Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area, 17570-17584 [2017-07154]
Download as PDF
17570
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘new laboratories seeking the ability to
analyze this select agent will incur
substantial costs and urged HHS/CDC
reassess the impacts that a $37,000 buyin for new laboratories might have on
the ability to understand this deadly
microbe.’’ HHS/CDC made no changes
based on this comment. HHS/CDC is not
proposing to regulate other strains of B.
cereus that have B. anthracis toxin
genes as the data available do not
suggest those strains pose a severe threat
to public health (Ref. 1 and Ref. 2).
HHS/CDC agrees that the regulations
will impact new laboratories wishing to
perform research with B. cereus Biovar
anthracis. However, we believe that B.
cereus Biovar anthracis has the same
potential to pose a severe threat to
public health as does Bacillus anthracis,
currently regulated as a Tier 1 pathogen.
HHS/CDC adopts the interim rule,
which was effective October 14, 2016
(81 FR 63138, September 14, 2016), as
final without change. In accordance
with the interim final rule, any
individual or entity that possessed B.
cereus Biovar anthracis on or after
October 14, 2016, must provide notice
to the CDC regarding their possession
and must secure the agent against theft,
loss, release, or unauthorized access;
and by March 13, 2017, an individual or
entity that intends to continue to
possess, use, or transfer this agent is
required to either register in accordance
with 42 CFR part 73 or amend their
current registration in accordance with
42 CFR 73.7(h) and meet all of the
requirements of select agent regulations
(42 CFR part 73).
References
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
1. Brezillon, C, Hauslant, M, Dupke, S, Corre,
JP, Lander, A, Franz, T, Monot, M,
Couture-Tosi, E, Jouvion, G, Leendertz,
FH, Grunow, R, Mock, ME, Klee, SR, and
Goossens, L. (2015) Capsules, toxins and
AtxA as virulence factors of emerging
Bacillus cereus Biovar anthracis. PLOS
Negl. Trop. Dis. 9(4):e0003455.
2. Avashia SB, et al. (2007) Fatal pneumonia
among metalworkers due to inhalation
exposure to Bacillus cereus containing
Bacillus anthracis toxin genes. Clin.
Infect. Dis. 44:414–416.
Dated: April 4, 2017.
Thomas E. Price,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
47 CFR Part 22
[WT Docket Nos. 12–40, 10–112; RM–11510,
RM–11660; FCC 17–27]
Cellular Service, Including Changes in
Licensing of Unserved Area
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts revised rules
governing the 800 MHz Cellular
Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service. The
Commission revises the outdated
Cellular radiated power rules and
related technical provisions, most
notably allowing licensees the option to
comply with power spectral density
(PSD) power limits, while also
safeguarding systems that share the 800
MHz band, especially public safety
systems, from increased unacceptable
interference. These updated rules will
allow Cellular licensees to deploy
advanced mobile broadband services
such as long term evolution (LTE) more
efficiently. The Cellular licensing rule
revisions continue the transition to a
geographic-based regime by eliminating
certain filing requirements, and also
eliminate the comparative hearing
process for Cellular license renewals.
Both the technical and licensing reforms
provide Cellular licensees with more
flexibility, reduce administrative
burdens, and enable Cellular licensees
to respond more quickly—and at lower
cost—to changing market conditions
and consumer demand. They also
promote similar treatment across
competing commercial wireless
spectrum bands.
DATES: Effective May 12, 2017, except
for the amendments to 47 CFR 22.317,
22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), (c), and
(f), 22.947, and 22.953(c), which contain
information collection requirements that
have not yet been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date of those
amendments.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2017–07210 Filed 4–11–17; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Jkt 241001
Nina Shafran (Legal), (202) 418–2781, or
Moslem Sawez (Technical), (202) 418–
8211, regarding the Cellular Second
R&O; and Kathy Harris, (202) 418–0609,
regarding the WRS R&O. All three
contact persons are in the Mobility
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Bureau, and may also be contacted at
(202) 418–7233 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Report and Order in the Cellular Reform
proceeding (Cellular Second R&O), WT
Docket No. 12–40, RM Nos. 11510 and
11660, and the Commission’s
companion Report and Order in the
Wireless Radio Services (WRS) Reform
proceeding (WRS R&O), WT Docket No.
10–112, FCC 17–27, adopted March 23,
2017 and released March 24, 2017. The
full text of the Cellular Second R&O and
WRS R&O, including all Appendices, is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–A157, Washington, DC
20554, or by downloading the text from
the Commission’s Web site at https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-17-27A1.pdf. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to
FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the
Consumer and Government Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Second Report and Order (Cellular
Reform Proceeding, WT Docket No. 12–
40)
A. Background
1. In a Report and Order released on
November 10, 2014 in the Cellular
Reform proceeding (WT Docket No. 12–
40) (2014 Cellular R&O), the
Commission adopted new and revised
rules to change to a geographic-based
licensing regime. Specifically, it revised
the rules to establish geographic
licenses based on cellular geographic
service area (CGSA) boundaries and
provided licensees with significant new
flexibility to improve their systems
through modifications within those
boundaries. It preserved the ability of
licensees to expand their CGSAs into
Unserved Area if the area is at least 50
contiguous square miles, but
dramatically reduced application filing
burdens by permitting incumbents to
serve indefinitely, on a secondary basis,
Unserved Area parcels smaller than 50
contiguous square miles. It eliminated
other filing requirements and
established a field strength limit rule
tailored to reflect the continued ability
to expand Cellular service area
coverage. These reforms put Cellular
licensing more on par with the flexible
licensing schemes in other similar
mobile services, such as the Broadband
Personal Communications Service
(PCS), the commercial service in the 700
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
MHz band (700 MHz Service), the 600
MHz Service, and various advanced
wireless services (AWS).
2. Also in the Cellular Reform
proceeding, the Commission released a
companion Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on November 10, 2014
(Cellular Further Notice) proposing
additional reforms of the Cellular
licensing rules as well as reforms to the
Cellular radiated power and related
technical rules to further enhance
flexibility and spectral efficiency. The
Commission sought comment on its
proposed reforms, including various
options that would accommodate the
use of a power spectral density (PSD)
model, and on numerous related
technical issues and licensing matters.
The Commission sought comment on all
aspects of its proposals as well as on
other ideas, proposals, and comments
discussed in the Cellular Further Notice,
and also invited the submission of
alternative ideas.
3. In response to the Cellular Further
Notice, interested parties submitted
comments, reply comments, and ex
parte letters. The specific reforms
adopted by the Commission in the
Cellular Second R&O are described
below.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
B. Power Spectral Density (PSD) Limits
and Safeguards To Protect Public Safety
Systems
4. Introduction. ‘‘PSD’’ describes the
amount of effective radiated power
(ERP) 1 that would be allowed per unit
of bandwidth from a base station
antenna (e.g., 100 watts/MHz), such that
wider bandwidth emissions would be
permitted more power commensurate
with their bandwidth. With adoption of
the Cellular Second R&O, the
Commission adds a definition of PSD to
the part 22 definitions in the rules,
substantially as proposed in the Cellular
Further Notice. Under the existing
Cellular radiated power rules, as set
forth in 47 CFR 22.913, power limits are
expressed in terms of ERP without any
reference to bandwidth, and these limits
are applied per emission. The existing
limits favor narrowband technologies,
such as GSM, and disadvantage
licensees wishing to deploy wideband
technologies such as LTE. To facilitate
efficient provision of advanced mobile
wireless services using wideband
technologies such as LTE, based on the
1 A generic definition of the term ‘‘effective
radiated power’’ is in existing part 2 of the rules:
‘‘[t]he product of the power supplied to the antenna
and its gain relative to a half-wave dipole in a given
direction.’’ 47 CFR 2.1. Pursuant to 47 CFR 2.1(a),
terms and definitions appearing in part 2 serve as
definitive terms and definitions that prevail
throughout the Commission’s rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
record, the Commission adopts PSD
limits as an option for Cellular
licensees, with an advance notification
requirement at specified higher PSD
levels, and a power flux density (PFD)
limit that will apply for a seven-year
transition period if the Cellular licensee
operates at PSD limits that exceed a
certain threshold. For the purposes of
this proceeding, ‘‘PFD’’ is the amount of
radio frequency energy 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 at ground level in
a given location.
5. In reaching its decisions revising
the Cellular power rules, the
Commission recognizes that PSD and
PFD limits are not a complete answer to
eliminating unacceptable Cellular
interference to public safety systems in
the 800 MHz band, at least for the
immediate term. The restructuring
(rebanding) of the 800 MHz band
commenced soon after the Commission
adopted its Order in the 800 MHz
rebanding proceeding in WT Docket No.
02–55 (2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order)
to address the root cause of interference
to public safety communications by
moving public safety entities spectrally
further from the Cellular and
commercial Enhanced Specialized
Mobile Radio (ESMR) frequencies. The
rebanding has not yet been completed in
portions of states bordering Mexico
where complex international
coordination is required, and in these
areas, some public safety licensees
continue to operate on frequencies
adjacent to the lower edge of the
Cellular band at 869 MHz. Even after
rebanding is fully complete, some
public safety licensees may still be
susceptible to Cellular base station (and
ESMR band) interference because the
filtering in their legacy radios does not
reflect the post-rebanding channel plan.
Therefore, in revising the Cellular
power rules in the Cellular Second
R&O, the Commission has taken steps to
protect public safety systems from a
potential increase in unacceptable
interference from Cellular PSD
operations. These steps include: (1)
Retaining (without change) the existing
provisions in 47 CFR 22.970 through
22.973 which, by placing strict
responsibility for remedying
unacceptable interference on the
licensee(s) causing that interference to
public safety communications, serve as
a ‘‘backstop’’ to help ensure that first
responders’ critical communications are
not impeded; and (2) additional
safeguards that will apply to Cellular
PSD systems under certain
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17571
circumstances. The Commission
emphasizes that the additional
safeguards, described further below, are
in addition to, and not a replacement
for, the interference resolution
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 22.970
through 22.973. The Commission also
directs the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau),
in conjunction with the Commission’s
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET)
(collectively, Bureaus), to convene a
public forum to facilitate stakeholderled co-existence efforts. The
components of this multi-pronged
approach, including the specific PSD
limits adopted for the Cellular Service,
are discussed below.
6. PSD Limits. To meet the everincreasing demand for ubiquitous,
mobile data services, Cellular licensees
need to utilize their spectrum as
efficiently as possible. LTE is more
spectrally efficient than other
commercial wireless broadband
technologies being used by Cellular
carriers today; it can bring faster speeds,
reduced latency, and better mobile
service for the public. Carriers have
already deployed LTE on their 700
MHz, AWS, and PCS spectrum, and the
Commission’s rules governing those
services provide for use of a PSD model.
If carriers were to deploy LTE on
Cellular frequencies using the existing
non-PSD limits, the result would be
reduced coverage. To compensate for
this reduction of coverage, additional
sites would be needed. The resulting
higher concentration of sites could
potentially worsen the existing
interference environment, especially
near Cellular base stations where the
risk to public safety communications is
greatest. Additionally, while utilizing
techniques such as multiple-inputmultiple-output (MIMO) can achieve
spectral efficiency, Cellular broadband
licensees using 2X2 MIMO transmitters
under the existing ERP limits will
double their power, and here too, the
result is potentially increased
interference to public safety operations.
7. Providing technological flexibility
and, to the extent practicable, regulatory
parity for Cellular licensees via a PSD
model to facilitate efficient use of more
advanced wideband technologies
without increasing the potential for
unacceptable interference to 800 MHz
public safety operations has been the
primary two-pronged objective in this
proceeding concerning power reform.
The Commission finds that revising its
rules to permit a PSD model option
serves the public interest by allowing
for efficient use of wideband
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
17572
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
technologies in the Cellular Service.2
Consistent with the radiated power
rules adopted for other commercial
wireless services, such as PCS and
AWS, which include doubled PSD
limits to facilitate economical coverage
in rural areas, the Commission also
finds that it serves the public interest to
apply to PSD operations the doubling of
power in rural counties (as permitted
under the existing rule for non-PSD
operations)—defined as counties with
population densities of 100 persons or
fewer per square mile, based on the
most recently available population
statistics from the Bureau of the Census.
As in the case of the existing Cellular
rule for non-PSD limits, this rural area
power increase is limited to base
stations more than 72 km (45 miles)
from the Mexican and Canadian
borders, consistent with current
agreements with those countries.
8. Based on the record, the
Commission concludes that the
appropriate PSD limits for the Cellular
Service are as follows: (1) 400 W/MHz
ERP in non-rural areas, and 800 W/MHz
in rural areas, without a PFD
requirement; and (2) higher limits—up
to 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas,
and up to 2000 W/MHz ERP in rural
areas (Higher PSD Limits) with, in both
non-rural and rural areas, a PFD limit
for seven years and an advance
notification requirement. The advance
notification requirement and the sevenyear PFD limit are described further
below.
9. PSD limits of 400 W/MHz ERP in
non-rural areas and 800 W/MHz ERP in
rural areas—without any PFD
restriction—represent an equivalent
amount of power across the Cellular
band when compared to existing
Cellular CDMA deployments. This
achieves the two-pronged goal of
providing enhanced technological
flexibility for Cellular carriers while
protecting public safety
communications from increased
interference. Consistent with the
Commission’s decisions for the 700
MHz Service, the Commission finds that
it serves the public interest to permit
Cellular Service operations at the Higher
PSD Limits—up to 1000 W/MHz ERP
(non-rural)/up to 2000 W/MHz ERP
(rural)—with a PFD limit. This will
afford Cellular carriers additional
2 To accommodate filings by licensees and
applicants, several of the rules that the Commission
adopts in this Cellular Second R&O will require
changes to FCC Form 601 and/or the Commission’s
Universal Licensing System (ULS). The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will issue public
notices, as appropriate, announcing completion of
these changes and, where required, OMB approval
thereof, along with the effective date(s) of the new
rules pursuant to the Ordering Clauses, below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
system design flexibility where, for
example, increased power is needed for
sites at higher elevation to achieve
sufficient coverage in sparsely
populated areas.3 As explained below,
this higher-PSD-plus-PFD approach will
enable better broadband service in such
areas without increasing interference to
public safety communications, as the
PFD on the ground will be maintained
at a level equivalent to that of a low site
operating at lower power.
10. The Commission further
concludes that the PSD limits should be
applied per sector, rather than per
transmitter. If the PSD limit were
applied per transmitter, then using
MIMO techniques of 2×2 or 4×4 could
potentially double or quadruple the
total energy radiating from a cell site
and would likely worsen the
interference environment, which
undermines one of the primary goals in
this proceeding and is contrary to the
public interest. The Commission
declines to adopt a bandwidth dividing
line for PSD operations, finding it
unnecessary and potentially a
disadvantage to certain carriers.
11. Advance Notification Requirement
at the Higher PSD Limits. As established
in the record, public safety receivers
remain vulnerable to interference from
Cellular licensees in the 800 MHz band,
and the Higher PSD Limits could
increase the potential for interference.
Therefore, one of the important
safeguards the Commission adds to 47
CFR 22.913, as adopted in the Cellular
Second R&O, is an advance notification
requirement. Every Cellular licensee
preparing to activate a cell site at the
Higher PSD Limits will be required to
provide a minimum of 30 days (but not
more than 90 days) written advance
notice to any public safety licensee then
authorized in the frequency range 806–
816 MHz/851–861 MHz with a base
station located within a radius of 113
km of the Cellular base station to be
deployed. The written notice shall
include the location, ERP PSD level,
height of the transmitting antenna’s
center of radiation above ground level,
and the timeframe for activation of the
cell site, as well as the Cellular
licensee’s contact information, with
additional parameters to be provided
upon request by a public safety licensee
within the 113 km radius. This
notification will be for informational
purposes only; the notified public safety
licensee(s) will not have the right to
oppose the planned Cellular operations,
but could analyze the cell site’s
potential for interference and suggest
3 The Commission also adopts a revised
definition of ‘‘Cellular system.’’ See 47 CFR 22.99.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
changes before the cell is activated. The
Cellular licensee will have discretion to
make changes, but will remain obligated
to address complaints of interference in
compliance with the applicable
resolution procedures in 47 CFR 22.970
through 22.973.
