PSD model for the Cellular band, the Commission seeks
comment on how to ensure a technology neutral application of the SAB
formula, given that P could vary widely depending on the technology
chosen by the licensee.
65. Changing the value could have a significant impact on the CGSA-
expansion process because, if the Commission adopts a PSD model as
proposed above, P could be increased from a value of 500 W to several
thousand W depending on the occupied bandwidth and the specific PSD
value. The GSM Licensees argue that the rules should be modified to
express what they reference as the 32 dB[micro]V/m field strength limit
and the ERP term of the related SAB distance formulas in Sec. 22.911
``in terms of electric field spectral density and ERP spectral density
(PSD) respectively for broadband carriers.'' If Sec. 22.913 is revised
to include a PSD model without some form of normalization, the
Commission is concerned that this could unfairly penalize licensees
using narrowband technologies and thus would not serve the public
interest. Accordingly, while the Commission concluded in the R&O that
the Sec. 22.911 formula should continue to be used for the purpose of
calculating SAB contours and CGSAs, the Commission tentatively
concludes that a normalization method needs to be developed to
accommodate higher ERP values created by wideband emissions.
66. The Commission proposes, in the event that it ultimately adopts
a PSD model for the Cellular band in this proceeding, to establish some
method to allow P in the formula to vary so as to equalize the effects
of PSD when applying for Unserved Area to expand a CGSA, or when
extending an SAB into Unserved Area and providing service on a
secondary basis only, in compliance with the new rules adopted in the
R&O in this proceeding. One option could be to require licensees using
a PSD model for their Cellular operations to use only the power (P
value) contained in 1 MHz or 2 MHz of their occupied bandwidth for the
purpose of determining the contour of the new or modified cell site. If
the Commission adopts higher PSD limits, the power in 1 MHz of the
emission bandwidth could be the appropriate value for P, but if the
Commission adopts lower PSD limits, then 2 MHz may be more appropriate.
The Commission could allow licensees using the legacy ERP limits to
apply in the formula an aggregate ERP value for P that the station
would use over a 1 MHz or 2 MHz reference bandwidth. Alternatively,
should a separate formula be added to Sec. 22.911 for use by those
licensees that opt to use the PSD model in measuring their maximum ERP?
If so, how should this formula be different from the current one?
67. The Commission seeks comment on the issues raised in the
preceding paragraphs and invites suggestions as to any potential
methods of addressing the contour calculation under Sec. 22.911 so
that applicants seeking to establish new Cellular systems or expand
existing systems into Unserved Area are treated on par with one another
regardless of the technology they choose. All suggestions and comments
should include a thorough technical analysis and a demonstration of how
the various technologies would be impacted. Given the specific
provisions in Sec. 22.911(a)(1) and (2), the Commission also seeks
comment on whether any revisions to those provisions are warranted in
the context of the proposal to permit use of a PSD model for Cellular
licensees.
2. Domestic Coordination Requirements
68. Under Sec. 22.907 of the Commission's rules, Cellular
licensees are required to coordinate channel usage at each transmitter
location within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations
that are authorized to other licensees or proposed (except those with
mutually exclusive applications). In its companion R&O in this
proceeding, the Commission did not change Sec. 22.907, but the
Commission now seeks comment in this FNPRM on whether, in the event the
Commission adopts a revised Sec. 22.913 to permit the use of a PSD
model, the current coordination requirements under Sec. 22.907 are
[[Page 76279]]
sufficient, or whether they need to be enhanced. Is the coordination
distance of 75 miles still adequate? Is there a need for channel
coordination if licensees convert to wideband channels of 10 MHz? To
the extent commenters argue that the current rule needs to be enhanced
or otherwise revised, they should propose specific wording for the new/
revised provisions of Sec. 22.907 and explain in detail why the public
interest would be served by such changes.
3. International Coordination Requirements
69. Cellular licensees are currently subject to three separate part
22 rules governing coordination between the United States government
and the governments of Canada and Mexico. The generic rule applicable
to all Public Mobile Services licensees, Sec. 22.169, states that
channel assignments are ``subject to the applicable provisions and
requirements of treaties and other international agreements between the
United States government and the governments of Canada and Mexico.''
