Amendment of Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, 61049-61062 [05-20927]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61049-61062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20927]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

[WT Docket No. 03-264; FCC 05-144]


Amendment of Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(``Commission'') streamlines and harmonizes licensing provisions in the 
wireless radio services (WRS) that were identified in part during the 
Commission's 2000 and 2002 biennial regulatory reviews. The Commission 
concludes that streamlining and harmonizing these rules will clarify 
spectrum rights and obligations for affected licensees and support 
recent efforts to maximize the public benefits derived from the use of 
the radio spectrum. Among other matters, the Commission retains the 
references to ERP and EIRP in its rules, eliminates the transmitter-
specific posting requirement of part 22 licensees, conforms the 
Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent mask that places no 
limitation on the spectral power density profile within the maximum 
authorized bandwidth, eliminates a rule which required the filing of 
certain outdated supplemental information, and eliminates certain 
transmitter output power limits rules. Further, in this document, the 
Commission eliminates many filing and data reporting requirements, some 
output power limits, and seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
increase other power limits.

DATES: Effective December 19, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr. and/or B.C. 
``Jay'' Jackson, Jr. of the Mobility Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418-0620 or via e-mail at 
Wilbert.Nixon@fcc.gov and/or Jay.Jackson@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order portion (Report and Order) of the Commission's Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-144, in WT 
Docket Nos. 03-264, adopted July 22, 2005, and released August 9, 2005. 
The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion (FNPRM) of the 
document is summarized elsewhere in this publication. The full text of 
the document is available for public inspection and copying during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 
12th St., SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best 
Copy & Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, 
DC, 20554, telephone 800-378-3160, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-
mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
https://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with 
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 
418-7365 or at Brian.Millin@fcc.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and 
agency comments are due December 19, 2005. In addition, the Commission 
notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought 
specific comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.''

Synopsis of the Report and Order

I. Introduction

    1. On January 7, 2004, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, (NPRM) published at 69 FR 8132, February 23, 2004, which 
commenced a proceeding to streamline and harmonize licensing provisions 
in the wireless radio services (WRS) that were identified in part 
during the Commission's 2000 and 2002 biennial regulatory reviews 
pursuant to section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Communications Act'' or ``Act'') (47 U.S.C. 161). The Commission 
proposed various amendments to parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 of the rules 
to modify or eliminate provisions that treat licensees differently and/
or have become outdated as a result of technological change, 
supervening changes to related Commission rules, and/or increased 
competition within WRS. We believe streamlining and harmonizing these 
rules will clarify spectrum rights and obligations and optimize 
flexibility for WRS licensees, fulfill our mandate under Section 11 of 
the Communications Act, and support efforts to maximize the public 
benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum. Accordingly, in 
this Report and Order, we:
     Modify our rules to classify a deletion of a frequency 
and/or transmitter site from a multi-site authorization under part 90 
as a minor modification.

[[Page 61050]]

     Retain the references to ERP and EIRP in our rules.
     Eliminate the transmitter-specific posting requirement of 
Part 22 licensees.
     Eliminate part 24 transmitter output power limits.
     Retain the frequency coordination requirement for 
incumbent licensees operating on 800 MHz General Category frequencies 
and for site-based 800 MHz General Category applications filed after 
800 MHz rebanding.
     Conform the Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent 
mask that places no limitation on the spectral power density profile 
within the maximum authorized bandwidth.
     Eliminate Sec.  90.607(a) of our rules requiring the 
filing of certain outdated supplemental information.
     Eliminate the loading requirement and references to the 
``waiting list'' in Sec.  90.631(d) of our rules, and eliminate Sec.  
90.631(i) which is no longer necessary because the 900 MHz specialized 
mobile radio (SMR) renewal period it references has long passed.
     Modify Sec.  90.635 of our rules to remove the distinction 
between urban and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and 
antenna heights limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems. 
Eliminate the power limitations on systems with operational radii of 
less than 32 kilometers.
     Eliminate Sec.  90.653 of our rules which specifies no 
limitation on the number of system authorizations to operate within a 
given geographic area as redundant.
     Eliminate Sec.  90.658 of our rules which provides that 
site-based licensees of trunked SMR systems must provide loading data 
in order to either acquire additional channels or renew their 
authorizations.
     Modify Sec.  90.693 of our rules to eliminate the 
necessity of incumbent 800 MHz SMR licensees filing notifications of 
minor modifications in certain circumstances.
     Eliminate Sec.  90.737 of our rules which requires the 
filing of supplemental progress reports for 220 MHz Phase I licensees.

II. Background

    2. In the 2000 Biennial Review Report (16 FCC Rcd 1207 (2001)) and 
2002 Biennial Review Report (18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003)), the Commission 
supported proposals to streamline, harmonize, and update a number of 
regulations after reviewing various WRS rule parts pursuant to section 
11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act requires the Commission to review 
biennially its regulations that are applicable to providers of 
telecommunications service in order to determine whether any rule is 
``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of 
meaningful economic competition.'' Following such reviews, the 
Commission is required to modify or repeal any such regulations that 
are no longer in the public interest. Since the release of the biennial 
review reports, the Commission has considered modifying or repealing 
certain regulations by issuing notices of proposed rulemakings as 
appropriate. The NPRM addressed additional proposals, identified in the 
2000 and/or 2002 biennial review reports, to streamline and harmonize 
WRS rules that may no longer be necessary in the public interest 
pursuant to section 11 of the Act.
    3. To a great extent, technological changes and/or successive 
changes to various Commission licensing rules have made it appropriate 
to review whether many of these rules are obsolete and no longer in the 
public interest. Accordingly, the NPRM sought comment on streamlining 
and harmonizing these rules if they no longer serve the public interest 
in their current form notwithstanding any findings regarding the level 
of competition among existing services. In its 2002 Biennial Review 
Report, the Commission clarified the scope and standard of review for 
future proceedings conducted pursuant to section 11. In so doing, the 
Commission acknowledged that it has broad discretion to review the 
continued need for any rule even in the absence of a congressional 
mandate such as section 11. Accordingly, the NPRM sought comment 
pursuant to the Commission's broad authority to consider any proposed 
modifications to, or elimination of, these existing rules under the 
Commission's general public interest standard. The Commission also 
provided notice of, and invited the public to review, various 
administrative corrections that it intended to make at the conclusion 
of this proceeding to update and/or clarify certain WRS rules. Although 
it was not necessary pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act to 
seek comment on all of the proposed rule changes in the NPRM, the 
Commission did so to facilitate administrative efficiency. Thirteen 
parties filed comments. Six parties filed reply comments.