12. The advance notification will be
required only one time. Thus, for
example, if the Cellular licensee
prepares to operate a cell site at a PSD
level of 425 W/MHz, it will be required
to provide the requisite written notice at
least 30 days (but not more than 90
days) in advance of that cell site’s
deployment, including the data
specified above. Thereafter, if the same
Cellular licensee increases the ERP PSD
level at that same cell site (e.g., from 425
W/MHz to 550 W/MHz), it will not be
required to provide additional notice
under 47 CFR 22.913. To require more
than a one-time notification would
impose an unnecessary burden on
Cellular licensees; once notified that a
particular cell site will operate above
400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural
areas), a local public safety licensee will
already be in a position to identify that
particular cell site as a possible source
of any new interference that is
encountered. This requisite one-time
notification will be yet another valuable
tool to help public safety licensees
assess a cell site’s potential for
interference and will enhance the
interaction between Cellular and public
safety communications operators that is
so vital to co-existence in the 800 MHz
band. This component of the
Commission’s approach thus advances
its goals to provide system design
flexibility to Cellular carriers, achieve
parity among competing or
complementary services, and safeguard
spectral compatibility with licensees in
adjacent markets and adjacent bands.
Accordingly, the revised rule 22.913
adopted in the Cellular Second R&O
includes an advance notice requirement.
13. The Commission emphasizes that
this mandatory notice requirement is in
addition to, and not a replacement for,
any notice that a Cellular licensee may
choose to provide voluntarily, nor is it
a replacement for any other information
exchanges that Cellular and public
safety licensees undertake in the interest
of interference avoidance.
14. The Commission places great
weight on stakeholder-led measures—
involving Cellular licensees, public
safety licensees, and the manufacturers
of public safety equipment—to achieve
improved co-existence between
commercial broadband and public
safety communications in neighboring
bands. The Commission therefore
applauds the discussions that have
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
already taken place among AT&T,
Verizon, and the Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO), and it
applauds the resulting voluntary
commitments made by AT&T and
Verizon, as documented on the record
and summarized in paragraphs 25 and
26 of the full text of the Cellular Second
R&O—particularly their commitments
that will entail testing, extensive
collaboration with local public safety
entities, and phased PSD roll-out in
select markets. The Commission expects
AT&T and Verizon to fulfill these
commitments. The measures AT&T and
Verizon have outlined, coupled with
AT&T’s experience to date in deploying
PSD pursuant to four interim PSD
waivers granted by the Bureau, will be
extremely important to near-term coexistence of more advanced Cellular
broadband services, such as LTE, and
public safety communications. The
Commission also acknowledges the
additional voluntary commitment of
AT&T and Verizon to give 30-day
advance notice to public safety licensees
when transitioning to PSD in additional
markets after their planned testing and
phased roll-out, as also summarized in
paragraphs 25 and 26 of the full text of
the Cellular Second R&O. This could
include advance notice even for PSD
operations at 400 W/MHz or less (or, in
rural areas, at 800 W/MHz or less). The
Commission encourages any and all
cooperation aimed at avoiding
interference to public safety
communications.
15. Non-PSD ERP Limits. The
Commission concludes that it serves the
public interest to retain non-PSD ERP
limits for Cellular licensees that either
cannot or choose not to deploy systems
using a PSD model. It further finds that
the existing non-PSD ERP limits of 500
watts (W) ERP (non-rural) and 1000 W
ERP (rural) continue to be sufficient and
appropriate for the Cellular Service, and
makes explicit in the rule that these
non-PSD ERP limits apply per emission.
The doubled power limits for Cellular
licensees’ rural operations that do not
deploy technologies using PSD will
continue to apply only to base stations
that are more than 72 km (45 miles)
from the Mexican and Canadian
borders, consistent with current
agreements with those countries. The
decision to retain the existing non-PSD
limits as an option will ensure that
carriers using narrowband technologies
such as GSM are not disadvantaged, as
a requirement to use PSD could result
in a power reduction in certain
instances, which in turn would result in
reduced coverage—a result that would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
be detrimental to consumers and
licensees alike.
16. Cellular licensees will continue to
be subject to the field strength limit rule
adopted in the 2014 Cellular R&O, and
thus, regardless of the location, power
level, or height of the Cellular base
stations, the signal level at the
neighboring licensee’s CGSA boundary
may not exceed 40 dBmV/m, with
certain exceptions outlined in the rule
(47 CFR 22.983). Cellular licensees not
deploying PSD operations will also
continue to be subject to the
coordination requirements set forth in
47 CFR 22.907 (discussed further
below).
17. Seven-year PFD Limit at Higher
PSD Limits; Sunset Date. The
Commission’s PSD decisions in this
Cellular Second R&O further align the
rules for the Cellular Service band with
other bands used to provide competing
commercial wireless services, but the
Commission also considers the Cellular
band’s unique circumstances that
warrant special requirements to prevent
interference. The record shows that
public safety equipment remains
vulnerable to interference from Cellular
Service operations even in areas where
rebanding has been completed.
Therefore, as an additional safeguard,
the Commission adopts a PFD limit for
Cellular base transmitters and repeaters
operating at the Higher PSD Limits, to
remain in effect for seven years from the
effective date of revised rule 22.913.
Specifically, the Commission adopts a
modeled PFD limit of 3000 mW/m2/MHz
at 1.6 meters above ground level, which
represents the average height above
ground of a public safety receiver being
used by a person, and the Commission
requires that the limit be observed over
at least 98% of the area within 1 km of
each base station antenna. For purposes
of the Cellular Second R&O, the
Commission uses ‘‘on the ground’’ and
‘‘at ground level’’ interchangeably to
mean this 1.6-meter height above
ground of a public safety receiver being
used by a person. To determine
compliance, this limit is to be modeled
using good engineering practices
accounting for terrain and local
conditions—at the time of initial
deployment at the Higher PSD Limits
and for any site modifications thereafter
that may increase the PFD levels around
the site.
18. Factors other than ERP that
contribute to the strength of PFD are
antenna height, antenna down tilt, and
ground elevation. Because of these
factors, most sites have small ‘‘hot
spots’’ where PFD will reach a high
level in an extremely small area, making
adoption of an absolute PFD limit
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17573
impractical. Technical data provided by
Cellular carriers depicting real-world
deployment scenarios—using the
existing radiated power limits—indicate
that current Cellular operations produce
a PFD of 3000 mW/m2/MHz, and that
this limit is not exceeded in at least
98% of the area within 1 km of the base
station. The Commission therefore
concludes that a modeled PFD limit of
3000 mW/m2/MHz—not to be exceeded
over 98% of the area within 1 km of the
base station at 1.6 meters above
ground—is appropriate for the Cellular
Service.
19. This PFD limit will require
Cellular licensees to consider very
carefully the impact near the ground for
each deployment at the Higher PSD
Limits to ensure that the potential for
interference around a Cellular base
station is not increased, while affording
them flexibility to deploy more
advanced broadband services where the
PSD limits of 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/
MHz in rural areas) would not permit
sufficient coverage and could result in
a loss of service to consumers.
Moreover, this PFD limit is consistent
with the limit applicable to competing
wireless systems in the 700 MHz
Service.
20. The Commission declines to adopt
a commenter’s proposal to apply any
PFD limit to (1) non-PSD Cellular
systems that operate above 500 W ERP,
and (2) non-PSD Cellular systems
operating at or below 500 W ERP after
receipt of an interference complaint or
when replacing radio equipment or
antennas. Imposing such a heavy new
burden on Cellular licensees for their
extensively deployed facilities is
unwarranted. First, given that the
Commission is not adopting any
increase to the existing non-PSD power
limits, the potential for interference
from systems operating at or below
those limits will not increase. Second, a
PFD limit is intended to limit the
amount of energy from antenna sites
that are closer to ground level with large
down tilts, and under the current ERP
limits, sites operating above 500 W ERP
are located in rural areas where
antennas are generally located well
above ground level with very small
down tilts. Third, the existing
interference resolution provisions in 47
CFR 22.970 through 22.973 have
provided a workable mechanism to
address interference problems as they
arise. Applying a PFD limit to non-PSD
Cellular systems (as proposed by one of
the commenters) could potentially
require modification of existing Cellular
systems, which might adversely affect
the wireless coverage (including 911
calling) of narrowband licensees who
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
17574
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
elect to use the existing non-PSD power
rules. Such a result is contrary to the
public interest. In the 2004 800 MHz
Rebanding Order, the Commission
declined to adopt across-the-board PFD
limits for Cellular licensees under the
non-PSD power limits of 500 W (nonrural)/1000 W (rural), recognizing that
‘‘the restrictions would require
modifications of cells that had little, if
any, potential for generating
unacceptable interference.’’ The
Commission reaches the same
conclusion in this Cellular Reform
proceeding. For all these reasons, the
Commission declines to add a PFD
component to the existing Cellular nonPSD power limits.
21. The Commission also declines to
adopt a commenter’s recommendation
to adopt a PFD limit of 625 mW/m2 with
the goal of transitioning to a PFD limit
of 3000 mW/m2 after five years; it also
declines to adopt that same
commenter’s proposals to: (1) Not allow
licensees to exceed the PFD limit at any
ground level locations within 1 km of
the base station; and (2) only allow noncompliance at 1% of locations well
above ground level within 1 km of the
base station. The record indicates that
these limits are not realistic or
achievable by Cellular systems even as
currently deployed (non-PSD), nor are
they workable for Cellular systems that
will be deployed at the PSD limits
adopted in the Cellular Second R&O.
Cellular carriers will deploy wideband
technologies such as LTE that use
bandwidths of 5 MHz or more. A PFD
of 625 mW/m2 measured across 5 MHz
would be equivalent to 125 mW/m2/
MHz. As stated above, technical data
filed by the parties in this proceeding
show that this very low PFD is already
exceeded in large portions of the areas
around their sites today, and does not
reflect the existing interference
environment. Even at the PSD limits of
400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural
areas), which are equivalent to the
existing non-PSD ERP limits, it would
be difficult if not impossible to operate
Cellular systems that comply with such
low PFD limits, especially if they were
applied as an absolute limit at any
ground level location as the commenter
advocates. Moreover, meeting such PFD
limits would require power reductions
and increase the need for a higher
concentration of sites, potentially
increasing interference and reducing the
flexibility and efficiency a PSD model is
designed to afford. Instead, the
Commission adopts a PFD limit that is
achievable to minimize impact at
ground level and avoid potentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
worsening the existing interference
environment.
22. The Commission is not persuaded
by a commenter’s argument that PFD is
different from PSD and cannot be
specified per unit of bandwidth. Any
power or energy of a system can be
stated per unit of bandwidth. The
Commission agrees that PSD by its
nature is specified with a reference
bandwidth of 1 MHz, but in the interest
of consistency and accuracy, adopts the
same reference bandwidth for PFD.
23. The Commission finds that
requiring a measured PFD limit would
be overly burdensome and also
unnecessary, given that Cellular
licensees are still required to resolve
unacceptable interference should it
occur from their operations. A modeled
PFD limit nonetheless will require the
licensee to consider the amount of
signal energy it is putting on the ground
around its base stations to minimize the
potential for large areas of interference.
Cellular licensees must perform
predictive modeling of the PFD values
around each site prior to operating their
systems at the Higher PSD Limits or,
thereafter, prior to changing the
parameters of these sites such that it
could increase the PFD levels. The
propagation model must confirm that
each applicable base station meets the
PFD limit over 98% of the area within
a 1 km radius of the base station
antennas, at 1.6 meters above ground. If
the predictive model does not confirm
compliance with these requirements,
the licensee will need to adjust basestation parameters, such as the height of
the antenna, beam tilt, power, or other
parameters, until confirmation of the
requirements is achieved before
deployment, thereby reducing the
amount of signal energy on the ground
around the site. The purpose of the
modeling requirement is to ensure that
the Cellular licensee will consider the
impact on the ground of ‘‘hot spots’’
when deploying at the Higher PSD
Limits and will use engineering
techniques to minimize those ‘‘hot
spots.’’ Licensees must use modeling
tools (software) that take into account
terrain and local conditions. The model
need not consider areas indoors or in
buildings because this could vary
widely depending on building
materials. The Commission reiterates
that the PFD limit is, for the seven-year
transition period, an addition to, and
not a replacement for, the interference
resolution process already in place
under 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973.
24. The Commission also rejects a
commenter’s argument that, no matter
the PSD limit at which a Cellular
licensee is operating, no PFD limit
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
should apply in markets where public
safety licensees do not reasonably plan
to operate in the 800 MHz band. There
is no evidence that such relief is
necessary, nor is there evidence that an
immediate exemption from the Cellular
PFD limit at the Higher PSD Limits
would provide benefits to consumers.
The provision for operations at higher
PSD limits combined with a PFD limit
will accommodate cases where a carrier
needs additional power—for example,
systems with antennas well above street
level or on mountain tops. Moreover,
the plans of public safety agencies are
not known to the Commission and, even
if they were known today, they would
likely change with time. Permitting
Cellular licensees to deploy at the
higher PSD levels without a PFD limit
during the seven-year transition period
could hamper launch of expanded or
new 800 MHz systems by public safety
entities and increase their deployment
costs. For all these reasons, the
Commission finds that the commenter’s
proposal does not serve the public
interest and, accordingly, declines to
adopt it.
25. PFD Sunset. The Commission
concludes that it is appropriate to
eliminate the Cellular PFD limit seven
years after the effective date of the
revised rule 22.913 adopted today. This
‘‘PFD Sunset’’ decision is based on
several factors. Providing
technologically-neutral rules for the
Cellular Service in terms of allowing
radiated power that fosters efficient
deployment of more advanced
broadband services has been delayed for
nine years since the Commission
adopted PSD models for competing
CMRS licensees (PCS, AWS, and the
700 MHz Service), to allow more time
for the rebanding process to evolve.
Notably, PCS and AWS licensees are not
subject to any PFD limit, and 700 MHz
Service licensees are not subject to a
PFD limit at or below their PSD limits
of 1000 W/MHz (non-rural)/2000 W/
MHz (rural). The PFD limit for the
Cellular Service, while consistent with
the Commission’s decision regarding the
700 MHz Service, is a unique
requirement reflecting unique
characteristics of the 800 MHz band and
is designed to protect public safety
licensees for a transition period that will
allow for improved spectrum sharing in
that band.
26. The Commission is convinced that
the formula for such co-existence must
include good faith efforts on the part of
Cellular (and other commercial) system
operators and public safety
communications operators, as well as
device manufacturers. The seven-year
period will provide a reasonable amount
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
of time for this crucial three-way
conversation, which the Commission
intends to facilitate by holding a public
forum (described further below), with
the goal of implementing important
changes in equipment and practices of
Cellular and public safety
communications licensees alike. Given
the advances in technology for
commercial and public safety
communications, combined with the
changing interference environment as a
result of the restructuring of the band
launched in 2004, the Commission
expects evolving capabilities from
participants in all three groups of
stakeholders—Cellular licensees, public
safety operators, and device
manufacturers.
27. Comments on the record indicate
that the specialized equipment used by
public safety licensees is costly given
budget constraints and used for longer
durations as compared to commercial
wireless devices. According to one
public safety commenter, many public
safety 800 MHz radios were replaced as
a result of the Commission’s 2004 800
MHz Rebanding Order, which
established receiver performance
standards entitling public safety
licensees to full interference abatement
measures. That same commenter states
that public safety equipment
replacement cycles often run 10–20
years.4 A seven-year PFD Sunset date
will be approximately 20 years after
release of the Commission’s 2004 800
MHz Rebanding Order. As noted above,
AT&T and Verizon have committed to
careful deployment of their PSD
operations, including PSD testing in
collaboration with public safety entities,
and phased roll-out. The Commission
reiterates its expectation that they will
fulfill those commitments. To the extent
that they elect to operate at the Higher
PSD Limits in the next several years,
they will be subject to the PFD limit to
minimize ‘‘hot spots.’’ With these
various obligations in mind, Cellular
licensees can be expected to design their
PSD operations with great care, and the
Commission expects their deployment
of more advanced wideband
technologies to be substantially
4 The Consumer Electronics Association estimates
the life expectancy of the average cell phone to be
4.7 years. Consumer Electronics Association, The
Life Expectancy of Electronics, https://
www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2014/September/
The-Life-Expectancy-of-Electronics.aspx. For tax
purposes, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service allows
depreciation of wireless assets such as computerbased switching equipment, base station
controllers, radio network controllers, and related
assets over a period of either five years (general
depreciation system specified under I.R.C. 168(a))
or nine and a half years (alternative depreciation
system specified under I.R.C. 168(g)). See Rev. Proc.