The other two rules--Sec. Sec. 22.955 and 22.957--are in subpart H
(Cellular Service-specific), and each sets forth the text of a
condition that is to be placed on authorizations for all Cellular
systems, requiring them to coordinate any transmitter installations
within 72 kilometers (45 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian or U.S.-Mexican
border, as applicable.
70. The Commission proposes to streamline the rules by eliminating
Sec. Sec. 22.955 and 22.957, preserving Sec. 22.169 with a minor
revision to add a reference to ``operation of systems.'' This would
advance our regulatory reform agenda by deleting unnecessary or
redundant provisions. The Commission tentatively concludes that having
the proposed single, slightly revised rule for all part 22 licensees is
sufficient and consistent with the international coordination
requirements set forth in other rule parts, such as in part 27
governing various flexible wireless services, for example, and seeks
comment on this proposal.
4. Proposed Correction of Section 22.355 (Frequency tolerance)
71. The Commission proposes to correct a clerical error in the
third column heading of the table in Sec. 22.355 of our rules. The
error was introduced inadvertently in the Federal Register when Sec.
22.355 was revised in 1996. The proposed correction is included in
Appendix B (Proposed Rules) of this FNPRM.
V. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
72. This FNPRM seeks comment on potential new and revised
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts new or
revised information collection requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
73. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in
the FNPRM. The analysis is found in Appendix D. The Commission requests
written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in
accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the
FNPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
C. Ex Parte Presentations
74. Permit-But-Disclose. The Commission will continue to treat this
proceeding as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (``ECFS'') available for that proceeding, and must be
filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
D. Filing Requirements
75. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments concerning the FNPRM on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. All filings related to this FNPRM should
refer to WT Docket No. 12-40. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[[Page 76280]]
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
76. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
77. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS.\1\
These documents will also be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which
is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the
public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Documents will generally be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. Additional Information. For further information, contact Nina
Shafran of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division,
at (202) 418-2781, or by email: [email protected].
VI. Ordering Clauses
79. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
4(j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 301,
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332, that this report and order and this
further notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 are
adopted.
80. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the further
notice of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission
shall send a copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking to
Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.
82. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 0
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
47 CFR Part 1
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 22
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 0, 1, and 22
as follows:
PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155,
225, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 0.401 is amended by revising the note to paragraph (b)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 0.401 Location of Commission offices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
Note to paragraph (b)(1): Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
applications that require frequency coordination by certified
coordinators must be submitted to the appropriate certified frequency
coordinator before filing with the Commission. After coordination, the
applications are filed with the Commission as set forth herein. (See
Sec. Sec. 22.985, 90.127 and 90.175 of this chapter.)
* * * * *
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
3. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, 1451 and 1452.
0
4. Section 1.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1204 Exempt ex parte presentations and proceedings.
(a) * * *
(7) The presentation is between Commission staff and an advisory
coordinating committee member with respect to the coordination of
frequency assignments to stations in the private land mobile services,
fixed services, or Cellular Radiotelephone Service as authorized by 47
U.S.C. 332;
* * * * *
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
0
5. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
0
6. Section 22.99 is amended by revising the definition of ``Cellular
system'' and adding definitions for ``Frequency coordinator'' and
``Power spectral density'', in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 22.99 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cellular system. An automated high-capacity system of one or more
base stations designed to provide radio telecommunication services to
mobile stations over a wide area in a spectrally efficient manner.
Cellular systems employ techniques such as low transmitting power and
automatic hand-off between base stations of communications in progress
to enable channels to be reused at relatively short distances.
* * * * *
Frequency coordinator. In the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, a
person or organization certified by the FCC to review applications
submitted by applicants, including any exhibits and electronic maps, to
ensure that the applications are in compliance with all rules
applicable to the Cellular Service. See Sec. 22.985.