III. Discussion

A. Classification of Part 90 Frequency and/or Transmitter Site 
Deletions as Minor Modifications Under Part 1

    4. Background. Section 1.929(c)(4) of the Commission's rules 
requires that certain requests for modification to a site-specific part 
90 authorization, including changes to the frequencies or locations of 
base stations, are considered major modifications to the license which 
require prior Commission approval. Pursuant to Sec.  90.135(b) of the 
rules, a site-specific Part 90 licensee that makes a modification 
request listed in Sec.  1.929(c)(4) must submit its request to the 
applicable frequency coordinator, unless the request falls within one 
of the specific exemptions listed in Sec.  90.175 of the rules.
    5. The Commission tentatively concluded that a request to delete a 
frequency or a site from a multi-site authorization under part 90 
should be considered a minor modification that requires neither 
frequency coordination nor the Commission's prior approval and 
consequently proposed to amend its rules such that these actions would 
be treated as minor modifications under part 1 of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission invited comment on its tentative conclusion and 
also sought comment on whether there remains any need for licensees to 
notify the applicable frequency coordinator of any given deletion, if 
the rules are modified as proposed.
    6. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion which was 
unanimously supported by the commenting parties. We conclude that 
requiring frequency coordination for a part 90 frequency or site 
deletion request is unnecessary given that the Universal Licensing 
System (ULS) now provides frequency coordinators with immediate access 
to frequency and site information. We agree with AAA's assessment that 
it would be inconsistent to require coordination for a deletion of a 
site or a frequency when it is not required for a request to cancel an 
entire authorization. We also conclude that no further direct 
notification of frequency coordinators by licensees is necessary. We 
agree with NAM/MRFAC that licensees need provide no special 
notification to coordinators of a frequency/site deletion because 
licensees are generally required to file notifications of minor 
modifications with the Commission within 30 days of the change pursuant 
to Sec. Sec.  1.929 and 1.947, and that coordinators routinely obtain 
such information via regular downloads from the ULS. We also clarify 
that a deleted frequency and/or transmitter location becomes available 
for the filing of applications, where applicable, when the ULS database 
is updated to reflect the grant of the modification application seeking 
deletion of a frequency and/or transmitter location.

[[Page 61051]]

B. Effective Radiated Power/Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power

    7. Background. In its comments in the 2000 biennial review 
proceeding, the Wireless Communications Division of the 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) argued that designating 
FCC power limits in terms of ERP in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service 
(cellular) rules and EIRP in the broadband Personal Communications 
Service (PCS) rules is ``confusing to [its members'] customers since it 
appears that a dual mode phone [transmits] at different power levels at 
different frequencies.'' Although it recommended in the 2000 Biennial 
Review Report that a rulemaking proposal be initiated to consider using 
EIRP exclusively in Commission rules, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that the costs of implementation and potential for greater 
confusion that would likely be associated with making a wholesale 
conversion from ERP limits to EIRP limits outweigh the potential 
benefits to those licensees who do not possess the scientific or 
engineering expertise to distinguish between the two standards and 
sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
    8. Discussion. We decide to leave unchanged the references to ERP 
and EIRP in our rules and adopt our tentative conclusion. We agree with 
AAA and Nextel that the costs associated with implementing the TIA 
request, together with the potential for greater uncertainty, outweigh 
its possible benefits. Because an EIRP limit is always a larger number 
than the equivalent ERP limit, we believe that restating all ERP limits 
as EIRP limits could likely cause some entities (e.g., licensees, 
frequency coordinators, etc.) to mistakenly think that the Commission 
has increased the permitted power.

C. Part 22 Transmitter Identification

    9. Background. Section 22.303 of the Commission's rules provides, 
inter alia, that ``[t]he station call sign must be clearly and legibly 
marked on or near every transmitting facility, other than mobile 
transmitters, of the station.'' In the 2002 biennial review proceeding, 
CTIA and the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) recommended that the 
Commission eliminate this requirement in the interest of commercial 
wireless regulatory parity, since wireless services regulated under 
other parts of the Commission's rules are not subject to a comparable 
obligation to post call sign information on each transmitter. The 
Commission agreed with CTIA and RCA that these rules should be 
harmonized and tentatively concluded to delete the last sentence of 
Sec.  22.303, thereby eliminating the transmitter-specific posting 
requirement for cellular and other part 22 licensees. The Commission 
requested comment on this proposal, including whether the absence of 
call sign information on transmitting facilities associated with other 
WRS that are not subject to part 22 has proved problematic to the 
public or other carriers in any way.
    10. Discussion. We eliminate the transmitter-specific posting 
requirement of part 22 licensees and thereby adopt our tentative 
proposal. All commenting parties, including AMTA, CTIA and Cingular, 
support the proposal. AMTA asserts that the requirement for posting a 
call sign at each transmitter location is a vestige of a time when 
systems typically were licensed on a site-specific and frequency-
specific basis wherein each location had a unique call sign and claims 
that now, a significant number of wireless systems, including part 22 
systems, are licensed on a geographic basis with a single call sign 
covering the entire authorization. Cingular states that ``[n]ot having 
posted call sign information has not proved problematic for PCS and 
other services governed by other parts of the rules. The proposed rule 
change would harmonize the cellular and PCS rules and eliminate an 
unnecessary obligation on licensees.'' We agree with the commenters' 
analysis.