2011–22, 2011–18 I.R.B. 737.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
completed within the next seven years.
Moreover, at the Higher PSD Limits,
they will be subject to the one-time
advance notification requirement (with
no sunset of that rule).
28. The PSD limits adopted for the
Cellular Service that are equivalent to
the existing non-PSD power limits, with
Higher PSD Limits that include an
advance notification requirement, plus a
transitional PFD limit (applicable at the
Higher PSD Limits), and continuing
obligations under 47 CFR 22.970
through 22.973, all in conjunction with
voluntary commitments of AT&T and
Verizon for testing and phased roll-out
of their PSD operations, comprise a
comprehensive balanced approach to
Cellular power reform that affords the
Cellular licensees long-overdue
technical flexibility while protecting
public safety communications. The
forthcoming public forum described in
the next section will provide the
opportunity for development of
additional multi-stakeholder coexistence measures. Based on all of
these considerations and comments on
the record, the Commission concludes
that a seven-year PFD Sunset date is
appropriate and serves the public
interest.
29. Public Forum To Facilitate Multistakeholder Co-existence. The
Commission reiterates that it attaches
great weight to multi-stakeholder coexistence efforts—good faith efforts to
work through the issues by Cellular
licenses, public safety entities, and
public safety equipment manufacturers
alike. While the discussions that the two
major Cellular carriers, AT&T and
Verizon, have already held with APCO
are encouraging, and the voluntary
commitments made by AT&T and
Verizon are commendable, it is clear
from the record that additional dialogue
is crucial to resolving the lingering
problems of unacceptable interference
to public safety receivers—without
hindering spectral efficiency and
technological advances in the Cellular
Service. To foster the three-way
conversation among Cellular carriers,
public safety entities, and
manufacturers of public safety
equipment, the Commission directs the
Bureaus to work together to organize
and conduct a public forum that brings
together representatives of all three
stakeholder groups. This public forum
shall be convened by the Bureaus no
later than one year following release of
the Cellular Second R&O. The Bureaus
are to invite a broad array of
stakeholders, including carriers with
significant nationwide Cellular
operations, as well as Cellular rural
carrier representatives, public safety
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17575
representatives, including the key
public safety associations, and the
leading public safety equipment
manufacturers. The Commission defers
to the Bureaus concerning development
of the full list of invitees, format, and
specific date of the forum. A forum
attended by licensees, engineers,
manufacturers, Cellular carriers, and
any others (as determined by the
Bureaus) who have first-hand
experience with interference cases will
focus attention on what has been
achieved, what remains to be done, and
how it can be accomplished.
30. The Commission did not seek
comment on public safety receiver
standards in this proceeding, but several
commenters raised this issue.
Equipment manufacturers are not
currently subject to Commission rules
that mandate particular standards for
public safety equipment. The
Commission is nonetheless
disappointed that such equipment has
not improved to the extent necessary to
filter out the undesired 800 MHz
Cellular (or ESMR) signals over the past
12 years since adoption of the 2004 800
MHz Rebanding Order identifying the
problem of deficient receivers. The
Commission expects these radio
manufacturers to be part of the
conversation now—and particularly
encourages them to participate in the
public forum to explain why receivers
with better interference rejection
features are not available to public
safety users at affordable prices, and to
present practical options and potential
steps for improving interference
rejection in public safety devices. The
Commission also expects public safety
equipment purchasers to specify
interference rejection in their requests
for proposal for new radio systems,
putting manufacturers in a position to
respond to these specifications and
requirements. The public forum is one
way to educate public safety users so
they can become savvier purchasers of
communications equipment. Cellular
licensees likewise need to be open to
developing and executing best practices
for site selection and coordination with
public safety entities when they deploy
PSD operations. The Commission
encourages the stakeholders in the
public forum to address the adequacy of
industry standards to ensure reliable
receiver performance in strong signal
conditions, to assess quantitatively the
interference risks of degraded receiver
performance, and to consider the
applicability of key recommendations
made by the Commission’s
Technological Advisory Council (as
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
17576
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
discussed in the full text of the Cellular
Second R&O, para. 68).
31. Following the public forum, all
three stakeholder groups will have
ample time remaining before the PFD
Sunset date to implement necessary
changes to enable better co-existence
thereafter in the band. The Commission
directs the Bureaus to seek an update on
progress from all three stakeholder
groups no later than four years from the
release of the Cellular Second R&O, and
to issue a Public Notice announcing the
mechanism for filing such updates. The
Commission also encourages all
stakeholders to share their experiences
on spectrum sharing in the band
throughout the seven-year transition
period. It believes that the rules and
expectations established in the Cellular
Second R&O, including the PFD Sunset
schedule, will serve the public interest
by balancing the needs of all parties and
the important services they provide to
their customers and to the public.
32. Retention of Part 22 Interference
Resolution Rules and Procedures. The
existing interference resolution
provisions in 47 CFR 22.970 through
22.973 place strict responsibility for
remedying unacceptable interference on
the licensee(s) causing that interference
to public safety communications in the
800 MHz band. The Commission finds
that these provisions continue to work
well and also notes that the number of
interference complaints lodged by
public safety entities against Cellular
and ESMR carriers via the 800 MHz
Interference Notification Site 5 has been
steadily declining. The Commission
recognizes that identifying sources of
interference is burdensome to public
safety entities and that certain areas of
the country such as Oakland, CA are
unusually troublesome in terms of
unacceptable interference to public
safety operations. At the same time, the
Commission recognizes that Cellular
licensees themselves incur costs to
investigate and address complaints,
including those that are determined to
arise from non-Cellular operations.
Noting that rules 22.970 through 22.973
were carefully crafted based on the
extensive record compiled in the 800
MHz rebanding proceeding, and that
those provisions establish shared
responsibility between part 22 and part
90 licensees, the Commission declines
to adopt the proposal made by some
commenters to amend rule 22.970 such
5 This is a Web site
(www.publicsafety800mhzinterference.com)
established collectively by Cellular and ESMR
carriers in the 800 MHz band and serves as a
vehicle for licensees who operate non-cellular
architecture systems in the 800 MHz band to report
interference to the commercial carriers in this band.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
that a Cellular licensee that is found to
have caused interference to an 800 MHz
public safety radio system would be
required to reimburse that entity’s
‘‘reasonable costs expended to locate
and mitigate the interference.’’ The
Commission concludes that any future
unacceptable interference to public
safety or other entities that occurs as a
result of Cellular operations, including
PSD operations, will be appropriately
addressed pursuant to the existing part
22 interference resolution provisions
and, accordingly, retains the existing
rules 22.970 through 22.973 without
change. The Commission emphasizes
that the obligations set forth in those
provisions will continue to apply
notwithstanding the new requirements
established under revised rule 22.913
including, when applicable, advance
notification and the PFD limit.
C. Power-Related Technical Provisions
1. Revision of 47 CFR 22.911 To
Accommodate Cellular PSD Systems
33. Rule 22.911(a) sets forth the
formula for calculating the service area
boundary (SAB) of an individual cell
site and the CGSA boundary. This
formula has been the basis for
determining the SAB of cell sites and
the protected licensed area (CGSA)
since the inception of the Cellular
Service and remains an effective tool for
predicting reliable signal coverage for
narrowband technologies. Under these
circumstances, for Cellular licensees
that do not elect to use the PSD model,
the Commission concludes that it serves
the public interest to retain the existing
formula in rule 22.911(a) without
change, rather than requiring such
licensees to change their long-standing
methodology for determining their SABs
and CGSA boundaries.
34. However, for Cellular licensees
that elect to use PSD to deploy LTE and
other more advanced mobile broadband
technologies, the Commission finds that
the formula in rule 22.911(a) is not
practical, as the result would be much
larger SABs and CGSAs that would not
accurately reflect service coverage. Rule
22.911(b) currently sets forth an
alternative CGSA determination
methodology to depict Cellular service
coverage that departs from the licensed
geographic area (by a significant
amount—specifically, by ‘‘±20% in the
service area of any cell’’) where reliable
Cellular service is actually provided.
The Commission finds that adapting
this methodology to require a predictive
propagation model that takes into
account terrain and other local
conditions, based on the 32 dBmV/m
contour, is appropriate for the purposes
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of calculating SABs and determining
CGSA expansion areas for base stations
that operate using PSD. Accordingly, the
Commission adopts rule 22.911(c) for
PSD systems, and requires that the SAB
be defined in terms of distances from
the cell site(s) to the 32 dBmV/m contour
along the eight cardinal radials,
consistent with SAB calculations under
the existing rule. The distances used for
the cardinal radials must be
representative of the coverage within
the 45ßsectors. The Commission
concludes that this approach will result
in accurate coverage calculations when
operating a cell site using PSD, and thus
serves the public interest. If this
methodology yields an SAB extension
comprising at least 50 contiguous square
miles, regardless of whether the CGSA
departs ±20 percent in the service area
of any cell site, the Cellular licensee
will be required to file an application
for major modification of the CGSA
using FCC Form 601. The applicant will
be required to submit its CGSA
determination pursuant to the new
provisions of rule 22.911(c), depicting
the CGSA using a predictive model. If
the predictive model results in
calculations that depict an SAB
extension comprising less than 50
contiguous square miles, the licensee
may not claim the area as part of its
CGSA; it may provide service in the
extension area on a secondary basis
only. No application should be filed in
that scenario.
2. Height-Power Limit—Exemption for
PSD Systems
35. The existing provision in 47 CFR
22.913(b) limits the height of a base
station antenna: 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, 40.2 km for all other licensees. The
existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(c)
provides an exemption from the heightpower limit if the licensee coordinates
with, and obtains concurrence from, all
co-channel licensees within 121 km.
The Cellular height-power rule was
developed to ensure that the average
distance to the SAB does not exceed
certain limits, and thus prevents
excessively large SABs that could
otherwise result from the SAB
calculation using the formula in rule
22.911(a). Although the distance to the
SABs of many Cellular base stations
would not exceed the limits specified in
the height-power rule, the existing
provision recognizes that the limits
might well be exceeded in some
instances, especially in the case of
narrowband technologies. Given that the
Commission is retaining the formula set
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
forth in 47 CFR 22.911(a) to be used by
Cellular licensees deploying
narrowband systems (i.e., licensees not
electing to use the PSD model) or
operating in the Gulf service area, it
concludes that the height-power rule
continues to serve the public interest as
applied to such licensees. Likewise, the
Commission finds that the exemption in
existing rule 22.913(c) continues to
afford such licensees flexibility when
they coordinate with, and obtain the
concurrence of, all co-channel licensees
within 121 km. The domestic
coordination provision in rule 22.907
does not obviate the need for the
exemption provided in existing rule
22.913(c), which, unlike rule 22.907,
includes the concurrence requirement.
Moreover, the Cellular field strength
rule (47 CFR 22.983) does not obviate
the need for the existing provisions in
rules 22.913(b) and (c). The Cellular
field strength limit rule is uniquely
tailored to reflect the fact that Cellular
licensees may continue to expand their
CGSAs, and CGSA boundaries do not
typically coincide with defined market
boundaries. A Cellular licensee is
required to observe the field strength
limit at every point along its neighbor’s
CGSA, and not necessarily at its own
CGSA boundary. With adoption of the
field strength rule, the Commission
concluded there was no longer a need
to regulate SAB extensions into
neighboring CGSAs (with limited
exceptions). Nonetheless, in the absence
of the height-power limit, SABs
calculated under rule 22.911(a) could
still potentially be excessively large. As
noted above, the height-power rule was
developed to prevent such large SABs,
and it will continue to serve this
important purpose for licensees
deploying narrowband systems (i.e., not
electing to use the PSD model) or
operating in the Gulf service area.
36. However, the Commission finds
that the Cellular height-power rule is
not appropriate for systems that are
operated using PSD. With adoption of a
predictive model requirement for SAB
and CGSA calculations under rule
22.911(c), Cellular licensees that operate
their cell sites pursuant to the PSD
limits will not be calculating their
service area using the existing formula
in 47 CFR 22.911(a). Accordingly, the
Commission retains the height-power
limit and coordination exemption
provisions for licensees deploying
narrowband systems, but now exempts
licensees operating their systems using
PSD. Also, the Commission changes the
title of the existing rule 22.913(c) to
‘‘Exemptions from height-power limit,’’
and renumbers paragraphs (b) and (c) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
accommodate the provisions concerning
PSD and PFD limits and related
measurement provisions, described
above.
3. Power Measurement: Peak vs.
Average/Peak-to-Average Ratio
37. Because the peak power
associated with a noise-like signal is a
random variable, it can place
unachievable requirements on the
measuring instrumentation (e.g., a
resolution/measurement bandwidth that
exceeds the signal bandwidth). The
same non-constant envelope
technologies used for PCS and AWS—
such as CDMA, W–CDMA, and LTE—
have been or will be used in the Cellular
Service as well. Consistent with
Commission decisions to permit
licensees to meet radiated power limits
on an average basis for PCS and AWS,
as well as for other flexible wireless
services, including the 700 MHz
services (both commercial and public
safety broadband), the Commission
concludes that Cellular power limits
should be measured on the basis of
average power. Also consistent with the
average power measurement provisions
adopted for PCS and AWS, the
Commission finds that adopting a PAR
limit of 13 dB for the Cellular Service
would better enable the use of
technologies such as LTE, and that it
strikes the right balance between
enabling licensees to use modulation
schemes with high PARs and protecting
other licensees from high PAR
transmissions.
38. Accordingly, the Commission
revises rule 22.913 to specify that
Cellular power shall be measured on an
average basis, and establishes a PAR
limit of 13 dB. Additionally, as in the
rule governing PCS measurements, the
revised rule specifies that measurement
of average power for Cellular operations
must be made during a period of
continuous transmission based on
Commission-approved average power
techniques. Licensees should consult
the FCC Laboratory’s Knowledge
Database (KDB) Web site regularly for
the latest recommended procedures
concerning Commission-approved
average power measurement techniques.
The Commission’s approach will ensure
that the correct procedures are used for
various technologies that are deployed
or will be deployed in the future in the
Cellular Service, such as GSM, CDMA,
UMTS and LTE, and achieves the
important goal of harmonizing, where
possible, various commercial wireless
service rules. Coupled with the average
power measurement, a 13 dB PAR limit
furthers the goal of facilitating the
deployment of advanced technologies
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17577
such as LTE in the Cellular Service
band, while limiting the potential for
unacceptable interference that might
result from high PAR transmissions. The
Commission disagrees with a
commenter’s argument to adopt power
limits using peak power because this
approach would hinder Cellular
broadband deployments. Spikes are
inevitable, but the PAR limit in
conjunction with the PFD limit takes
this into account and addresses the
concern.
4. Field Strength Limit
39. As noted above, the Cellular
Service rule 22.983 establishes a field
strength limit of 40 dBmV/m, and (with
certain exceptions) this limit must be
observed at every point along the
neighboring licensee’s CGSA, taking
into account that some licensees’ CGSAs
are adjacent to Unserved Area. Cellular
licensees are permitted under the rule to
negotiate different field strength limits
with one another. The Commission
considered a commenter’s
recommendation to change the limit,
but there is a lack of consensus, and the
record is insufficient to compel a
change. Moreover, the Commission
concludes, altering the rule at this time
solely for the Cellular Service would be
at odds with the goal of harmonizing
rules among flexible commercial
wireless services and would not serve
the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission retains 47 CFR 22.983
without change.