* * * * *
Power spectral density (PSD). The power of an emission in a
frequency domain, such as ERP or EIRP, stated per unit bandwidth, e.g.,
watts/MHz.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 22.169 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.169 International coordination.
Operation of systems and channel assignments under this part are
subject
[[Page 76281]]
to the applicable provisions and requirements of treaties and other
international agreements between the United States government and the
governments of Canada and Mexico.
0
8. Section 22.317 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.317 Discontinuance of station operation.
If the operation of a Public Mobile Services station is permanently
discontinued, the licensee shall send authorization for cancellation by
electronic filing via the ULS on FCC Form 601. For purposes of this
section, any station that has not provided service to subscribers for
90 continuous days is considered to have been permanently discontinued,
unless the applicant notified the FCC otherwise prior to the end of the
90 day period and provided a date on which operation will resume, which
date must not be in excess of 30 additional days. This section does not
apply to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service (see Sec. 22.947).
0
9. Section 22.355 is amended by revising Table C-1 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.355 Frequency tolerance.
* * * * *
Table C-1--Frequency Tolerance for Transmitters in the Public Mobile Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base, fixed Mobile > 3 Mobile <= 3
Frequency range (MHz) (ppm) watts (ppm) watts (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 to 50........................................................ 20.0 20.0 50.0
50 to 450....................................................... 5.0 5.0 50.0
450 to 512...................................................... 2.5 5.0 5.0
821 to 896...................................................... 1.5 2.5 2.5
928 to 929...................................................... 5.0 n/a n/a
929 to 960...................................................... 1.5 n/a n/a
2110 to 2220.................................................... 10.0 n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10. Section 22.913 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.913 Effective radiated power limits.
Subject to Sec. 22.169, the effective radiated power (ERP) of
transmitters in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service must not exceed the
limits in this section.
(a) Maximum ERP. The effective radiated power (ERP) in the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service must not exceed the following limits:
(1) The ERP of base transmitters and Cellular repeaters must not
exceed 500 watts per authorized bandwidth or XXX watts/MHz.
(2) For Cellular systems operating in areas more than 72 kilometers
(45 miles) from international borders that are located in counties with
population densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based
upon the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau
of the Census, or that extend coverage into Unserved Area (see Sec.
22.949), the ERP of base transmitters and Cellular repeaters must not
exceed 1000 watts per authorized bandwidth or XXX watts/MHz.
(3) The ERP of mobile transmitters and auxiliary test transmitters
must not exceed 7 watts.
(b) Power measurement. The ERP limits set forth in paragraph (a) of
this section must be measured in terms of average power over a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Height-power limit. The ERP of base transmitters must not
exceed the amount that would result in an average distance to the
service area boundary of 79.1 kilometers (49 miles) for Cellular
systems authorized to serve the Gulf of Mexico Service Area and 40.2
kilometers (25 miles) for all other Cellular systems. The average
distance to the service area boundary is calculated by taking the
arithmetic mean of the distances determined using the procedures
specified in Sec. 22.911 for the eight cardinal radial directions.
(e) Coordination exemption. Licensees need not comply with the
height-power limit in paragraph (d) of this section if the proposed
operation is coordinated with the licensees of all affected Cellular
systems on the same channel block within 121 kilometers (75 miles) and
concurrence is obtained.
0
11. Add Sec. 22.947 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.947 Discontinuance of service.
(a) Termination of authorization. (1) Except with respect to
CMA672-A (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section), a licensee's Cellular
Geographic Service Area authorization will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, if the licensee permanently
discontinues service after expiration of the construction period
specified in Sec. 22.946.
(2) CMA672-A (Chambers, TX). The licensee's authorization for
CMA672-A will automatically terminate, without specific Commission
action, if the licensee permanently discontinues service after meeting
its interim construction requirement as specified in Sec.
22.961(b)(1).
(b) Permanent discontinuance. Permanent discontinuance of service
is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not
operate or, in the case of a commercial mobile radio service provider,
does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not
affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.