D. Part 24 Power and Antenna Height Limits

    11. Background. Section 24.232 of the Commission's rules contains, 
inter alia, limits on broadband PCS base station equivalent 
isotropically radiated power and broadband PCS base station transmitter 
output power. For the last ten years, the rule limited ``base station 
power'' to 1640 watts peak EIRP for antenna heights up to 300 meters 
height above average terrain (HAAT), and also limited transmitter 
output power to 100 watts. When the Commission increased the PCS EIRP 
limit from 100 watts to 1640 watts in 1994, it concurrently adopted the 
100 watt peak transmitter power output limit to ensure that broadband 
PCS licensees utilizing the increased EIRP would do so by employing 
high-gain, directional antennas, rather than high power transmitters 
with low-gain, non-directional antennas. Such use of directional 
antennas, the Commission stated, would help reduce the likelihood of a 
system imbalance in which PCS licensees would deploy base stations that 
could transmit a strong signal over distances well beyond a mobile 
unit's capability to respond. Also, the Commission stated that it would 
not authorize a higher output power limit at that time because 
``interference could result to fixed microwave operations and/or to 
other PCS systems in adjacent service areas.'' As discussed in more 
detail below, the Commission recently adopted the Rural Report and 
Order, published at 69 FR 75144, December 15, 2004, and amended Sec.  
24.232(b), the power rule for broadband PCS, to allow twice as much 
radiated power (3280 watts EIRP) for use in rural areas, and also 
increased the base station transmitter output power limit from 100 
watts to 200 watts in rural areas. The Commission indicated that 
increasing power limits in rural areas can benefit consumers in rural 
areas by reducing the costs of infrastructure and otherwise making the 
provision of spectrum-based services to rural areas more economic.
    12. Powerwave, a manufacturer of Multi-Carrier Power Amplifiers 
(MCPAs), filed comments in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, prior 
to the Commission's release of the Rural Report and Order, and asserted 
that the output power limitations contained in rule Sec.  24.232 are 
overly restrictive. According to Powerwave, as subscriber growth in PCS 
has increased dramatically since broadband PCS systems were first 
authorized, the number of carriers (i.e., the individual electrical 
signals that carry information) used to provide the additional voice 
channels in a typical cell site has also increased. Powerwave asserted 
that the need for higher power levels has also increased because, due 
to increased local resistance to base station construction, more PCS 
stations must be collocated with cellular stations and, therefore, are 
spaced on a cellular design. As a result, PCS licensees, according to 
Powerwave, are increasingly using MCPAs in their systems. Powerwave 
contended that the output power limit in Sec.  24.232(a) has the 
unintended effect of penalizing the use of an MCPA transmitter in the 
place of multiple individual transmitters because the output power rule 
limits power on a per transmitter basis rather than on a per carrier 
basis. As a result, Powerwave proposed that the Commission eliminate 
the output power restriction entirely, or at the very least, amend 
Sec.  24.232 to provide that the output power of each carrier must not 
exceed 100 watts, instead of each transmitter.
    13. In the 2002 Biennial Review Staff Report, Commission staff 
generally agreed with Powerwave and concluded that Sec.  24.232(a) 
should be modified in order to regulate PCS base station

[[Page 61052]]

transmissions in a more technologically-neutral manner. Given the case 
Powerwave presented and subsequent recommendations of staff, the 
Commission sought comment on whether to relax the output power 
limitations in Sec.  24.232(a) by either amending the rule to provide 
that the output power limit of 100 watts applies on a ``per carrier'' 
basis in the case of MCPAs, or to simply eliminate the transmitter 
output power restriction to allow increased flexibility for PCS 
licensees in the configuration of their systems.
    14. In addition, the Commission asked commenters to address whether 
or not a radiated power rule can be devised that is technology-neutral, 
given that the current ``per transmitter'' rule allows licensees 
utilizing relatively narrower bandwidth technologies (e.g., GSM) to 
operate with higher aggregate power across their authorized spectrum 
than licensees utilizing relative broader bandwidth technologies such 
as CDMA. The Commission suggested that parties consider other 
alternatives, including whether or not a power spectral density limit 
(i.e., power per unit bandwidth) would be more appropriate and thus 
preferable to a ``per-carrier'' wording. In response to this latter 
question, Motorola and Qualcomm argue that the Commission's current 
rule favors narrowband technologies over wider bandwidth technologies 
because it is on a ``per transmitter'' basis, and licensees using 
narrow bandwidth technologies could operate multiple transmitters 
resulting in a higher aggregate power per unit bandwidth. According to 
Motorola and Qualcomm, this places wider bandwidth systems at a 
competitive disadvantage because they need to deploy additional 
infrastructure to maintain the same coverage area as narrower bandwidth 
technologies.
    15. Consequently, as a compromise between the narrowband and 
wideband technologies, Motorola urges the Commission to modify Sec.  
24.232(a) to apply the EIRP limits on a ``per MHz'' basis for 
technologies with emission bandwidths exceeding 1 MHz, and on a ``per 
carrier'' basis for technologies with emission bandwidths less than 1 
MHz. Motorola argues that this adjustment would ensure that wideband 
systems could be deployed on a competitive basis by being able to 
radiate similar power per unit bandwidth, regardless of the technology 
utilized. Motorola contends that this proposal, as opposed to applying 
a universal power spectral density limit (as Qualcomm suggests) is more 
fair to narrowband operations, because applying a power spectral 
density universally would in effect impose limits in excess of those 
currently applicable and could negatively impact current systems and 
technologies.
    16. Finally, CTIA, in ex parte submissions, proposes that EIRP 
limits for PCS licensees be limited to the larger of either: (1) The 
current rules; or (2) a power spectral density constraint of 3280 
watts/MHz average EIRP for non-rural areas and 6560 watts average EIRP/
MHz for rural areas. In addition, CTIA proposes that the Commission 
allow operators to measure power limits on an ``average'' as well as 
``peak'' basis, as CTIA claims the term ``peak'' is subject to 
interpretation and may lead to confusion. CTIA argues that replacing 
the term ``peak'' with the term ``average'' or by simply removing 
``peak'' (and thereby conform the form of the EIRP/ERP limits in parts 
22 and 24) to permit measurements on either a peak or average basis, 
without restriction, would remove the uncertainty associated with use 
of the term peak in the current rules.
    17. Discussion. After consideration of the record and the general 
experience with the PCS and other new wireless services, we conclude 
that the current base station transmitter output power limits should be 
relaxed to afford more flexibility and achieve harmonization among 
wireless radio services and competing technologies. The record 
demonstrates that the transmitter output power limit has had an 
undesirable effect in hindering the use of MCPAs. MCPAs may be a cost 
effective way to construct base stations, and we wish to allow 
licensees flexibility in their use. In view of these conclusions and 
our policy to eliminate unnecessary, counterproductive or ineffective 
rules, we are amending Sec. Sec.  24.232(a)-(b) to eliminate the 100-
watt and 200-watt base station transmitter output power limits for 
urban and rural systems, respectively (We note that Motorola requested 
that any changes made to Sec.  24.232 of our rules be uniformly applied 
to our part 27 rules involving power for AWS systems, specifically 
Sec.  27.50(d)(1). Motorola Comments at 2-5. While we are amending 
Sec. Sec.  24.232(a) and (b) to eliminate the output power restriction 
for part 24 broadband PCS systems, the NPRM did not specifically 
address the proposed elimination of the output power restriction for 
AWS systems under part 27. Accordingly, we believe that this issue 
would be better addressed in our review of petitions for 
reconsideration of the AWS Report and Order, published at 69 FR 5711, 
February 6, 2004, where the identical form of relief was sought for AWS 
systems. See In the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 
Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Report 
and Order. As discussed, we believe that the remaining rule that limits 
maximum EIRP is sufficient to serve our legitimate regulatory purposes 
for the time being. We note that, in view of our elimination of the 
broadband PCS base station transmitter output power limit rule, there 
is no need to address the ``per transmitter'' vs. ``per carrier'' 
aspect with regard to base station transmitter output power.
    18. We conclude that the current base station transmitter output 
power limits have little or no role either in limiting interference or 
in ensuring that wireless systems are not designed with an excessive 
imbalance between the forward and reverse links. In light of our action 
eliminating the output power limit, we need not address Qualcomm's 
contention that establishing a per carrier limit would invariably cause 
harmful interference as GSM and TDMA networks could operate base 
stations at much greater power than CDMA and W-CDMA networks. We 
believe that interference problems in PCS are largely avoided by 
voluntary coordination between the licensees of adjacent systems of 
facilities located in the area near the geographic boundary between 
those systems, and by licensee compliance with existing EIRP limits. We 
further believe that the demand for wireless spectrum and resulting 
cost of obtaining access to that spectrum provide a strong incentive 
for licensees to reuse frequencies efficiently within PCS systems. The 
necessity for efficient re-use ensures that licensees carefully design 
systems such that the base station transmit range does not exceed the 
ability of mobile units to communicate back. Excess base transmit range 
would have a negative impact on frequency re-use and intra-system 
interference levels. Thus, we believe systems will continue to be 
properly designed, even without our current output power rule. We also 
believe that licensees are in the best position to decide what 
combination of equipment will result in the most efficient provision of 
service. For example, licensees may wish to utilize higher base station 
output power with lower gain antennas while operating within our EIRP 
limits, and we believe it is in the public interest to afford licensees 
the flexibility to make these types of decisions regarding system 
design.
    19. With respect to the question of spectral power density limits, 
we decide to maintain for the time being the radiated power limits as 
recently increased in the Rural Report and