5. Out of Band Emission (OOBE) Limit
40. Existing rule 22.917 currently
specifies that, for the Cellular Service,
the power of any emission outside of the
authorized operating frequency ranges
(P) must be attenuated below the
transmitting power by a factor of at least
43 + 10 log(P) dB, and describes the
procedures for measuring compliance
with this OOBE limit. The current
resolution bandwidth for measuring
unwanted emissions outside of the
Cellular band is 100 kHz or greater. The
Commission concludes that the existing
OOBE limit in 47 CFR 22.917(a), which
is the same as the limit for other
commercial wireless services such as
PCS and AWS, continues to serve the
public interest and declines to change it
at this time. In response to a
commenter’s concerns that Cellular PSD
operations will cause increased
interference to its adjacent-band
operations, the Commission notes its
expectation that licensees will work
together to resolve interference
problems, and also notes that rule
22.917(c) allows licensees to negotiate a
different limit from the one specified in
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
17578
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
rule 22.917(a) by private contractual
agreement. The Commission encourages
Cellular and adjacent-band carriers to
continue to work together not only to
address interference as it occurs, but
also to be proactive in avoiding
increased interference from Cellular
PSD operations under the revised
radiated power rules adopted by the
Cellular Second R&O. The Commission
also reminds parties that, under rule
22.917(d), the Commission may require
a greater attenuation if any emission
from a Cellular transmitter results in
interference to users of another radio
service.
41. Regarding the existing provision
in rule 22.917(b), the Commission notes
that the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)
recommends different measurement
bandwidths for operations above and
below 1 GHz. To remain consistent with
international practices, the Commission
concludes that the 100 kHz resolution
bandwidth should be used only for
measurements in the spectrum below 1
GHz, and that any measurements in the
spectrum above 1 GHz should use a
resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts
revised 47 CFR 22.917(b) to retain the
existing provision (renumbered as
22.917(b)(1)) and specifies that it
applies for measurements in the
spectrum below 1 GHz; the Commission
adds 22.917(b)(2) to specify that
measurements of out of band emissions
from Cellular licensees into the
spectrum above 1 GHz should use a
resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. As
technologies change, the Commission
updates its part 2 rules and its
measurement procedures to keep pace,
and therefore, licensees should regularly
consult the KDB Web site for the latest
recommended measurement procedures
and Commission-approved techniques,
and part 2 of the Commission rules.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
D. Other Technical and Licensing Issues
1. Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
42. Under 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), an
authorization will be automatically
terminated if service is ‘‘permanently
discontinued.’’ Existing rule 22.317,
which applies to all part 22 Public
Mobile Services stations including those
in the Cellular Service, 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
that definition, the licensee’s CGSA is
modified accordingly in ULS, reflecting
the reduction in service coverage. While
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
the licensee is required to file the
appropriate form in ULS, the
authorization for the permanently
discontinued site is automatically
terminated without Commission action
whether or not the appropriate form is
filed. After the Commission released the
NPRM, a coalition of Cellular licensees
(Coalition) advocated a more flexible
rule governing permanent
discontinuance of service.
43. Having adopted rules in the 2014
Cellular R&O to transition the Cellular
Service to a geographically-licensed
regime, and consistent with the
approach in various other commercial
wireless services, the Commission
concludes that it serves the public
interest to adopt a modernized
provision—47 CFR 22.947—that defines
permanent discontinuance as 180
consecutive days during which a
Cellular licensee does not operate or, in
the case of a Cellular commercial mobile
radio services (CMRS) provider, does
not provide service to at least one
subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to the
providing carrier. Under this provision,
Cellular licensees will be required to
notify the Commission of the permanent
discontinuance within 10 days of the
expiration of the 180-day period by
filing FCC Form 601. However, whether
or not the licensee files the proper
notification form, the license for a
Cellular system that has permanently
discontinued service will be terminated
automatically, and the area will revert
back to the Commission for relicensing.
Commencing on the day following
public notice of cancellation of the
Cellular license, the Unserved Area will
be available to applicants seeking to
establish a new Cellular system or
expand an existing CGSA by at least 50
contiguous square miles. Based on the
record, the Commission finds that it
serves the public interest to apply the
180-day discontinuance period to new
Cellular systems—other than the
Chambers, TX license system (Chambers
License)—only after the initial
construction period has ended,
including extensions, if any, following
grant of the new-system application.
This approach will ensure that licensees
of new systems are not penalized in the
event they complete construction and
commence operations prior to
expiration of their build-out period. The
rule will apply to the entire geographic
licensed area—the CGSA, thus
enhancing licensees’ flexibility. The
Commission also adopts revised 47 CFR
22.317 such that its site-based approach
will no longer apply to the Cellular
Service. Thus, consistent with other
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
geographically licensed services,
permanent discontinuance of service at
an individual cell site will no longer
result in modification of the CGSA to
reflect reduced service coverage. Once
these rules as adopted today have taken
effect, the Commission will dismiss as
unnecessary a site-based cancellation
notification, i.e., a filing concerning
permanent discontinuance of any
individual cell site(s). Regarding the
Chambers License, the Commission
finds that it serves the public interest to
apply the new rule such that the 180day period for purposes of determining
permanent discontinuance will
commence immediately after the
interim construction deadline set forth
in 47 CFR 22.961.
44. The flexible approach being
adopted regarding permanent service
discontinuance was initially discussed
in the Commission’s pending WRS
Reform proceeding, which also covers
the Cellular Service. Notwithstanding
adoption in the Cellular Second R&O of
rule 22.947 and revised rule 22.317,
Cellular Service licensees will remain
subject to any future Commission action
affecting wireless radio services in the
WRS Reform proceeding.
2. Elimination of Filings for Certain
Minor Modifications
45. Cellular licensees are required
under existing rules to file a minor
modification application for any change
to a non-internal cell site that results in
a reduction in service area coverage
(e.g., an antenna adjustment to a
Cellular site along the CGSA border), no
matter how small the change. The CGSA
boundary is modified accordingly in
ULS to reflect the reduction in service
coverage. This is a lingering vestige of
the legacy site-based Cellular licensing
scheme, similar to the existing
permanent service discontinuance rule
addressed above. As stated in the 2014
Cellular R&O, a hallmark of geographic
licensing is a defined area within which
each licensee can make certain system
changes without Commission filings.
Throughout this proceeding, the
Commission has pursued the goals of
removing unnecessary filing
requirements and providing Cellular
licensees with significant new flexibility
to make changes within their CGSA
boundaries. In light of establishment of
the CGSA as a geographic license area
coupled with today’s elimination of the
filing requirement and resulting CGSA
reduction when an individual cell site
ceases operating entirely, the
Commission finds that eliminating the
site-based provision requiring filings for
non-permanent-discontinuance changes
to operational cell site(s) advances its
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
reform goals and serves the public
interest.
46. Accordingly, the Commission
adopts revised 47 CFR 22.953(c).
Consistent with other geographically
licensed commercial wireless services,
even following such minor system
changes, the CGSA boundary will
remain fixed, except that Cellular
licensees may continue to expand their
CGSAs under 47 CFR 22.949. This
should better enable licensees to
implement technology upgrades
involving reconfiguration and possible
relocation of cell sites and other
network elements. Once revised rule
22.953(c) as adopted today has taken
effect, the Commission will dismiss as
an unnecessary filing an application for
a CGSA reduction. Notwithstanding this
rule change, Cellular licensees remain
subject to any future Commission action
affecting wireless radio services in the
pending WRS Reform proceeding.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
3. Domestic Coordination Requirements
47. Under 47 CFR 22.907, 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 by applicants. As intended by
this rule, coordination has played a
major role in avoiding co-channel and
adjacent-channel interference between
neighboring systems. However, the
Commission finds that the coordination
requirement is not necessary for systems
that deploy technologies such as CDMA
and LTE, which do not utilize frequency
re-use techniques. Accordingly, the
Commission adopts a revised
introductory paragraph of the rule to
exempt those Cellular licensees that
deploy technologies with a frequency
re-use factor of one. In that same
paragraph, the Commission deletes the
reference to ‘‘tentative selectees’’—a
vestige of the lottery system that had
been in place for Cellular licensing
many years ago that is now obsolete.
4. International Coordination
Requirements
48. 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 part 22
Public Mobile Services licensees, 47
CFR 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
rules—22.955 and 22.957—are in
subpart H (Cellular Service-specific),
and each sets forth the text of a
condition that is to be placed on
authorizations for all Cellular systems,
requiring them to coordinate any
transmitter installations within 72
kilometers (45 miles) of the U.S.-Canada
or U.S.-Mexico border, as applicable. To
advance its regulatory reform agenda by
deleting unnecessary or redundant
provisions, the Commission now
eliminates rules 22.955 and 22.957
while preserving rule 22.169 with a
minor revision—adding a reference to
‘‘operation of systems.’’ The
Commission finds that this approach is
sufficient and consistent with the
international coordination requirements
set forth in other rule parts and serves
the public interest.
E. Miscellaneous Other Provisions
1. ERP vs. EIRP; MIMO Antennas;
Equipment Standards
49. ERP vs. EIRP. As noted above, the
Cellular radiated power limits are
expressed in terms of ERP. There is
inconsistency in how the radiated
power limits are expressed in the
various bands in which commercial
wireless services are generally provided.
For example, in the PCS rules, EIRP
(equivalent isotropically radiated
power) is used, but for AWS and 700
MHz, the power limits are expressed in
terms of ERP. Given that Cellular
licensees are long accustomed to ERP
limits under the existing rule 22.913,
the Commission concludes that it serves
the public interest to continue to
express the non-PSD limits in terms of
ERP, and also to express the newly
adopted PSD limits in terms of ERP.
This will avoid unnecessary confusion
and maintain consistency for Cellular
licensees.
50. MIMO Antennas. No commenter
addressed the Commission’s query as to
whether the use of MIMO techniques
requires a modification to the way
measurements are performed for
equipment authorization. Some carriers
state their intent to use spectrally
efficient MIMO techniques in their
Cellular LTE deployments, and the
Commission has taken that into account
in adopting the PSD and PFD limits
described above.
51. Equipment Standards. Part 2 of
the Commission’s rules include
equipment certification requirements. In
the absence of any interest by
commenters on the issue of whether
part 22 equipment standards and
measurement rules need to be updated
or modified to be consistent with the
equipment certification rules in part 2,
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17579
the Commission concludes that no
changes concerning this issue are
warranted at this time in part 22.
However, as technologies change, the
Commission updates its procedures in
part 2 to keep pace, and licensees
should consult part 2 of Commission
rules and the FCC Laboratory’s KDB
Web site so they can be aware of the
most up-to-date requirements,
recommended measurement procedures,
and Commission-approved techniques.
2. Mobile Transmitters and Auxiliary
Test Transmitters
52. The existing provision in 47 CFR
22.913(a)(2) states that the ERP of
Cellular mobile and auxiliary test
transmitters must not exceed 7 W. Given
that the Commission is retaining the
current non-PSD power limits for
Cellular base stations and repeaters as
an option so as not to disrupt systems
that use narrowband Cellular
technology, a commenter’s argument for
a ‘‘corresponding increase’’ in the
mobile station ERP limit is moot.
Moreover, there is no technical evidence
on the record to suggest that the current
7 W limit is limiting the use of mobile
and auxiliary test transmitters.
Accordingly, and in the absence of
comments on the record concerning all
the other issues raised in the Cellular
Further Notice related to mobile and
auxiliary test transmitters, the
Commission finds that it serves the
public interest to retain the existing
provision, including the existing 7 W
limit, but creates a new paragraph of the
rule (§ 22.913(a)(5)) for this provision.
3. Frequency Coordinators
53. Although one commenter
expressly supported the Commission’s
proposal to establish frequency
coordinators to perform the first-line
review of Cellular applications for
CGSA expansions and new Cellular
systems, and two parties expressed
preliminary non-binding interest in
serving as frequency coordinators for
the Cellular Service, the Commission
declines to adopt the use of frequency
coordinators for the Cellular Service at
this time. While the total number of
CGSA-expansion (major modification)
applications in 2013 was 565 (908 if
amendments are included), for calendar
year 2015, Commission data show that
only 42 CGSA-expansion applications
were filed (60 if amendments are
included). This represents a decrease of
more than 90 percent since 2013, and
the trend is further downward, as only
23 CGSA-expansion applications were
filed through the third quarter of 2016.
This is a far greater decrease than the
Commission anticipated when it
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
17580
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
proposed frequency coordination for the
Cellular Service. To accommodate the
use of frequency coordinators for
Cellular applications, the Commission
would need to make numerous changes
to ULS at the taxpayers’ expense.
Additionally, Commission staff
resources would necessarily be
expended for selection and certification
of frequency coordinators and
preparation of requisite Commission
releases, including a Memorandum of
Understanding to be executed with
those selected. Thereafter, the certified
coordinators and Commission staff
would need to collaborate on a file
format incorporating the frequency
coordination process. The Commission
concludes that the requisite
Commission outlay of resources to
introduce frequency coordination into
the Cellular Service would not be
justified, but it will monitor the
application volume and, if the data
show a significant upward trend, it will
revisit establishing frequency
coordinators for the Cellular Service.
4. Definition of ‘‘Rural’’ for Purposes of
47 CFR 22.913
54. Revising the definition of a rural
area under 47 CFR 22.913 (or any other
part 22 rule) was not raised by any
commenter prior to release of the
Cellular Further Notice, nor did the
Commission mention it in that release.
Although one commenter subsequently
argued that the definition should be
automatically adjusted after each
completed U.S. Census, the Commission
is not persuaded by the record that it
should revisit the longstanding
definition of ‘‘rural’’ for the purpose of
rule 22.913, and it makes no change to
the definition in the Cellular Second
R&O.
5. 47 CFR 22.355 (Frequency Tolerance)
55. Although the Cellular Further
Notice proposed to correct a ministerial
error that appeared in the third-column
heading of the table in 47 CFR 22.355,
the Commission notes that the current
edition of the Code of Federal
Regulations does not contain this error,
and therefore no Commission action is
required in this proceeding.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
II. Report and Order (WRS Reform
Proceeding, WT Docket No. 10–112)
A. Background
56. In the WRS Reform proceeding
(WT Docket No. 10–112), on May 25,
2010 the Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (WRS NPRM)
and a companion Order (2010 WRS
Order). The WRS NPRM proposed to
revise and harmonize numerous rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
applicable to WRS, which include the
Cellular Service. Among other issues
addressed in the WRS NPRM, the
Commission generally proposed to
establish a uniform license renewal
process modeled after the 700 MHz
Service rules, and specifically proposed
to adopt a three-part approach to
renewal for all WRS, including Cellular
licensees, that would entail: (1) A
uniform requirement regarding the
content of a renewal showing necessary
to support renewal; (2) a prohibition on
the filing of competing renewal
applications; and (3) in the event of
denial of a renewal application, return
of the associated spectrum to the
Commission for reassignment.
Specifically with respect to Cellular
licensees, the Commission proposed to
delete all five existing part 22 rules
governing Cellular comparative renewal
proceedings—47 CFR 22.935, 22.936,
22.939, 22.940, and 22.943—and sought
comment on its proposal. The
Commission’s companion 2010 WRS
Order imposed a freeze on the filing of
new applications that are mutually
exclusive with renewal applications and
established an interim process for
addressing renewal applications.
57. In response to the WRS NPRM,
interested parties submitted comments,
reply comments, and ex parte letters,
addressing, among other issues, the
proposed deletion of the five rules noted
above governing Cellular comparative
renewal proceedings. The specific
reforms adopted by the Commission in
the WRS R&O are described below.
B. Deletion of 47 CFR 22.935, 22.936,
22.939, 22.940, and 22.943
58. These five Cellular license
renewal rules in part 22 establish a twostep comparative hearing process for
addressing renewal applications as well
as any timely-filed competing
applications. They require an
administrative law judge (ALJ) to
conduct a threshold hearing to
determine whether a Cellular renewal
applicant is entitled to a renewal
expectancy. If the ALJ determines that
the applicant is entitled to a renewal
expectancy and is otherwise basically
qualified, the license is renewed and
any competing applications are denied.