(c) Filing requirements. A licensee that permanently discontinues
service as defined in this section must notify the Commission of the
discontinuance within 10 days by filing, via the ULS, FCC Form 601
requesting license cancellation. An authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is
permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a licensee
fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.
Sec. Sec. 22.955 and 22.957 [Removed and Reserved]
0
12. Remove and Reserve Sec. Sec. 22.955 and 22.957.
0
13. Add Sec. 22.985 to subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 22.985 Frequency coordination.
(a) A frequency coordinator in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service
shall perform the following functions:
(1) Review applications (including all exhibits and attachments)
listed in paragraph (c) of this section for compliance with all rules
applicable to the Cellular Service.
(2) If, in the coordinator's assessment, an application is not in
compliance with applicable rules, the coordinator shall notify the
applicant about the noncompliance. The applicant may then correct the
application and resubmit the
[[Page 76282]]
application to the coordinator for review.
(3) If, in the coordinator's assessment, an application is in
compliance with all applicable rules, the coordinator shall submit the
application to the Commission for processing. The coordinator shall
also submit along with the application a statement that indicates the
application is compliant with all applicable rules and recommends that
the FCC grant the application.
(b) The functions and recommendations of a frequency coordinator
under this section are advisory in nature for the applicant and the
Commission, and its recommendations are not binding upon either the
applicant or the Commission. If there is a disagreement between an
applicant and a coordinator regarding the coordinator's recommendation,
the coordinator and applicant are jointly responsible for taking action
to resolve the disagreement, up to and including notifying the
Commission that the disagreement cannot be resolved. In the event of
such an irresolvable dispute, the applicant may direct the reviewing
coordinator to submit the application to the Commission without the
coordinator's recommendation. Such an application should indicate that
the applicant sought frequency coordination and be accompanied by a
statement from the coordinator explaining its reasons for not
recommending the proposed operations. The affected applicant shall bear
the burden of proceeding and the burden of proof in requesting that the
Commission overturn a coordinator's recommendation.
(c) An applicant that files any of the following types of
applications must first submit them to a certified frequency
coordinator in the Cellular Service for review:
(1) A major modification application claiming at least 130 square
kilometers (50 contiguous square miles) of Unserved Area as Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA);
(2) An application seeking authorization for a new Cellular system;
and
(3) Any other application when submitted together with an
application type that is listed in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(d) Within one business day of making a recommendation, a frequency
coordinator must notify and provide the information listed in paragraph
(e) of this section to all other coordinators who are certified to
review Cellular applications. A coordinator that does not make any
recommendations regarding Cellular applications on a given day must
notify all other certified coordinators for the Cellular Service of
such fact. A notification under this paragraph (d) of this section must
be made to all the other certified coordinators at approximately the
same time and can be made using any method that ensures compliance with
this same-business-day requirement.
(e) At a minimum, the following information must be included in
each notification that is required under paragraph (d) of this section:
(1) Name of the applicant;
(2) The type of application under paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) CMA designator(s) pertaining to where the applicant is
expanding its CGSA or starting a new system;
(4) For an application type under paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
the license (call sign) at issue, and the CMA description and channel
block;
(5) New or modified transmitter location(s) along with coordinates
and antenna height;
(6) Effective radiated power (ERP), antenna center of radiation
height above average terrain (HAAT), height above sea level (HASL) or
height above mean sea level (HAMSL) and distance to the SAB and to the
CGSA for the eight radials of each new/modified location; and
(7) Date and time of the recommendation.
(f) Upon request, each frequency coordinator for the Cellular
Service must provide any additional information requested by another
certified coordinator regarding a Cellular application already reviewed
by the coordinator but still pending before the Commission.
(g) It is the responsibility of each frequency coordinator to
ensure that its recommendations do not conflict with the
recommendations of any other certified coordinator for the Cellular
Service. Should a conflict arise, the affected coordinators are jointly
responsible for taking action to resolve the conflict, up to and
including notifying the Commission that an application may have to be
returned.
[FR Doc. 2014-29848 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P