[[Page 61053]]

Order. Given these recent radiated power increases, we conclude that 
the record developed in response to the NPRM does not adequately 
support further EIRP increases. We find that the Commission and 
industry should be afforded additional time to gain experience with, 
and assess the effect of, the increased rural radiated power limits and 
the elimination of part 24 transmitter output power limits. We also 
note that the NPRM was issued in response to comments received in our 
biennial review process and, with respect to possible EIRP increases, 
was limited in scope to broadband PCS systems regulated under part 24 
of our rules. Accordingly, the commenting parties largely responded to 
the NPRM without knowledge of the Commission's rule changes as 
ultimately adopted in the Rural Report and Order. Moreover, the Rural 
Report and Order addressed rural system EIRP increases across multiple 
radio services, and was not limited to part 24 broadband PCS systems. 
Thus, in keeping with our objective to harmonize our rules across 
similar services, we believe that the issue of increasing EIRP for 
broadband PCS licensees must be examined in the larger context of 
services governed by other rule parts, including cellular licensees 
under part 22, and 700 MHz, WCS and Advanced Wireless Services under 
part 27. We will explore these issues in the FNPRM.
    20. Additionally, we note that a new dimension has been raised 
relative to our examination of our rules to achieve better parity among 
technologies. Specifically, CTIA has suggested a fundamental shift in 
how base station transmitter power limits are determined. Rather than 
simply increasing the permitted peak radiated power, CTIA asks that we 
change from peak to average power while implementing a power spectral 
density limit. While we appreciate that several major carriers and 
equipment manufacturers are in agreement on such an approach, we 
believe such a change raises a number of issues that need closer 
examination and for which we have little record. For example, it is not 
clear what impact changing from a peak power limit to an average power 
limit may have on services operating in other parts of the spectrum, 
particularly those in adjacent frequency bands. Because of the 
significant issues that are raised by the CTIA proposal, and although 
the proposal has promise, we decline to make any changes to the 
Commission's current radiated power rules at this time. However, we 
will consider this below among other issues in the FNPRM.