If, on the other hand, the ALJ
determines that a renewal expectancy is
not warranted, all mutually exclusive
applications in the renewal filing group
are considered in a full comparative
hearing. The rules also establish certain
specific requirements for the filing of
competing applications, and procedures
governing their withdrawal during the
hearing.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59. As part of its efforts to eliminate
unnecessary requirements for Cellular
licensees and promote comparable
treatment of spectrum bands commonly
used to provide comparable wireless
services, the Commission finds that it
serves the public interest to delete—as
of the effective date of this WRS R&O—
the part 22 rules pertaining to Cellular
renewal comparative hearings, as
proposed in the WRS NPRM. This action
with respect to the Cellular Service is
consistent with the Commission’s
determinations in various other
commercial wireless service
proceedings over the last ten years,
including those for certain AWS (e.g.,
AWS–3, AWS–4, H-Block) and the 700
MHz Service. Also, the elimination of
service-specific renewal rules and
adoption of uniform renewal procedures
that would apply to all WRS licensees,
including the elimination of
comparative renewal hearings, is
supported by the majority of
commenters responding to the WRS
NPRM. Accordingly, the revised
Cellular Service rules reflect the
Commission’s deletion of rules 22.935,
22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943. The
Commission defers, however, any
decision on the remaining issues raised
in the WRS NPRM and the 2010 WRS
Order, including what standard or
requirements to apply in determining
whether a renewal application should
be granted, and whether licensed
spectrum that does not meet specified
renewal requirements shall be returned
to the Commission for reassignment.
Pending further action in the WRS
Reform proceeding, the freeze imposed
on the filing of new competing
applications and the procedures
established in the 2010 WRS Order will
remain in effect for all covered wireless
services, including the Cellular Service.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
60. Some of the rule amendments
adopted by the Cellular Second R&O—
specifically, rules 22.911(a) through (c),
22.913(a), 22.913(c), 22.913(f), 22.947,
and 22.953(c)—contain modified
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13.
Those rule amendments will be
submitted to OMB for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public, and other Federal
agencies will be invited to comment on
the modified information collection
requirements. 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.
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. The Commission has
assessed the effects on small business
concerns of the rule changes it is
adopting by this Cellular Second R&O
and WRS R&O and finds that businesses
with fewer than 25 people will benefit
from the flexibility afforded by the
revised technical rules, including the
option of deploying systems using PSD,
as well as by the licensing reforms,
including elimination of certain filing
requirements and the comparative
hearing process for license renewals.
B. Congressional Review Act
61. The Commission will send a copy
of this Cellular Second R&O and WRS
R&O to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
62. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for notice and comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA), set forth in Appendix
B of the Cellular Second R&O and
companion WRS R&O, concerning the
possible impact of the rule changes.
D. Ex Parte Presentations
63. Permit-But-Disclose. The
Commission will continue to treat the
Cellular Reform and WRS Reform
proceedings as ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceedings 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) available for that
proceeding, and must be filed in their
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf).
64. People with Disabilities. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
IV. Ordering Clauses
65. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7,
301, 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, 303, 307, 308, 309, and
332, that this second report and order
and second further notice of proposed
rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12–40 are
adopted.
66. It is further ordered, pursuant to
Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307,
308, 309, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332,
that this report and order in WT Docket
No. 10–112 is adopted.
67. It is further ordered that the
second report and order and the report
and order shall be effective May 12,
2017.
68. It is further ordered that part 22
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part
22, is amended as specified in
Appendix A of the second report and
order and report and order, effective
May 12, 2017 except as otherwise
provided herein.
69. It is further ordered that the
amendments adopted in the second
report and order, and specified in
Appendix A of the second report and
order and report and order, to §§ 22.317,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17581
22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a),
22.913(c), 22.913(f), 22.947, and
22.953(c), which contain new or
modified information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
will become effective after the
Commission publishes a document in
the Federal Register announcing such
approval and the relevant effective date.
70. 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 the second report and order,
report and order, and second further
notice of proposed rulemaking to
Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office.
71. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
the second report and order, report and
order, and second further notice of
proposed rulemaking, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22
Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 22 as
follows:
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 22
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309,
and 332.
2. Section 22.99 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘Cellular
system’’ and adding, in alphabetical
order, the definition of ‘‘Power spectral
density’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 22.99
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Cellular system. An automated highcapacity system of one or more multichannel base stations designed to
provide radio telecommunication
services to mobile stations over a wide
area in a spectrally efficient manner.
Cellular systems employ techniques
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
17582
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
such as automatic hand-off between
base stations of communications in
progress to enable channels to be reused at relatively short distances.
*
*
*
*
*
Power spectral density (PSD). The
power of an emission in the frequency
domain, such as in terms of ERP or
EIRP, stated per unit bandwidth, e.g.,
watts/MHz.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 22.169 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 22.169
International coordination.
Operation of systems and channel
assignments under this part 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.
■ 4. Section 22.317 is revised by adding
a sentence at the end to read as follows:
§ 22.317 Discontinuance of station
operation.
* * * This section does not apply to
the Cellular Radiotelephone Service (see
§ 22.947).
■ 5. Section 22.907 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 22.907
Coordination of channel usage.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Licensees in the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service must
coordinate, with the appropriate parties,
channel usage at each transmitter
location within 121 kilometers (75
miles) of any transmitter locations
authorized to other licensees or
proposed by other applicants, except
those with mutually exclusive
applications. Licensees utilizing
systems employing a frequency re-use
factor of 1 (universal re-use) are exempt
from this requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 22.911 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the introductory text,
paragraph (a) heading and introductory
text, paragraph (b) heading, and
paragraph (b)(1);
■ b. Adding paragraph (c);
■ c. Revising paragraph (d); and
■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 22.911
Cellular geographic service area.
The Cellular Geographic Service Area
(CGSA) of a Cellular system is the
geographic area considered by the FCC
to be served by the Cellular system and
is the area within which cellular
systems are entitled to protection and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
adverse effects for the purpose of
determining whether a petitioner has
standing are recognized. The CGSA is
the composite of the service areas of all
of the cells in the system, excluding any
Unserved Area (even if it is served on
a secondary basis) or area within the
CGSA of another Cellular system. The
service area of a cell is the area within
its service area boundary (SAB).
Licensees that use power spectral
density (PSD) at cell sites within their
licensed geographic area are subject to
paragraph (c) of this section; all other
licensees are subject to paragraph (a) (or,
as applicable, paragraph (b)) of this
section. If the calculation under
paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section
(as applicable) yields an SAB extension
comprising at least 130 contiguous
square kilometers (50 contiguous square
miles), the licensee must submit an
application for major modification of
the CGSA using FCC Form 601. See also
§§ 22.912, 22.949, and 22.953.
(a) CGSA determination (non-PSD).
For the purpose of calculating the SABs
for cell sites and determining CGSA
expansion areas for Cellular base
stations that do not operate using PSD
(as permitted under § 22.913), the
distance to the SAB is calculated as a
function of effective radiated power
(ERP) and antenna center of radiation
height above average terrain (HAAT),
height above sea level (HASL), or height
above mean sea level (HAMSL).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Alternative CGSA determination
(non-PSD). * * *
(1) The alternative CGSA
determination must define the CGSA in
terms of distances from the cell sites to
the 32 dBmV/m contour along the eight
cardinal radials, with points in other
azimuthal directions determined by the
method given in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section. The distances used must be
representative of the coverage within
the eight cardinal radials, as depicted by
the alternative CGSA determination.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) CGSA determination (PSD). (1) For
the purpose of calculating the SABs for
cell sites and determining CGSA
expansion areas for Cellular base
stations that operate using PSD (as
permitted under § 22.913), the licensee
must use a predictive propagation
model that is appropriate for the service
provided, taking into account terrain
and local conditions. The SAB and
CGSA boundary must be defined in
terms of distances from the cell site to
the 32 dBmV/m contour along the eight
cardinal radials, with points in other
azimuthal directions determined by the
method set forth in paragraph (a)(6) of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this section. The distances used must be
representative of the coverage within
the eight cardinal radials.
(2) An application for major
modification of the CGSA under this
paragraph (c) must include, as an
exhibit, a depiction of the CGSA
accompanied by one or more supporting
propagation studies using methods
appropriate for the 800–900 MHz
frequency range, including all
supporting data and calculations, and/or
by extensive field strength measurement
data. For the purpose of such
submissions, Cellular service is
considered to be provided in all areas,
including ‘‘dead spots,’’ between the
transmitter location and the locus of
points where the predicted or measured
median field strength finally drops to 32
dBmV/m (i.e., does not exceed 32 dBmV/
m further out). If, after consideration of
such submissions, the FCC finds that
adjustment to a CGSA is warranted, the
FCC may grant the application.
(d) Protection afforded. Cellular
systems are entitled to protection only
within the CGSA (as determined in
accordance with this section) from cochannel and first-adjacent channel
interference (see § 22.983). Licensees
must cooperate in resolving co-channel
and first-adjacent channel interference
by changing channels used at specific
cells or by other technical means.
(e) [Reserved]
■ 7. Section 22.913 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 22.913
Effective radiated power limits.
Licensees in the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service are subject to
the effective radiated power (ERP) limits
and other requirements in this Section.
See also § 22.169.
(a) Maximum ERP. The ERP of
transmitters in the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service must not exceed
the limits in this section.
(1) Except as described in paragraphs
(a)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, the
ERP of base stations and repeaters must
not exceed—
(i) 500 watts per emission; or
(ii) 400 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
(2) Except as described in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) of this section, for systems
operating in areas more than 72
kilometers (45 miles) from international
borders that:
(i) 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
(ii) Extend coverage into Unserved
Area on a secondary basis (see § 22.949),
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the ERP of base transmitters and
repeaters must not exceed—
(A) 1000 watts per emission; or
(B) 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
(3) Provided that they also comply
with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, licensees are permitted to
operate their base transmitters and
repeaters with an ERP greater than 400
watts/MHz (PSD) per sector, up to a
maximum ERP of 1000 watts/MHz
(PSD) per sector unless they meet the
conditions in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(4) Provided that they also comply
with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, licensees of systems operating
in areas more than 72 kilometers (45
miles) from international borders that:
(i) 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
(ii) Extend coverage into Unserved
Area on a secondary basis (see § 22.949),
are permitted to operate base
transmitters and repeaters with an ERP
greater than 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per
sector, up to a maximum of 2000 watts/
MHz (PSD) per sector.
(5) The ERP of mobile transmitters
and auxiliary test transmitters must not
exceed 7 watts.
(b) Power flux density (PFD). Until
May 12, 2024, each Cellular base station
that operates at the higher ERP limits
permitted under paragraphs (a)(3) and
(4) of this section must be designed and
deployed so as not to exceed a modeled
PFD of 3000 microwatts/m2/MHz over
at least 98% of the area within 1 km of
the base station antenna, at 1.6 meters
above ground level. To ensure its
compliance with this requirement, the
licensee must perform predictive
modeling of the PFD values within at
least 1 km of each base station antenna
prior to commencing such operations
and, thereafter, prior to making any site
modifications that may increase the PFD
levels around the base station. The
modeling tools must take into
consideration terrain and other local
conditions and must use good
engineering practices for the 800 MHz
band.
(c) Advance notification requirement.
At least 30 days but not more than 90
days prior to activating a base station at
the higher ERP limits permitted under
paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section,
the Cellular licensee must provide
written advance notice to any public
safety licensee authorized in the
frequency range 806–816 MHz/851–861
MHz with a base station located within
a radius of 113 km of the Cellular base
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
station to be deployed. The written
notice shall be required only one time
for each such cell site and is for
informational purposes only; the public
safety licensees are not afforded the
right to accept or reject the activation or
to unilaterally require changes in the
operating parameters. The written
notification must include the base
station’s location, ERP level, height of
the transmitting antenna’s center of
radiation above ground level, and the
timeframe for activation, as well as the
Cellular licensee’s contact information.
Additional information shall be
provided by the Cellular licensee upon
request of a public safety licensee
required to be notified under this
paragraph (c). See also §§ 22.970
through 22.973.
(d) Power measurement. Measurement
of the ERP of Cellular base transmitters
and repeaters must be made using an
average power measurement technique.
The peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the
transmission must not exceed 13 dB.
Power measurements for base
transmitters and repeaters must be made
in accordance with either of the
following:
(1) A Commission-approved average
power technique (see FCC Laboratory’s
Knowledge Database); or
(2) For purposes of this section, peak
transmit power must be measured over
an interval of continuous transmission
using instrumentation calibrated in
terms of an rms-equivalent voltage. The
measurement results shall be properly
adjusted for any instrument limitations,
such as detector response times, limited
resolution bandwidth capability when
compared to the emission bandwidth,
sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true
peak measurement for the emission in
question over the full bandwidth of the
channel.
(e) 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 MSA and 40.2 kilometers (25
miles) for all other Cellular systems. The
average distance to the service area
boundary is calculated by taking the
arithmetic mean of the distances
determined using the procedures
specified in § 22.911 for the eight
cardinal radial directions.
(f) Exemptions from height-power
limit. Licensees need not comply with
the height-power limit in paragraph (e)
of this section if either of the following
conditions is met:
(1) The proposed operation is
coordinated with the licensees of all
affected Cellular systems on the same
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17583
channel block within 121 kilometers (75
miles) and concurrence is obtained; or
(2) The licensee’s base transmitter or
repeater is operated at the ERP limits
(W/MHz) specified above in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this
section.
■ 8. Section 22.917 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 22.917 Emission limitations for cellular
equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Measurement procedure.
Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation
employing a reference bandwidth as
follows:
(1) In the spectrum below 1 GHz,
instrumentation should employ a
reference bandwidth of 100 kHz or
greater. In the 1 MHz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the
frequency block, a resolution bandwidth
of at least one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission
of the transmitter may be employed. A
narrower resolution bandwidth is
permitted in all cases to improve
measurement accuracy, provided that
the measured power is integrated over
the full required reference bandwidth
(i.e., 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission
bandwidth, as specified). The emission
bandwidth is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below
the carrier center frequency and one
above the carrier center frequency,
outside of which all emissions are
attenuated at least 26 dB below the
transmitter power.
(2) In the spectrum above 1 GHz,
instrumentation should employ a
reference bandwidth of 1 MHz.
*
*
*
*
*
§§ 22.935 through 22.943
Reserved]
[Removed and
9. Sections 22.935, 22.936, 22.939,
22.940, and 22.943 are removed and
reserved.
■ 10. Section 22.947 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 22.947
Discontinuance of service.
(a) Termination of authorization. (1)
Except with respect to CMA672–A (see
paragraph (a)(2) of this section), a
licensee’s Cellular Geographic Service
Area (CGSA) authorization will
automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if the
licensee permanently discontinues
service. A new-system licensee is not
subject to this provision until after
expiration of the construction period
specified in § 22.946.
(2) The licensee’s authorization for
CMA672–A (Chambers, TX) will
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
17584
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if the
licensee permanently discontinues
service after meeting its interim
construction requirement as specified in
§ 22.961(b)(1).
(b) Permanent discontinuance.
Permanent discontinuance of service is
defined as 180 consecutive days during
which a Cellular 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.
11. Section 22.953 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 22.953 Content and form of applications
for Cellular Unserved Area authorizations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Existing systems—minor
modifications. Licensees making minor
modifications pursuant to § 1.929(k) of
this chapter must file FCC Form 601 or
FCC Form 603, provided, however, that
a resulting reduction in coverage within
the CGSA is not subject to this
requirement. See § 1.947(b). See also
§ 22.169. If the modification involves a
contract SAB extension into or from the
Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone, it must
include a certification that the required
written consent has been obtained. See
§§ 22.912(c) and 22.950.
§§ 22.955 and 22.957
Reserved]
[Removed and
12. Sections 22.955 and 22.957 are
removed and reserved.
■
[FR Doc. 2017–07154 Filed 4–11–17; 8:45 am]
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 386
[Docket Number: FMCSA–2016–0128]
RIN 2126–AB93
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment of 2015
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
FMCSA amends the civil
penalties listed in its regulations to
ensure that the civil penalties assessed
or enforced by the Agency reflect the
statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted
for inflation. Pursuant to the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act),
FMCSA is required to promulgate
annual adjustments each year by
January 15th. Pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, FMCSA
finds that good cause exists for
immediate implementation of this final
rule because prior notice and comment
are unnecessary, per the specific
provisions of the 2015 Act.
DATES: This rule is effective April 24,
2017.
SUMMARY:
Ms.
LaTonya Mimms, Enforcement Division,
by email at civilpenalty@dot.gov or
phone at 202–366–0991. Office hours
are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone (202)
366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Major
Provisions
This final rule adjusts the amount of
FMCSA’s civil penalties to account for
inflation as directed by the 2015 Act.
The final rule implements the 2017
annual adjustments, which will update
the adjustments made by interim final
rule on June 27, 2016 (81 FR 41453).
The specific inflation adjustment
methodology is described later in this
document.
B. Benefits and Costs
The changes imposed by this final
rule affect civil penalty amounts, which
are considered by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Apr 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Circular A–4, Regulatory Analysis,1 as
transfer payments, not costs. Transfer
payments are payments from one group
to another that do not affect total
resources available to society. By
definition they are not considered in the
monetization of societal costs and
benefits of rulemakings.
Congress stated in the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990 (1990 Act) that increasing
penalties over time will ‘‘maintain the
deterrent effect of civil monetary
penalties and promote compliance with
the law.’’ 2 Therefore, with this
continued deterrence, FMCSA infers
that there may be some safety benefits
that occur due to this final rule. The
deterrence effect of increasing penalties,
which Congress has recognized, cannot
be reliably quantified into safety
benefits.
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
A. Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015
This rulemaking is based primarily on
the 2015 Act, Public Law 114–74, title
VII, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599, 28 U.S.C.
2461 note (Nov. 2, 2015). The 2015 Act
amended the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990
Act) (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The basic
findings and purpose of the amended
1990 Act remain unchanged and
include supporting the role civil
penalties play in Federal law and
regulations in deterring violations by
allowing for regulatory adjustments to
account for inflation.
OMB must provide annual guidance
by December of each year on
implementing the 2015 Act. In response
to this provision, OMB has provided
guidance to agencies regarding the
methodology to implement the 2017
annual adjustment required under the
2015 Act,3 as further discussed in the
Background section, below.
B. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Generally, agencies may promulgate
final rules only after issuing a notice of
proposed rulemaking and providing an
opportunity for public comment under
1 Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Circular A–4. Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/
a-4.pdf (accessed January 5, 2017).
2 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Pub. L. 101–410, Oct. 5,
1990, 104 Stat. 890.).
3 OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies; Implementation of the
2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvements Act of 2015: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
memoranda/2017/m-17-11_0.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17570-17584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 22
[WT Docket Nos. 12-40, 10-112; RM-11510, RM-11660; FCC 17-27]
Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts revised rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular
Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service. The Commission revises the outdated
Cellular radiated power rules and related technical provisions, most
notably allowing licensees the option to comply with power spectral
density (PSD) power limits, while also safeguarding systems that share
the 800 MHz band, especially public safety systems, from increased
unacceptable interference. These updated rules will allow Cellular
licensees to deploy advanced mobile broadband services such as long
term evolution (LTE) more efficiently. The Cellular licensing rule
revisions continue the transition to a geographic-based regime by
eliminating certain filing requirements, and also eliminate the
comparative hearing process for Cellular license renewals. Both the
technical and licensing reforms provide Cellular licensees with more
flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, and enable Cellular
licensees to respond more quickly--and at lower cost--to changing
market conditions and consumer demand. They also promote similar
treatment across competing commercial wireless spectrum bands.
DATES: Effective May 12, 2017, except for the amendments to 47 CFR
22.317, 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), (c), and (f), 22.947, and
22.953(c), which contain information collection requirements that have
not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those
amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Shafran (Legal), (202) 418-2781,
or Moslem Sawez (Technical), (202) 418-8211, regarding the Cellular
Second R&O; and Kathy Harris, (202) 418-0609, regarding the WRS R&O.
All three contact persons are in the Mobility Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, and may also be contacted at (202) 418-7233
(TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order in the Cellular Reform proceeding (Cellular Second
R&O), WT Docket No. 12-40, RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, and the
Commission's companion Report and Order in the Wireless Radio Services
(WRS) Reform proceeding (WRS R&O), WT Docket No. 10-112, FCC 17-27,
adopted March 23, 2017 and released March 24, 2017. The full text of
the Cellular Second R&O and WRS R&O, including all Appendices, is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A157,
Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's
Web site at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-27A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the Consumer and
Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
I. Second Report and Order (Cellular Reform Proceeding, WT Docket No.
12-40)
A. Background
1. In a Report and Order released on November 10, 2014 in the
Cellular Reform proceeding (WT Docket No. 12-40) (2014 Cellular R&O),
the Commission adopted new and revised rules to change to a geographic-
based licensing regime. Specifically, it revised the rules to establish
geographic licenses based on cellular geographic service area (CGSA)
boundaries and provided licensees with significant new flexibility to
improve their systems through modifications within those boundaries. It
preserved the ability of licensees to expand their CGSAs into Unserved
Area if the area is at least 50 contiguous square miles, but
dramatically reduced application filing burdens by permitting
incumbents to serve indefinitely, on a secondary basis, Unserved Area
parcels smaller than 50 contiguous square miles. It eliminated other
filing requirements and established a field strength limit rule
tailored to reflect the continued ability to expand Cellular service
area coverage. These reforms put Cellular licensing more on par with
the flexible licensing schemes in other similar mobile services, such
as the Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), the commercial
service in the 700
[[Page 17571]]
MHz band (700 MHz Service), the 600 MHz Service, and various advanced
wireless services (AWS).
2. Also in the Cellular Reform proceeding, the Commission released
a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 10, 2014
(Cellular Further Notice) proposing additional reforms of the Cellular
licensing rules as well as reforms to the Cellular radiated power and
related technical rules to further enhance flexibility and spectral
efficiency. The Commission sought comment on its proposed reforms,
including various options that would accommodate the use of a power
spectral density (PSD) model, and on numerous related technical issues
and licensing matters. The Commission sought comment on all aspects of
its proposals as well as on other ideas, proposals, and comments
discussed in the Cellular Further Notice, and also invited the
submission of alternative ideas.
3. In response to the Cellular Further Notice, interested parties
submitted comments, reply comments, and ex parte letters. The specific
reforms adopted by the Commission in the Cellular Second R&O are
described below.
B. Power Spectral Density (PSD) Limits and Safeguards To Protect Public
Safety Systems
4. Introduction. ``PSD'' describes the amount of effective radiated
power (ERP) \1\ that would be allowed per unit of bandwidth from a base
station antenna (e.g., 100 watts/MHz), such that wider bandwidth
emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their
bandwidth. With adoption of the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission
adds a definition of PSD to the part 22 definitions in the rules,
substantially as proposed in the Cellular Further Notice. Under the
existing Cellular radiated power rules, as set forth in 47 CFR 22.913,
power limits are expressed in terms of ERP without any reference to
bandwidth, and these limits are applied per emission. The existing
limits favor narrowband technologies, such as GSM, and disadvantage
licensees wishing to deploy wideband technologies such as LTE. To
facilitate efficient provision of advanced mobile wireless services
using wideband technologies such as LTE, based on the record, the
Commission adopts PSD limits as an option for Cellular licensees, with
an advance notification requirement at specified higher PSD levels, and
a power flux density (PFD) limit that will apply for a seven-year
transition period if the Cellular licensee operates at PSD limits that
exceed a certain threshold. For the purposes of this proceeding,
``PFD'' is the amount of radio frequency energy 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 at
ground level in a given location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A generic definition of the term ``effective radiated
power'' is in existing part 2 of the rules: ``[t]he product of the
power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-wave
dipole in a given direction.'' 47 CFR 2.1. Pursuant to 47 CFR
2.1(a), terms and definitions appearing in part 2 serve as
definitive terms and definitions that prevail throughout the
Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In reaching its decisions revising the Cellular power rules, the
Commission recognizes that PSD and PFD limits are not a complete answer
to eliminating unacceptable Cellular interference to public safety
systems in the 800 MHz band, at least for the immediate term. The
restructuring (rebanding) of the 800 MHz band commenced soon after the
Commission adopted its Order in the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding in WT
Docket No. 02-55 (2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order) to address the root
cause of interference to public safety communications by moving public
safety entities spectrally further from the Cellular and commercial
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) frequencies. The rebanding has
not yet been completed in portions of states bordering Mexico where
complex international coordination is required, and in these areas,
some public safety licensees continue to operate on frequencies
adjacent to the lower edge of the Cellular band at 869 MHz. Even after
rebanding is fully complete, some public safety licensees may still be
susceptible to Cellular base station (and ESMR band) interference
because the filtering in their legacy radios does not reflect the post-
rebanding channel plan. Therefore, in revising the Cellular power rules
in the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission has taken steps to protect
public safety systems from a potential increase in unacceptable
interference from Cellular PSD operations. These steps include: (1)
Retaining (without change) the existing provisions in 47 CFR 22.970
through 22.973 which, by placing strict responsibility for remedying
unacceptable interference on the licensee(s) causing that interference
to public safety communications, serve as a ``backstop'' to help ensure
that first responders' critical communications are not impeded; and (2)
additional safeguards that will apply to Cellular PSD systems under
certain circumstances. The Commission emphasizes that the additional
safeguards, described further below, are in addition to, and not a
replacement for, the interference resolution procedures set forth in 47
CFR 22.970 through 22.973. The Commission also directs the Wireless
Telecommuni ca tions Bureau (Bureau), in conjunction with the
Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) (collectively, Bureaus), to
convene a public forum to facilitate stakeholder-led co-existence
efforts. The components of this multi-pronged approach, including the
specific PSD limits adopted for the Cellular Service, are discussed
below.
6. PSD Limits. To meet the ever-increasing demand for ubiquitous,
mobile data services, Cellular licensees need to utilize their spectrum
as efficiently as possible. LTE is more spectrally efficient than other
commercial wireless broadband technologies being used by Cellular
carriers today; it can bring faster speeds, reduced latency, and better
mobile service for the public. Carriers have already deployed LTE on
their 700 MHz, AWS, and PCS spectrum, and the Commission's rules
governing those services provide for use of a PSD model. If carriers
were to deploy LTE on Cellular frequencies using the existing non-PSD
limits, the result would be reduced coverage. To compensate for this
reduction of coverage, additional sites would be needed. The resulting
higher concentration of sites could potentially worsen the existing
interference environment, especially near Cellular base stations where
the risk to public safety communications is greatest. Additionally,
while utilizing techniques such as multiple-input-multiple-output
(MIMO) can achieve spectral efficiency, Cellular broadband licensees
using 2X2 MIMO transmitters under the existing ERP limits will double
their power, and here too, the result is potentially increased
interference to public safety operations.
7. Providing technological flexibility and, to the extent
practicable, regulatory parity for Cellular licensees via a PSD model
to facilitate efficient use of more advanced wideband technologies
without increasing the potential for unacceptable interference to 800
MHz public safety operations has been the primary two-pronged objective
in this proceeding concerning power reform. The Commission finds that
revising its rules to permit a PSD model option serves the public
interest by allowing for efficient use of wideband
[[Page 17572]]
technologies in the Cellular Service.\2\ Consistent with the radiated
power rules adopted for other commercial wireless services, such as PCS
and AWS, which include doubled PSD limits to facilitate economical
coverage in rural areas, the Commission also finds that it serves the
public interest to apply to PSD operations the doubling of power in
rural counties (as permitted under the existing rule for non-PSD
operations)--defined as counties with population densities of 100
persons or fewer per square mile, based on the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of the Census. As in the case of
the existing Cellular rule for non-PSD limits, this rural area power
increase is limited to base stations more than 72 km (45 miles) from
the Mexican and Canadian borders, consistent with current agreements
with those countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To accommodate filings by licensees and applicants, several
of the rules that the Commission adopts in this Cellular Second R&O
will require changes to FCC Form 601 and/or the Commission's
Universal Licensing System (ULS). The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau will issue public notices, as appropriate, announcing
completion of these changes and, where required, OMB approval
thereof, along with the effective date(s) of the new rules pursuant
to the Ordering Clauses, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that the
appropriate PSD limits for the Cellular Service are as follows: (1) 400
W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, and 800 W/MHz in rural areas, without a
PFD requirement; and (2) higher limits--up to 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-
rural areas, and up to 2000 W/MHz ERP in rural areas (Higher PSD
Limits) with, in both non-rural and rural areas, a PFD limit for seven
years and an advance notification requirement. The advance notification
requirement and the seven-year PFD limit are described further below.
9. PSD limits of 400 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas and 800 W/MHz ERP
in rural areas--without any PFD restriction--represent an equivalent
amount of power across the Cellular band when compared to existing
Cellular CDMA deployments. This achieves the two-pronged goal of
providing enhanced technological flexibility for Cellular carriers
while protecting public safety communications from increased
interference. Consistent with the Commission's decisions for the 700
MHz Service, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest to
permit Cellular Service operations at the Higher PSD Limits--up to 1000
W/MHz ERP (non-rural)/up to 2000 W/MHz ERP (rural)--with a PFD limit.
This will afford Cellular carriers additional system design flexibility
where, for example, increased power is needed for sites at higher
elevation to achieve sufficient coverage in sparsely populated
areas.\3\ As explained below, this higher-PSD-plus-PFD approach will
enable better broadband service in such areas without increasing
interference to public safety communications, as the PFD on the ground
will be maintained at a level equivalent to that of a low site
operating at lower power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission also adopts a revised definition of
``Cellular system.'' See 47 CFR 22.99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Commission further concludes that the PSD limits should be
applied per sector, rather than per transmitter. If the PSD limit were
applied per transmitter, then using MIMO techniques of 2x2 or 4x4 could
potentially double or quadruple the total energy radiating from a cell
site and would likely worsen the interference environment, which
undermines one of the primary goals in this proceeding and is contrary
to the public interest. The Commission declines to adopt a bandwidth
dividing line for PSD operations, finding it unnecessary and
potentially a disadvantage to certain carriers.
11. Advance Notification Requirement at the Higher PSD Limits. As
established in the record, public safety receivers remain vulnerable to
interference from Cellular licensees in the 800 MHz band, and the
Higher PSD Limits could increase the potential for interference.
Therefore, one of the important safeguards the Commission adds to 47
CFR 22.913, as adopted in the Cellular Second R&O, is an advance
notification requirement. Every Cellular licensee preparing to activate
a cell site at the Higher PSD Limits will be required to provide a
minimum of 30 days (but not more than 90 days) written advance notice
to any public safety licensee then authorized in the frequency range
806-816 MHz/851-861 MHz with a base station located within a radius of
113 km of the Cellular base station to be deployed. The written notice
shall include the location, ERP PSD level, height of the transmitting
antenna's center of radiation above ground level, and the timeframe for
activation of the cell site, as well as the Cellular licensee's contact
information, with additional parameters to be provided upon request by
a public safety licensee within the 113 km radius. This notification
will be for informational purposes only; the notified public safety
licensee(s) will not have the right to oppose the planned Cellular
operations, but could analyze the cell site's potential for
interference and suggest changes before the cell is activated. The
Cellular licensee will have discretion to make changes, but will remain
obligated to address complaints of interference in compliance with the
applicable resolution procedures in 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973.
12. The advance notification will be required only one time. Thus,
for example, if the Cellular licensee prepares to operate a cell site
at a PSD level of 425 W/MHz, it will be required to provide the
requisite written notice at least 30 days (but not more than 90 days)
in advance of that cell site's deployment, including the data specified
above. Thereafter, if the same Cellular licensee increases the ERP PSD
level at that same cell site (e.g., from 425 W/MHz to 550 W/MHz), it
will not be required to provide additional notice under 47 CFR 22.913.
To require more than a one-time notification would impose an
unnecessary burden on Cellular licensees; once notified that a
particular cell site will operate above 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in
rural areas), a local public safety licensee will already be in a
position to identify that particular cell site as a possible source of
any new interference that is encountered. This requisite one-time
notification will be yet another valuable tool to help public safety
licensees assess a cell site's potential for interference and will
enhance the interaction between Cellular and public safety
communications operators that is so vital to co-existence in the 800
MHz band. This component of the Commission's approach thus advances its
goals to provide system design flexibility to Cellular carriers,
achieve parity among competing or complementary services, and safeguard
spectral compatibility with licensees in adjacent markets and adjacent
bands. Accordingly, the revised rule 22.913 adopted in the Cellular
Second R&O includes an advance notice requirement.
13. The Commission emphasizes that this mandatory notice
requirement is in addition to, and not a replacement for, any notice
that a Cellular licensee may choose to provide voluntarily, nor is it a
replacement for any other information exchanges that Cellular and
public safety licensees undertake in the interest of interference
avoidance.