E. Proposed Modifications to Part 90

1. Frequency Coordination
    21. Background. Section 90.175(j) includes exemptions from the 
general frequency coordination obligation of part 90 license 
applications. Previously, the Commission did not require evidence of 
frequency coordination to accompany applications for 800 MHz Upper 200 
and Lower 80 SMR frequencies. In the 2002 biennial review proceeding, 
CTIA asked the Commission to expand the exceptions to the frequency 
coordination requirements to include the 800 MHz General Category 
frequencies. However, the Commission staff found that ``the possible 
conversion of existing site-by-site licensed general category 
frequencies to a different mode of operation (e.g., from conventional 
to trunked use), and the potential shared use environment of the 
frequencies, makes [wholesale] elimination of the coordination 
requirement a concern,'' and that frequency coordination ``remains 
beneficial in a shared use environment to ensure efficient use and 
prevent interference.'' Consequently, the Commission sought comment on 
whether to eliminate the frequency coordination requirement for 
incumbent licensees operating on 800 MHz General Category frequencies 
on a non-shared basis, where such licensees propose new and/or modified 
facilities that do not expand the applicable interference contour.
    22. Discussion. In light of the Commission's recent decision to 
reconfigure the 800 MHz band, we believe this issue is moot (i.e., 
there is no longer any reason to expand the exceptions to the frequency 
coordination requirements to include the band 806-809.75/851-854.75 
MHz). Specifically, in the 800 MHz Order, published at 69 FR 67823, 
November 22, 2004, the Commission decided to separate incompatible 
technologies by moving enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) 
operations to the upper portion of the 800 MHz band and putting non-
ESMR operations in the lower portion of the band. Under this 800 MHz 
reconfiguration plan, the 806-809 MHz/851-854 MHz segment of the 
General Category spectrum was reallocated exclusively for site-based 
public safety operations. The remaining segment of the General Category 
spectrum, i.e. 806-806.75 MHz/809-809.75 MHz, is still designated as 
General Category spectrum.
    23. Although geographic area licensees operating in this segment 
can remain under certain conditions pursuant to the 800 MHz Order, it 
is likely that ESMR systems in this remaining segment of the General 
Category will relocate to the ESMR portion of the band and the 806-
806.75 MHz/809-809.75 MHz segment will be used predominately for site-
based systems. For example, on the channels in this segment of the 
General Category vacated by Nextel, applications for site-based 
facilities will be accepted, exclusively from public safety entities 
for the first three years, by public safety and CII entities for the 
next two years, and thereafter by any entity eligible for use of 800 
MHz channels. These site-based facilities, will require frequency 
coordination in order to avoid interference. Therefore, we decline to 
adopt the proposal that Sec.  90.175(j) be amended to exempt 
applications in the General Category spectrum from frequency 
coordination.
2. Emission Masks
    24. Background. Section 90.210 of the Commission's rules describes 
several emission masks applicable to part 90 transmitters. In comments 
in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, Motorola notes that, while the 
standards imposed by this rule section generally serve the public 
interest by limiting unwanted emissions outside the authorized 
bandwidth and thus minimizing adjacent channel interference, Emission 
Mask G, set forth in Sec.  90.210(g), limits design flexibility without 
any corresponding value in improved interference control. Motorola 
recommended that the Commission conform the Emission Mask G rule to the 
steps it has taken in recent years in adopting modulation-independent 
masks (emission masks D, E, and F) that place no limitation on the 
spectral power density profile within the maximum authorized bandwidth. 
The Commission sought comment on the potential benefits to the public 
of making this change, and whether this proposed revision would, 
despite Commission intent, potentially increase interference. Also, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that it should revise Sec.  90.210(m) 
of its rules to conform to ITU Regulation S3.10, because it believed 
this revision will provide greater protection against interference. The 
Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
    25. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion to conform the 
Emission Mask G to a modulation-independent mask that places no 
limitation on the spectral power density profile within

[[Page 61054]]

the maximum authorized bandwidth. We also revise Sec.  90.210(m) of our 
rules to conform to ITU Regulation S3.10. All of the commenting 
parties, including CTIA, Motorola and Nextel, support the Commission's 
emission mask proposal. We agree with the commenters' assertion that 
elimination of the rule will afford greater flexibility to 
manufacturers and will conform this emission mask rule with other 
emission mask provisions applicable to part 90 services.
3. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Supplemental Information
    26. Background. Section 90.607 of the Commission's rules describes 
the supplemental information that must be furnished by applicants for 
800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR systems. Under paragraph (a) of this rule, 
applicants proposing to provide service on a commercial basis in these 
bands must supply, among other things, a statement of their ``planned 
mode of operation'' and a statement certifying that only eligible 
persons would be provided service on the licensee's base station 
facility. In comments filed in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, 
PCIA advocated eliminating Sec.  90.607(a). Specifically, PCIA stated 
that the system diagrams that were used when the 800 MHz band was 
originally conceived have not been used by the Commission for years and 
are no longer necessary. Moreover, PCIA asserted that the eligibility 
statement is no longer needed because the eligibility rules for SMR 
end-users have been eliminated. The Commission, therefore, tentatively 
concluded that it should delete Sec.  90.607(a) to eliminate the above-
mentioned reporting requirements.
    27. Discussion. We eliminate Sec.  90.607(a) from our rules as it 
is no longer relevant to our regulatory scheme. The supplemental 
information required under this rule section was previously used in the 
Commission's analysis of site-based operations in the SMR service and 
assisted the Commission in determining to what extent single-site 
facilities were operating as part of a larger network. Further, prior 
Commission rules required that SMR end-users meet certain eligibility 
requirements and the Commission relied upon an applicant's separate 
certification regarding compliance. The Commission has shifted from 
site-based licensing of SMR channels to geographic-area licensing 
through competitive bidding, where SMR systems are routinely part of 
larger, integrated networks consisting of multiple transmitter sites. 
We therefore find it unnecessary to require applicants to provide a 
statement of planned mode of operation. We also agree with PCIA that 
the separate eligibility certification is no longer necessary as the 
eligibility rules for SMR users have been eliminated. We also believe 
meaningful competition among the various wireless services has rendered 
such requirements no longer necessary in the public interest and market 
forces should encourage applicants to operate their facilities in the 
proper manner without Commission involvement.
4. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Trunked Systems Loading, Construction and 
Authorization Requirements
    28. Background. Section 90.631 of the Commission's rules contains 
various requirements for the authorization, construction, and loading 
of 800 MHz and 900 MHz trunked systems. PCIA and CTIA request that the 
Commission modify two of these requirements that they assert are no 
longer necessary. Section 90.631(d) of the Commission's rules allows a 
licensee of an 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR trunked system to request an 
additional five channels than it has constructed without meeting the 
loading requirements if the licensee operates in a ``rural area.'' The 
rule defines a ``rural area'' as either (1) an area which is beyond the 
100-mile radius of the designated center of urbanized areas listed in 
the rule, or (2) an area that has a ``waiting list.'' In comments in 
the 2002 biennial review proceeding, PCIA noted that waiting lists for 
800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR frequencies were eliminated by the Commission 
in 1995 when the Commission switched to competitive bidding and 
geographic area licensing. As a result, PCIA requested that the 
Commission amend Sec.  90.631(d) to delete the ``waiting list'' 
exception to the definition of a rural area. The Commission agreed with 
PCIA and sought comment on a tentative conclusion to delete this 
exception to the definition of a rural area. The Commission also sought 
comment on eliminating other references to waiting lists contained in 
Sec.  90.631(d) of the rules.
    29. Section 90.631(i) provides that an incumbent (i.e., pre-
auction, site-by site authorized) 900 MHz SMR licensee that has not met 
the loading requirements set forth in Sec.  90.631(b) at the end of its 
initial five-year license term will only be granted a renewal period of 
two years, in which time the licensee must satisfy the loading 
requirements. CTIA stated that the requirement is obsolete because the 
``timeframe for site-specific SMR 900 MHz systems to meet the loading 
requirements has since expired.'' The Commission agreed that the period 
of renewing incumbent 900 MHz SMR licenses subject to this requirement 
has ended. Therefore, the Commission tentatively concluded to eliminate 
paragraph (i) of Sec.  90.631 from its rules, as well as references to 
paragraph (i) in Sec.  90.631(b) of the rules.
    30. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusions. We agree with 
all of the commenting parties, including AMTA, CTIA, Nextel, and PCIA, 
that support the Commission's tentative conclusion on this issue urging 
the Commission to eliminate both the loading requirement and references 
to the ``waiting list'' in Sec.  90.631(d) of the rules and to 
eliminate Sec.  90.631(i), which is no longer necessary since the 900 
MHz SMR renewal period it references has long passed. These rules are 
no longer relevant to our regulatory scheme.
5. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Power and Antenna Height
    31. Background. Section 90.635 of our rules sets forth the 
limitations on power and antenna height for 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
systems. In its comments in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, PCIA 
asked the Commission to modify or eliminate the restrictions placed on 
two particular types of 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems--those located in 
``suburban'' areas as defined in the rule and those whose service area 
requirements are less than 32 kilometers.
    32. First, Sec.  90.635(a)-(c) differentiates between ``urban'' and 
``suburban'' conventional (i.e., non-trunked) systems, allowing a 
greater maximum power (1000 watts vs. 500 watts ERP) at a given antenna 
height above average terrain for urban conventional systems than 
suburban conventional systems. The 90.635 chart (Table 2) limits 
maximum radiated power on a sliding scale based upon antenna height 
above average terrain. For example, urban conventional systems and all 
trunked systems are permitted to operate with a radiated power of 65 
Watts ERP with an antenna height above average terrain of 4500 feet and 
above to a maximum of 1000 Watts ERP from an antenna height above 
average terrain of no greater than 1000 feet. In contrast, suburban 
conventional licensees are limited to a maximum power of 15 Watts ERP 
with an antenna height above average terrain of 4500 feet and above to 
a maximum of 500 Watts ERP from an antenna height above average terrain 
of no greater than 500 feet. PCIA argued that such a distinction ``no 
longer serves a useful purpose and should be eliminated.'' PCIA 
justified this conclusion by asserting that suburban