14. The Commission places great weight on stakeholder-led
measures--involving Cellular licensees, public safety licensees, and
the manufacturers of public safety equipment--to achieve improved co-
existence between commercial broadband and public safety communications
in neighboring bands. The Commission therefore applauds the discussions
that have
[[Page 17573]]
already taken place among AT&T, Verizon, and the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO), and it
applauds the resulting voluntary commitments made by AT&T and Verizon,
as documented on the record and summarized in paragraphs 25 and 26 of
the full text of the Cellular Second R&O--particularly their
commitments that will entail testing, extensive collaboration with
local public safety entities, and phased PSD roll-out in select
markets. The Commission expects AT&T and Verizon to fulfill these
commitments. The measures AT&T and Verizon have outlined, coupled with
AT&T's experience to date in deploying PSD pursuant to four interim PSD
waivers granted by the Bureau, will be extremely important to near-term
co-existence of more advanced Cellular broadband services, such as LTE,
and public safety communications. The Commission also acknowledges the
additional voluntary commitment of AT&T and Verizon to give 30-day
advance notice to public safety licensees when transitioning to PSD in
additional markets after their planned testing and phased roll-out, as
also summarized in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the full text of the
Cellular Second R&O. This could include advance notice even for PSD
operations at 400 W/MHz or less (or, in rural areas, at 800 W/MHz or
less). The Commission encourages any and all cooperation aimed at
avoiding interference to public safety communications.
15. Non-PSD ERP Limits. The Commission concludes that it serves the
public interest to retain non-PSD ERP limits for Cellular licensees
that either cannot or choose not to deploy systems using a PSD model.
It further finds that the existing non-PSD ERP limits of 500 watts (W)
ERP (non-rural) and 1000 W ERP (rural) continue to be sufficient and
appropriate for the Cellular Service, and makes explicit in the rule
that these non-PSD ERP limits apply per emission. The doubled power
limits for Cellular licensees' rural operations that do not deploy
technologies using PSD will continue to apply only to base stations
that are more than 72 km (45 miles) from the Mexican and Canadian
borders, consistent with current agreements with those countries. The
decision to retain the existing non-PSD limits as an option will ensure
that carriers using narrowband technologies such as GSM are not
disadvantaged, as a requirement to use PSD could result in a power
reduction in certain instances, which in turn would result in reduced
coverage--a result that would be detrimental to consumers and licensees
alike.
16. Cellular licensees will continue to be subject to the field
strength limit rule adopted in the 2014 Cellular R&O, and thus,
regardless of the location, power level, or height of the Cellular base
stations, the signal level at the neighboring licensee's CGSA boundary
may not exceed 40 dB[micro]V/m, with certain exceptions outlined in the
rule (47 CFR 22.983). Cellular licensees not deploying PSD operations
will also continue to be subject to the coordination requirements set
forth in 47 CFR 22.907 (discussed further below).
17. Seven-year PFD Limit at Higher PSD Limits; Sunset Date. The
Commission's PSD decisions in this Cellular Second R&O further align
the rules for the Cellular Service band with other bands used to
provide competing commercial wireless services, but the Commission also
considers the Cellular band's unique circumstances that warrant special
requirements to prevent interference. The record shows that public
safety equipment remains vulnerable to interference from Cellular
Service operations even in areas where rebanding has been completed.
Therefore, as an additional safeguard, the Commission adopts a PFD
limit for Cellular base transmitters and repeaters operating at the
Higher PSD Limits, to remain in effect for seven years from the
effective date of revised rule 22.913. Specifically, the Commission
adopts a modeled PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz at 1.6 meters
above ground level, which represents the average height above ground of
a public safety receiver being used by a person, and the Commission
requires that the limit be observed over at least 98% of the area
within 1 km of each base station antenna. For purposes of the Cellular
Second R&O, the Commission uses ``on the ground'' and ``at ground
level'' interchangeably to mean this 1.6-meter height above ground of a
public safety receiver being used by a person. To determine compliance,
this limit is to be modeled using good engineering practices accounting
for terrain and local conditions--at the time of initial deployment at
the Higher PSD Limits and for any site modifications thereafter that
may increase the PFD levels around the site.
18. Factors other than ERP that contribute to the strength of PFD
are antenna height, antenna down tilt, and ground elevation. Because of
these factors, most sites have small ``hot spots'' where PFD will reach
a high level in an extremely small area, making adoption of an absolute
PFD limit impractical. Technical data provided by Cellular carriers
depicting real-world deployment scenarios--using the existing radiated
power limits--indicate that current Cellular operations produce a PFD
of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz, and that this limit is not exceeded in at
least 98% of the area within 1 km of the base station. The Commission
therefore concludes that a modeled PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/
MHz--not to be exceeded over 98% of the area within 1 km of the base
station at 1.6 meters above ground--is appropriate for the Cellular
Service.
19. This PFD limit will require Cellular licensees to consider very
carefully the impact near the ground for each deployment at the Higher
PSD Limits to ensure that the potential for interference around a
Cellular base station is not increased, while affording them
flexibility to deploy more advanced broadband services where the PSD
limits of 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural areas) would not permit
sufficient coverage and could result in a loss of service to consumers.
Moreover, this PFD limit is consistent with the limit applicable to
competing wireless systems in the 700 MHz Service.
20. The Commission declines to adopt a commenter's proposal to
apply any PFD limit to (1) non-PSD Cellular systems that operate above
500 W ERP, and (2) non-PSD Cellular systems operating at or below 500 W
ERP after receipt of an interference complaint or when replacing radio
equipment or antennas. Imposing such a heavy new burden on Cellular
licensees for their extensively deployed facilities is unwarranted.
First, given that the Commission is not adopting any increase to the
existing non-PSD power limits, the potential for interference from
systems operating at or below those limits will not increase. Second, a
PFD limit is intended to limit the amount of energy from antenna sites
that are closer to ground level with large down tilts, and under the
current ERP limits, sites operating above 500 W ERP are located in
rural areas where antennas are generally located well above ground
level with very small down tilts. Third, the existing interference
resolution provisions in 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973 have provided a
workable mechanism to address interference problems as they arise.
Applying a PFD limit to non-PSD Cellular systems (as proposed by one of
the commenters) could potentially require modification of existing
Cellular systems, which might adversely affect the wireless coverage
(including 911 calling) of narrowband licensees who
[[Page 17574]]
elect to use the existing non-PSD power rules. Such a result is
contrary to the public interest. In the 2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order,
the Commission declined to adopt across-the-board PFD limits for
Cellular licensees under the non-PSD power limits of 500 W (non-rural)/
1000 W (rural), recognizing that ``the restrictions would require
modifications of cells that had little, if any, potential for
generating unacceptable interference.'' The Commission reaches the same
conclusion in this Cellular Reform proceeding. For all these reasons,
the Commission declines to add a PFD component to the existing Cellular
non-PSD power limits.
21. The Commission also declines to adopt a commenter's
recommendation to adopt a PFD limit of 625 [micro]W/m\2\ with the goal
of transitioning to a PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\ after five years;
it also declines to adopt that same commenter's proposals to: (1) Not
allow licensees to exceed the PFD limit at any ground level locations
within 1 km of the base station; and (2) only allow non-compliance at
1% of locations well above ground level within 1 km of the base
station. The record indicates that these limits are not realistic or
achievable by Cellular systems even as currently deployed (non-PSD),
nor are they workable for Cellular systems that will be deployed at the
PSD limits adopted in the Cellular Second R&O. Cellular carriers will
deploy wideband technologies such as LTE that use bandwidths of 5 MHz
or more. A PFD of 625 [micro]W/m\2\ measured across 5 MHz would be
equivalent to 125 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz. As stated above, technical data
filed by the parties in this proceeding show that this very low PFD is
already exceeded in large portions of the areas around their sites
today, and does not reflect the existing interference environment. Even
at the PSD limits of 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural areas), which are
equivalent to the existing non-PSD ERP limits, it would be difficult if
not impossible to operate Cellular systems that comply with such low
PFD limits, especially if they were applied as an absolute limit at any
ground level location as the commenter advocates. Moreover, meeting
such PFD limits would require power reductions and increase the need
for a higher concentration of sites, potentially increasing
interference and reducing the flexibility and efficiency a PSD model is
designed to afford. Instead, the Commission adopts a PFD limit that is
achievable to minimize impact at ground level and avoid potentially
worsening the existing interference environment.
22. The Commission is not persuaded by a commenter's argument that
PFD is different from PSD and cannot be specified per unit of
bandwidth. Any power or energy of a system can be stated per unit of
bandwidth. The Commission agrees that PSD by its nature is specified
with a reference bandwidth of 1 MHz, but in the interest of consistency
and accuracy, adopts the same reference bandwidth for PFD.
23. The Commission finds that requiring a measured PFD limit would
be overly burdensome and also unnecessary, given that Cellular
licensees are still required to resolve unacceptable interference
should it occur from their operations. A modeled PFD limit nonetheless
will require the licensee to consider the amount of signal energy it is
putting on the ground around its base stations to minimize the
potential for large areas of interference. Cellular licensees must
perform predictive modeling of the PFD values around each site prior to
operating their systems at the Higher PSD Limits or, thereafter, prior
to changing the parameters of these sites such that it could increase
the PFD levels. The propagation model must confirm that each applicable
base station meets the PFD limit over 98% of the area within a 1 km
radius of the base station antennas, at 1.6 meters above ground. If the
predictive model does not confirm compliance with these requirements,
the licensee will need to adjust base-station parameters, such as the
height of the antenna, beam tilt, power, or other parameters, until
confirmation of the requirements is achieved before deployment, thereby
reducing the amount of signal energy on the ground around the site. The
purpose of the modeling requirement is to ensure that the Cellular
licensee will consider the impact on the ground of ``hot spots'' when
deploying at the Higher PSD Limits and will use engineering techniques
to minimize those ``hot spots.'' Licensees must use modeling tools
(software) that take into account terrain and local conditions. The
model need not consider areas indoors or in buildings because this
could vary widely depending on building materials. The Commission
reiterates that the PFD limit is, for the seven-year transition period,
an addition to, and not a replacement for, the interference resolution
process already in place under 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973.
24. The Commission also rejects a commenter's argument that, no
matter the PSD limit at which a Cellular licensee is operating, no PFD
limit should apply in markets where public safety licensees do not
reasonably plan to operate in the 800 MHz band. There is no evidence
that such relief is necessary, nor is there evidence that an immediate
exemption from the Cellular PFD limit at the Higher PSD Limits would
provide benefits to consumers. The provision for operations at higher
PSD limits combined with a PFD limit will accommodate cases where a
carrier needs additional power--for example, systems with antennas well
above street level or on mountain tops. Moreover, the plans of public
safety agencies are not known to the Commission and, even if they were
known today, they would likely change with time. Permitting Cellular
licensees to deploy at the higher PSD levels without a PFD limit during
the seven-year transition period could hamper launch of expanded or new
800 MHz systems by public safety entities and increase their deployment
costs. For all these reasons, the Commission finds that the commenter's
proposal does not serve the public interest and, accordingly, declines
to adopt it.
25. PFD Sunset. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to
eliminate the Cellular PFD limit seven years after the effective date
of the revised rule 22.913 adopted today. This ``PFD Sunset'' decision
is based on several factors. Providing technologically-neutral rules
for the Cellular Service in terms of allowing radiated power that
fosters efficient deployment of more advanced broadband services has
been delayed for nine years since the Commission adopted PSD models for
competing CMRS licensees (PCS, AWS, and the 700 MHz Service), to allow
more time for the rebanding process to evolve. Notably, PCS and AWS
licensees are not subject to any PFD limit, and 700 MHz Service
licensees are not subject to a PFD limit at or below their PSD limits
of 1000 W/MHz (non-rural)/2000 W/MHz (rural). The PFD limit for the
Cellular Service, while consistent with the Commission's decision
regarding the 700 MHz Service, is a unique requirement reflecting
unique characteristics of the 800 MHz band and is designed to protect
public safety licensees for a transition period that will allow for
improved spectrum sharing in that band.
26. The Commission is convinced that the formula for such co-
existence must include good faith efforts on the part of Cellular (and
other commercial) system operators and public safety communications
operators, as well as device manufacturers. The seven-year period will
provide a reasonable amount
[[Page 17575]]
of time for this crucial three-way conversation, which the Commission
intends to facilitate by holding a public forum (described further
below), with the goal of implementing important changes in equipment
and practices of Cellular and public safety communications licensees
alike. Given the advances in technology for commercial and public
safety communications, combined with the changing interference
environment as a result of the restructuring of the band launched in
2004, the Commission expects evolving capabilities from participants in
all three groups of stakeholders--Cellular licensees, public safety
operators, and device manufacturers.
27. Comments on the record indicate that the specialized equipment
used by public safety licensees is costly given budget constraints and
used for longer durations as compared to commercial wireless devices.
According to one public safety commenter, many public safety 800 MHz
radios were replaced as a result of the Commission's 2004 800 MHz
Rebanding Order, which established receiver performance standards
entitling public safety licensees to full interference abatement
measures. That same commenter states that public safety equipment
replacement cycles often run 10-20 years.\4\ A seven-year PFD Sunset
date will be approximately 20 years after release of the Commission's
2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order. As noted above, AT&T and Verizon have
committed to careful deployment of their PSD operations, including PSD
testing in collaboration with public safety entities, and phased roll-
out. The Commission reiterates its expectation that they will fulfill
those commitments. To the extent that they elect to operate at the
Higher PSD Limits in the next several years, they will be subject to
the PFD limit to minimize ``hot spots.'' With these various obligations
in mind, Cellular licensees can be expected to design their PSD
operations with great care, and the Commission expects their deployment
of more advanced wideband technologies to be substantially completed
within the next seven years. Moreover, at the Higher PSD Limits, they
will be subject to the one-time advance notification requirement (with
no sunset of that rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Consumer Electronics Association estimates the life
expectancy of the average cell phone to be 4.7 years. Consumer
Electronics Association, The Life Expectancy of Electronics, https://www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2014/September/The-Life-Expectancy-of-Electronics.aspx. For tax purposes, the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service allows depreciation of wireless assets such as computer-
based switching equipment, base station controllers, radio network
controllers, and related assets over a period of either five years
(general depreciation system specified under I.R.C. 168(a)) or nine
and a half years (alternative depreciation system specified under
I.R.C. 168(g)). See Rev. Proc. 2011-22, 2011-18 I.R.B. 737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. The PSD limits adopted for the Cellular Service that are
equivalent to the existing non-PSD power limits, with Higher PSD Limits
that include an advance notification requirement, plus a transitional
PFD limit (applicable at the Higher PSD Limits), and continuing
obligations under 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973, all in conjunction with
voluntary commitments of AT&T and Verizon for testing and phased roll-
out of their PSD operations, comprise a comprehensive balanced approach
to Cellular power reform that affords the Cellular licensees long-
overdue technical flexibility while protecting public safety
communications. The forthcoming public forum described in the next
section will provide the opportunity for development of additional
multi-stakeholder co-existence measures. Based on all of these
considerations and comments on the record, the Commission concludes
that a seven-year PFD Sunset date is appropriate and serves the public
interest.
29. Public Forum To Facilitate Multi-stakeholder Co-existence. The
Commission reiterates that it attaches great weight to multi-
stakeholder co-existence efforts--good faith efforts to work through
the issues by Cellular licenses, public safety entities, and public
safety equipment manufacturers alike. While the discussions that the
two major Cellular carriers, AT&T and Verizon, have already held with
APCO are encouraging, and the voluntary commitments made by AT&T and
Verizon are commendable, it is clear from the record that additional
dialogue is crucial to resolving the lingering problems of unacceptable
interference to public safety receivers--without hindering spectral
efficiency and technological advances in the Cellular Service. To
foster the three-way conversation among Cellular carriers, public
safety entities, and manufacturers of public safety equipment, the
Commission directs the Bureaus to work together to organize and conduct
a public forum that brings together representatives of all three
stakeholder groups. This public forum shall be convened by the Bureaus
no later than one year following release of the Cellular Second R&O.