[[Page 61055]]

systems frequently must cover larger service areas than urban systems, 
and therefore, a smaller maximum power limit economically restricts the 
ability of these licensees to serve the suburban areas. Moreover, PCIA 
asserted that the restrictions on suburban sites also prevent these 
licensees from counteracting interference from cellular systems to the 
same extent as urban sites. The Commission sought comment on PCIA's 
proposal to modify Sec.  90.635 to remove the distinction between urban 
and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and antenna height 
limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems, stating that it 
believed there is a significant question as to whether the 
justification for such distinction remains relevant in today's 
marketplace.
    33. Second, PCIA asked the Commission to eliminate the power 
restrictions on 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems with an operational radius 
of less than 32 kilometers in radius. PCIA stated that although it 
``appreciates the Commission's original goal to maximize the number of 
radio systems that could be accommodated on a single frequency, by 
limiting the ERP of small footprint systems,'' the possibility of 
additional channel use is effectively prohibited by the requirement in 
Sec.  90.621(b)(4) that applicants protect all existing stations as if 
the incumbent system was operating at 1000 watts ERP. PCIA also 
asserted that the power limitation prevents these smaller systems from 
limiting interference from cellular systems. Therefore, PCIA requested 
that the power limitations on 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems with an 
operational radius below 32 kilometers be eliminated. The Commission 
sought comment on this proposal and asked that interested parties 
address the use of such systems in light of the Commission's original 
goal of increasing the use of single frequencies, and whether lifting 
of these restrictions will help eliminate interference from cellular 
systems.
    34. Discussion. We adopt PCIA's proposal to modify Sec.  90.635 to 
remove the distinction between urban and suburban sites when setting 
the maximum power and antenna height limits for conventional 800 MHz 
and 900 MHz systems and eliminate power limitations on systems with 
operational radii of less than 32 kilometers. All of the commenting 
parties, including AMTA, CTIA, Motorola, NAM/MRFAC, Nextel, and PCIA 
support the PCIA proposal. We agree with AMTA that several decades of 
experience have confirmed that there is no bright line distinction 
between the operational requirements of systems in these two areas. 
AMTA contends that suburban facilities arguably could require greater 
power since they might need to cover larger geographic areas than their 
urban counterparts. AMTA argues that this rule is not needed to protect 
against inter-system interference in these bands and has not proven 
reflective of the real world operational requirements of operators. In 
that regard, CTIA contends that under the current rule, an ``urban'' 
system operating 24 km from the geographic center of the top 50 
urbanized areas could operate with a higher power and antenna height 
than a system located 25 km from an urban center, which would instead 
be classified as a ``suburban'' system. CTIA argues that such a bright-
line distinction makes little, if any, sense from an engineering 
perspective. Furthermore, CTIA argues, the existence of the ``urban'' 
versus ``suburban'' thresholds increases infrastructure and compliance 
costs, without providing any countervailing public interest benefit.
    35. With regard to the reduced power requirements for this type of 
system, Motorola notes that the reduced power requirements may affect 
coverage well within the 32-kilometer service border by providing 
reduced building penetration. However, PCIA argues that such 
restrictions in today's operating environment should not lead to any 
allocations of additional spectrum for other licensees. Specifically, 
PCIA continues, since Sec.  90.621(b)(4) requires that licensees be 
protected at 1000 watts ERP, even if the station is licensed for less, 
the reduced ERP for such systems provides no spectrum benefit. PCIA 
contends that conversely, the reduced ERP makes some operations more 
difficult for these types of systems. For example, PCIA continues, 
airlines do not serve a large operational area, but must be able to 
communicate into the lower reaches of terminal buildings. PCIA contends 
that the ERP limits of Sec.  90.635 restrict the ability of airlines to 
serve these areas. PCIA also argues that one of the most effective 
means of coping with in-band interference is to increase the signal 
level of the desired signal. In other words, PCIA argues, a private 
radio or public safety licensee, experiencing interference from an 
adjacent channel cellular system, should increase the signal level of 
their system to override the cellular interference. PCIA states that in 
the context of these systems, constructing an additional transmitter 
site is an expensive and needless solution. Further, PCIA states that 
in the context of an airport facility, constructing an additional 
transmitter site is often not an option. PCIA claims that no licensees 
would be harmed by the ability of a licensee to utilize increased ERP, 
and such licensees should have the operational flexibility to utilize 
an ERP that does not cause interference to co-channel users. We agree.
6. System Authorization Limit in Geographic Areas
    36. Background. Section 90.653 of the rules states that ``[t]here 
shall be no limit on the number of systems authorized to operate in any 
one given area except that imposed by allocation limitations.'' The 
Commission adopted this rule in 1982 pursuant to its decision to not 
restrict equipment manufacturers from holding 800 MHz SMR licenses. 
CTIA asserted that ``[t]he rule is redundant and no longer serves any 
regulatory purpose.'' Based on the fact that it has licensed and will 
continue to license 800 and 900 MHz SMR frequencies using competitive 
bidding for geographic-area authorizations, the Commission agreed with 
CTIA that this rule is no longer in the public interest. Therefore, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that Sec.  90.653 should be removed. 
The Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion.
    37. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion and eliminate 
Sec.  90.653 of our rules. We agree with all of the commenting parties, 
including AMTA, CTIA, and Nextel, that support the Commission's 
tentative conclusion that rule Sec.  90.653 is redundant ``and no 
longer serves any regulatory purpose'' due to the Commission's general 
shift to competitive bidding for geographic area licensing in most 
cases.
7. Reporting Requirement for Trunked SMR Loading Data
    38. Background. Section 90.658 of the Commission's rules provides 
that site-based licensees of trunked SMR systems licensed before June 
1, 1993 must provide loading data in order to either acquire additional 
channels or renew their authorizations. Both PCIA and CTIA noted that 
all SMR licenses issued prior to June 1, 1993 have now been through at 
least one renewal period and, therefore, advocated eliminating the 
rule. The Commission staff found that this provision may be an outdated 
and burdensome requirement on SMR licensees, especially in light of the 
competition among cellular, PCS, and 800/900 MHz SMR services. 
Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concluded that it will 
eliminate Sec.  90.658 as no longer necessary in the public interest.
    39. Discussion. We adopt our tentative proposal and eliminate Sec.  
90.658. The

[[Page 61056]]

Commission previously stated in the CMRS Third Report and Order, 
published at 59 FR 59945, November 21, 1994, that loading requirements 
are ``one of the mechanisms we employ under our rules to ensure that 
mobile service licensees make efficient use of spectrum and offer 
service to customers within their service area.'' Previously, SMR 
licensees were required to meet mobile loading requirements to obtain 
exclusive use of existing channels, obtain additional channels, serve 
areas within 40 miles of existing channels, and avoid automatic 
cancellation of authorization for unloaded channels at renewal. 
However, the Commission eliminated mobile loading requirements for CMRS 
licensees in the CMRS Third Report and Order and we eliminate Sec.  
90.658 consistent with that action. We also note that all of the 
commenting parties, including CTIA, Nextel and PCIA, support the 
Commission's tentative conclusion to eliminate Sec.  90.658 because 
competitive market forces among wireless services have replaced the 
need to closely monitor traffic loading on SMR systems.
8. Grandfathering Provisions for 800 MHz SMR Incumbent Licensees
    40. Background. In general, Sec.  90.621(b) requires a fixed 
mileage separation of 113 km (70 miles) between co-channel 800 and 900 
MHz systems. However, Sec.  90.621(b)(4) provides that co-channel 
stations may be separated by less than 113 km (70 miles) by meeting 
certain transmitter ERP and antenna height criteria, as listed in the 
Commission's ``Short-Spacing Separation Table.'' Previously, 
engineering showings were submitted with applications demonstrating 
that a certain addition or modification would not cause interference to 
other licensees, even though the stations would be spaced less than 70 
mi (113 km) apart. Currently, stations meeting the parameters set forth 
in the Short-Spacing Separation Table need not submit an engineering 
analysis demonstrating interference protection to co-channel licensees. 
Section 90.693 of the Commission's rules requires that 800 MHz 
incumbent SMR licensees ``notify the Commission within 30 days of any 
changes in technical parameters or additional stations constructed that 
fall within the short-spacing criteria.'' It has been standard practice 
for incumbents to notify the Commission of all changes and additional 
stations constructed in cases where such stations are in fact located 
less than the required 70 mile distance separation, and are therefore 
technically ``short-spaced,'' but are in fact fully compliant with the 
parameters of the Commission's Short-Spacing Separation Table.
    41. Discussion. Although we did not propose in the NPRM to revise 
Sec.  90.693, we will delete Sec.  90.693's notification requirement 
for incumbents wishing to locate stations closer than the minimum 
distance separation rules allow, but that fall within the parameters of 
the Short-Spacing Separation Table under Sec.  90.621 of our rules. 
Because incumbents are not allowed under the rules to expand their 
interference contours, this approach will not lead to interference 
among licensees.
    42. Although we eliminate a substantial number of filings to reduce 
burdens on licensees, we clarify that notification of minor 
modifications within 30 days will still be required under Sec.  90.693 
in two areas involving short-spaced systems. First, Sec.  90.621(b)(4) 
allows stations to be licensed at distances less than those prescribed 
in the Short-Spacing Separation Table where applicants ``secure a 
waiver.'' Second, Sec.  90.621(b)(5) permits stations to be located 
closer than the required separation, so long as the applicant provides 
letters of concurrence indicating that the applicant and each co-
channel licensee within the specified separation agree to accept any 
interference resulting from the reduced separation between systems.
9. 220 MHz Phase I Supplemental Progress Reports
    43. Background. Section 90.737 of the Commission's rules sets forth 
the supplemental progress reports that 220 MHz Phase I licensees must 
file with the Commission. The Commission staff recommended that the 
Commission consider whether certain rules applicable to 220 MHz Phase I 
licensees continue to be necessary in the public interest in light of 
increased competition among commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) 
providers. In particular, staff identified section 90.737 as imposing 
certain reporting requirements and restrictions on assignments of 
unconstructed, site-based, 220 MHz Phase I licenses that were intended 
to prevent speculation and trafficking in licenses awarded by lottery. 
The Commission tentatively concluded that Sec.  90.737 should be 
eliminated as no longer necessary in the public interest given recent 
competitive and other developments. The Commission sought comment on 
this tentative conclusion.
    44. Discussion. We adopt our tentative conclusion to eliminate 
Sec.  90.737. Licensing by lottery has been eliminated in the 220 MHz 
Service and a continuation of these reporting requirements may ``impede 
the transferability of 220 MHz spectrum'' in a competitive CMRS 
marketplace. Both commenting parties, AMTA and CTIA support the 
Commission's tentative conclusion to eliminate Sec.  90.737 because 
``future 220 MHz licenses will be awarded by auction, not lottery'' and 
the rule is no longer needed to prevent trafficking in unconstructed 
stations.

F. Corrections and Updates to WRS Rules

    45. In the NPRM, we described a series of administrative changes we 
proposed to make in this Report and Order. Generally, the changes 
entail correcting, updating, and eliminating various rules in parts 1, 
22, 24, 27, and 90. We received no comment on any of the proposed 
administrative changes. Consequently, based on the record before us, we 
adopt those administrative changes. The specific administrative changes 
are as follows:
     Part 1, subpart F--Title. Correct the term ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.''
     Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.  
1.948(h)(2) with Sec.  1.948(i)(2).
     Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which 
states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the 
Commission's former office location.
     Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.  
1.948(c) with Sec.  1.946(c).
     Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489 
with Form 601.
     Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.  
22.144(b) with Sec.  1.955.
     Section 22.947(c). Update the location for filing a 
cellular system information update (SIU) to ``Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.''
     Section 22.948(d). Delete the cross-reference to Sec.  
22.144(a).
     Section 22.949(d). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.  
22.122 with Sec.  1.927.
     Section 22.953(b). Replace the cross-reference to Sec.  
1.929(h) with Sec.  1.929(a)-(b).
    Finally, we also received a request from Motorola to address the 
station identification rules applicable to 700 MHz public safety 
licensees. Specifically, Motorola contends that unlike the rules for 
800 MHz public safety licensees operating digital transmitting 
equipment on exclusive channels, the rules do not explicitly

[[Page 61057]]

provide similarly situated 700 MHz licensees with the ability to 
transmit their station identification in the digital mode. We note that 
the Commission recently sought comment on this issue in another 
proceeding.

G. Procedural Matters

1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) (See 5 
U.S.C. 601-612) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be 
prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as 
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small business 
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    47. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM, which commenced a 
proceeding to streamline and harmonize licensing provisions in the 
wireless radio services (WRS). The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. 
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification conforms to the RFA.
    48. This Report and Order adopts several measures intended to 
streamline and harmonize certain licensing provisions in the wireless 
radio services (WRS) and further Commission efforts to maintain clear 
spectrum rights and obligations for these licensees, fulfill the 
Commission's mandate under section 11 of the Communications Act to 
conduct biennial reviews, support recent efforts to maximize the public 
benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum, and increase the 
ability of wireless service providers to use licensed spectrum 
resources flexibly and efficiently to offer a variety of services in a 
cost-effective manner.
    49. The Report and Order resolves the question of whether relevant 
provisions should be (1) streamlined as a result of competitive, 
technological, or subsequent administrative rule changes and/or (2) 
harmonized because they treat similarly situated services differently. 
The Order accomplishes this primarily by eliminating provisions when 
necessary and modifying provisions when appropriate. For example, as we 
have done in recent years in adopting modulation-independent masks 
(emission masks D, E, and F), we conform the Emission Mask G rule to 
the others and place no limitation on the spectral power density 
profile within the maximum authorized bandwidth. This action, supported 
by all commenting parties, will improve design flexibility while 
maintaining interference control, thus creating, we believe, no 
significant adverse economic impact.
    50. Also, we modified our rules to remove the distinction between 
urban and suburban sites when setting the maximum power and antenna 
height limits for conventional 800 MHz and 900 MHz systems. Our 
experience has been that there is no bright line distinction between 
the operational requirements of urban and suburban systems. In fact, 
because they might need to cover larger geographic areas than their 
urban counterparts, suburban facilities arguably could require greater 
power. In general, we found that ``urban'' versus ``suburban'' 
thresholds actually increase infrastructure and compliance costs, 
without providing any countervailing public interest benefit. We found 
that removing those distinctions might actually eliminate or 
significantly reduce those compliance costs. Therefore, we certify that 
the requirements of the Report and Order will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
2. Congressional Review Act
    51. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in 
a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (See 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Report and Order and the final 
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register (See 5 U.S.C. 
605(b)).
3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    52. This document does not contain any proposed, new, or modified 
information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).
4. Contact Information
    53. The primary Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contacts for 
this proceeding are Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr., and B.C. ``Jay'' Jackson, 
Jr. of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Mobility Division (202-
418-0620). Press inquiries should be directed to Chelsea Fallon, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7991, TTY at (202) 
418-7233, or e-mail at Chelsea.Fallon@fcc.gov.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    54. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 7, 11, 303(c), 
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, the 
rule changes specified in the Report and Order are adopted.
    55. The rule changes set forth in the Report and Order will become 
effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    56. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification and the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Radio, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 22

    Communications common carriers, Radio.

47 CFR Part 24

    Personal communications services, Radio.

47 CFR Part 27

    Wireless communications services.

47 CFR Part 90

    Business and industry, Common carriers, Radio, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

0
Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations are a