The Bureaus are to invite a broad array of stakeholders, including
carriers with significant nationwide Cellular operations, as well as
Cellular rural carrier representatives, public safety representatives,
including the key public safety associations, and the leading public
safety equipment manufacturers. The Commission defers to the Bureaus
concerning development of the full list of invitees, format, and
specific date of the forum. A forum attended by licensees, engineers,
manufacturers, Cellular carriers, and any others (as determined by the
Bureaus) who have first-hand experience with interference cases will
focus attention on what has been achieved, what remains to be done, and
how it can be accomplished.
30. The Commission did not seek comment on public safety receiver
standards in this proceeding, but several commenters raised this issue.
Equipment manufacturers are not currently subject to Commission rules
that mandate particular standards for public safety equipment. The
Commission is nonetheless disappointed that such equipment has not
improved to the extent necessary to filter out the undesired 800 MHz
Cellular (or ESMR) signals over the past 12 years since adoption of the
2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order identifying the problem of deficient
receivers. The Commission expects these radio manufacturers to be part
of the conversation now--and particularly encourages them to
participate in the public forum to explain why receivers with better
interference rejection features are not available to public safety
users at affordable prices, and to present practical options and
potential steps for improving interference rejection in public safety
devices. The Commission also expects public safety equipment purchasers
to specify interference rejection in their requests for proposal for
new radio systems, putting manufacturers in a position to respond to
these specifications and requirements. The public forum is one way to
educate public safety users so they can become savvier purchasers of
communications equipment. Cellular licensees likewise need to be open
to developing and executing best practices for site selection and
coordination with public safety entities when they deploy PSD
operations. The Commission encourages the stakeholders in the public
forum to address the adequacy of industry standards to ensure reliable
receiver performance in strong signal conditions, to assess
quantitatively the interference risks of degraded receiver performance,
and to consider the applicability of key recommendations made by the
Commission's Technological Advisory Council (as
[[Page 17576]]
discussed in the full text of the Cellular Second R&O, para. 68).
31. Following the public forum, all three stakeholder groups will
have ample time remaining before the PFD Sunset date to implement
necessary changes to enable better co-existence thereafter in the band.
The Commission directs the Bureaus to seek an update on progress from
all three stakeholder groups no later than four years from the release
of the Cellular Second R&O, and to issue a Public Notice announcing the
mechanism for filing such updates. The Commission also encourages all
stakeholders to share their experiences on spectrum sharing in the band
throughout the seven-year transition period. It believes that the rules
and expectations established in the Cellular Second R&O, including the
PFD Sunset schedule, will serve the public interest by balancing the
needs of all parties and the important services they provide to their
customers and to the public.
32. Retention of Part 22 Interference Resolution Rules and
Procedures. The existing interference resolution provisions in 47 CFR
22.970 through 22.973 place strict responsibility for remedying
unacceptable interference on the licensee(s) causing that interference
to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band. The Commission
finds that these provisions continue to work well and also notes that
the number of interference complaints lodged by public safety entities
against Cellular and ESMR carriers via the 800 MHz Interference
Notification Site \5\ has been steadily declining. The Commission
recognizes that identifying sources of interference is burdensome to
public safety entities and that certain areas of the country such as
Oakland, CA are unusually troublesome in terms of unacceptable
interference to public safety operations. At the same time, the
Commission recognizes that Cellular licensees themselves incur costs to
investigate and address complaints, including those that are determined
to arise from non-Cellular operations. Noting that rules 22.970 through
22.973 were carefully crafted based on the extensive record compiled in
the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, and that those provisions establish
shared responsibility between part 22 and part 90 licensees, the
Commission declines to adopt the proposal made by some commenters to
amend rule 22.970 such that a Cellular licensee that is found to have
caused interference to an 800 MHz public safety radio system would be
required to reimburse that entity's ``reasonable costs expended to
locate and mitigate the interference.'' The Commission concludes that
any future unacceptable interference to public safety or other entities
that occurs as a result of Cellular operations, including PSD
operations, will be appropriately addressed pursuant to the existing
part 22 interference resolution provisions and, accordingly, retains
the existing rules 22.970 through 22.973 without change. The Commission
emphasizes that the obligations set forth in those provisions will
continue to apply notwithstanding the new requirements established
under revised rule 22.913 including, when applicable, advance
notification and the PFD limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This is a Web site (www.publicsafety800mhzinterference.com)
established collectively by Cellular and ESMR carriers in the 800
MHz band and serves as a vehicle for licensees who operate non-
cellular architecture systems in the 800 MHz band to report
interference to the commercial carriers in this band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Power-Related Technical Provisions
1. Revision of 47 CFR 22.911 To Accommodate Cellular PSD Systems
33. Rule 22.911(a) sets forth the formula for calculating the
service area boundary (SAB) of an individual cell site and the CGSA
boundary. This formula has been the basis for determining the SAB of
cell sites and the protected licensed area (CGSA) since the inception
of the Cellular Service and remains an effective tool for predicting
reliable signal coverage for narrowband technologies. Under these
circumstances, for Cellular licensees that do not elect to use the PSD
model, the Commission concludes that it serves the public interest to
retain the existing formula in rule 22.911(a) without change, rather
than requiring such licensees to change their long-standing methodology
for determining their SABs and CGSA boundaries.
34. However, for Cellular licensees that elect to use PSD to deploy
LTE and other more advanced mobile broadband technologies, the
Commission finds that the formula in rule 22.911(a) is not practical,
as the result would be much larger SABs and CGSAs that would not
accurately reflect service coverage. Rule 22.911(b) currently sets
forth an alternative CGSA determination methodology to depict Cellular
service coverage that departs from the licensed geographic area (by a
significant amount--specifically, by ``20% in the service
area of any cell'') where reliable Cellular service is actually
provided. The Commission finds that adapting this methodology to
require a predictive propagation model that takes into account terrain
and other local conditions, based on the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour, is
appropriate for the purposes of calculating SABs and determining CGSA
expansion areas for base stations that operate using PSD. Accordingly,
the Commission adopts rule 22.911(c) for PSD systems, and requires that
the SAB be defined in terms of distances from the cell site(s) to the
32 dB[micro]V/m contour along the eight cardinal radials, consistent
with SAB calculations under the existing rule. The distances used for
the cardinal radials must be representative of the coverage within the
45[ordm] sectors. The Commission concludes that this approach will
result in accurate coverage calculations when operating a cell site
using PSD, and thus serves the public interest. If this methodology
yields an SAB extension comprising at least 50 contiguous square miles,
regardless of whether the CGSA departs 20 percent in the
service area of any cell site, the Cellular licensee will be required
to file an application for major modification of the CGSA using FCC
Form 601. The applicant will be required to submit its CGSA
determination pursuant to the new provisions of rule 22.911(c),
depicting the CGSA using a predictive model. If the predictive model
results in calculations that depict an SAB extension comprising less
than 50 contiguous square miles, the licensee may not claim the area as
part of its CGSA; it may provide service in the extension area on a
secondary basis only. No application should be filed in that scenario.
2. Height-Power Limit--Exemption for PSD Systems
35. The existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(b) limits the height of
a base station antenna: 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, 40.2 km for all other licensees. The
existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(c) provides an exemption from the
height-power limit if the licensee coordinates with, and obtains
concurrence from, all co-channel licensees within 121 km. The Cellular
height-power rule was developed to ensure that the average distance to
the SAB does not exceed certain limits, and thus prevents excessively
large SABs that could otherwise result from the SAB calculation using
the formula in rule 22.911(a). Although the distance to the SABs of
many Cellular base stations would not exceed the limits specified in
the height-power rule, the existing provision recognizes that the
limits might well be exceeded in some instances, especially in the case
of narrowband technologies. Given that the Commission is retaining the
formula set
[[Page 17577]]
forth in 47 CFR 22.911(a) to be used by Cellular licensees deploying
narrowband systems (i.e., licensees not electing to use the PSD model)
or operating in the Gulf service area, it concludes that the height-
power rule continues to serve the public interest as applied to such
licensees. Likewise, the Commission finds that the exemption in
existing rule 22.913(c) continues to afford such licensees flexibility
when they coordinate with, and obtain the concurrence of, all co-
channel licensees within 121 km. The domestic coordination provision in
rule 22.907 does not obviate the need for the exemption provided in
existing rule 22.913(c), which, unlike rule 22.907, includes the
concurrence requirement. Moreover, the Cellular field strength rule (47
CFR 22.983) does not obviate the need for the existing provisions in
rules 22.913(b) and (c). The Cellular field strength limit rule is
uniquely tailored to reflect the fact that Cellular licensees may
continue to expand their CGSAs, and CGSA boundaries do not typically
coincide with defined market boundaries. A Cellular licensee is
required to observe the field strength limit at every point along its
neighbor's CGSA, and not necessarily at its own CGSA boundary. With
adoption of the field strength rule, the Commission concluded there was
no longer a need to regulate SAB extensions into neighboring CGSAs
(with limited exceptions). Nonetheless, in the absence of the height-
power limit, SABs calculated under rule 22.911(a) could still
potentially be excessively large. As noted above, the height-power rule
was developed to prevent such large SABs, and it will continue to serve
this important purpose for licensees deploying narrowband systems
(i.e., not electing to use the PSD model) or operating in the Gulf
service area.
36. However, the Commission finds that the Cellular height-power
rule is not appropriate for systems that are operated using PSD. With
adoption of a predictive model requirement for SAB and CGSA
calculations under rule 22.911(c), Cellular licensees that operate
their cell sites pursuant to the PSD limits will not be calculating
their service area using the existing formula in 47 CFR 22.911(a).
Accordingly, the Commission retains the height-power limit and
coordination exemption provisions for licensees deploying narrowband
systems, but now exempts licensees operating their systems using PSD.
Also, the Commission changes the title of the existing rule 22.913(c)
to ``Exemptions from height-power limit,'' and renumbers paragraphs (b)
and (c) to accommodate the provisions concerning PSD and PFD limits and
related measurement provisions, described above.
3. Power Measurement: Peak vs. Average/Peak-to-Average Ratio
37. Because the peak power associated with a noise-like signal is a
random variable, it can place unachievable requirements on the
measuring instrumentation (e.g., a resolution/measurement bandwidth
that exceeds the signal bandwidth). The same non-constant envelope
technologies used for PCS and AWS--such as CDMA, W-CDMA, and LTE--have
been or will be used in the Cellular Service as well. Consistent with
Commission decisions to permit licensees to meet radiated power limits
on an average basis for PCS and AWS, as well as for other flexible
wireless services, including the 700 MHz services (both commercial and
public safety broadband), the Commission concludes that Cellular power
limits should be measured on the basis of average power. Also
consistent with the average power measurement provisions adopted for
PCS and AWS, the Commission finds that adopting a PAR limit of 13 dB
for the Cellular Service would better enable the use of technologies
such as LTE, and that it strikes the right balance between enabling
licensees to use modulation schemes with high PARs and protecting other
licensees from high PAR transmissions.
38. Accordingly, the Commission revises rule 22.913 to specify that
Cellular power shall be measured on an average basis, and establishes a
PAR limit of 13 dB. Additionally, as in the rule governing PCS
measurements, the revised rule specifies that measurement of average
power for Cellular operations must be made during a period of
continuous transmission based on Commission-approved average power
techniques. Licensees should consult the FCC Laboratory's Knowledge
Database (KDB) Web site regularly for the latest recommended procedures
concerning Commission-approved average power measurement techniques.
The Commission's approach will ensure that the correct procedures are
used for various technologies that are deployed or will be deployed in
the future in the Cellular Service, such as GSM, CDMA, UMTS and LTE,
and achieves the important goal of harmonizing, where possible, various
commercial wireless service rules. Coupled with the average power
measurement, a 13 dB PAR limit furthers the goal of facilitating the
deployment of advanced technologies such as LTE in the Cellular Service
band, while limiting the potential for unacceptable interference that
might result from high PAR transmissions. The Commission disagrees with
a commenter's argument to adopt power limits using peak power because
this approach would hinder Cellular broadband deployments. Spikes are
inevitable, but the PAR limit in conjunction with the PFD limit takes
this into account and addresses the concern.
4. Field Strength Limit
39. As noted above, the Cellular Service rule 22.983 establishes a
field strength limit of 40 dB[micro]V/m, and (with certain exceptions)
this limit must be observed at every point along the neighboring
licensee's CGSA, taking into account that some licensees' CGSAs are
adjacent to Unserved Area. Cellular licensees are permitted under the
rule to negotiate different field strength limits with one another. The
Commission considered a commenter's recommendation to change the limit,
but there is a lack of consensus, and the record is insufficient to
compel a change. Moreover, the Commission concludes, altering the rule
at this time solely for the Cellular Service would be at odds with the
goal of harmonizing rules among flexible commercial wireless services
and would not serve the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
retains 47 CFR 22.983 without change.
5. Out of Band Emission (OOBE) Limit
40. Existing rule 22.917 currently specifies that, for the Cellular
Service, the power of any emission outside of the authorized operating
frequency ranges (P) must be attenuated below the transmitting power by
a factor of at least 43 + 10 log(P) dB, and describes the procedures
for measuring compliance with this OOBE limit. The current resolution
bandwidth for measuring unwanted emissions outside of the Cellular band
is 100 kHz or greater. The Commission concludes that the existing OOBE
limit in 47 CFR 22.917(a), which is the same as the limit for other
commercial wireless services such as PCS and AWS, continues to serve
the public interest and declines to change it at this time. In response
to a commenter's concerns that Cellular PSD operations will cause
increased interference to its adjacent-band operations, the Commission
notes its expectation that licensees will work together to resolve
interference problems, and also notes that rule 22.917(c) allows
licensees to negotiate a different limit from the one specified in
[[Page 17578]]
rule 22.917(a) by private contractual agreement. The Commission
encourages Cellular and adjacent-band carriers to continue to work
together not only to address interference as it occurs, but also to be
proactive in avoiding increased interference from Cellular PSD
operations under the revised radiated power rules adopted by the
Cellular Second R&O. The Commission also reminds parties that, under
rule 22.917(d), the Commission may require a greater attenuation if any
emission from a Cellular transmitter results in interference to users
of another radio service.
41. Regarding the existing provision in rule 22.917(b), the
Commission notes that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
recommends different measurement bandwidths for operations above and
below 1 GHz. To remain consistent with international practices, the
Commission concludes that the 100 kHz resolution bandwidth should be
used only for measurements in the spectrum below 1 GHz, and that any
measurements in the spectrum above 1 GHz should use a resolution
bandwidth of 1 MHz. Accordingly, the Commission adopts revised 47 CFR
22.917(b) to retain the existing provision (renumbered as 22.917(b)(1))
and specifies that it applies for measurements in the spectrum below 1
GHz; the Commission adds 22.917(b)(2) to specify that measurements of
out of band emissions from Cellular licensees into the spectrum above 1
GHz should use a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. As technologies change,
the Commission updates its part 2 rules and its measurement procedures
to keep pace, and therefore, licensees should regularly consult the KDB
Web site for the latest recommended measurement procedures and
Commission-approved techniques, and part 2 of the Commission rules.
D. Other Technical and Licensing Issues
1. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
42. Under 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will be
automatically terminated if service is ``permanently discontinued.''
Existing rule 22.317, which applies to all part 22 Public Mobile
Services stations including those in the Cellular Service, 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 that
definition, the licensee's CGSA is modified accordingly in ULS,
reflecting the reduction in service coverage. While the licensee is
required to file the appropriate form in ULS, the authorization for the
permanently discontinued site is automatically terminated without
Commission action whether or not the appropriate form is filed. After
the Commission released the NPRM, a coalition of Cellular licensees
(Coalition) advocated a more flexible rule governing permanent
discontinuance of service.
43. Having adopted rules in the 2014 Cellular R&O to transition the
Cellular Service to a geographically-licensed regime, and consistent
with the approach in various other commercial wireless services, the
Commission concludes that it serves the public interest to adopt a
modernized provision--47 CFR 22.947--that defines permanent
discontinuance as 180 consecutive days during which a Cellular licensee
does not operate or, in the case of a Cellular commercial mobile radio
services (CMRS) provider, does not provide service to at least one
subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to
the providing carrier. Under this provision, Cellular licensees will be
required to notify the Commission of the permanent discontinuance
within 10 days of the expiration of the 180-day period by filing FCC
Form 601. However, whether or not the licensee files the proper
notification form, the license for a Cellular system that has
permanently discontinued service will be terminated automatically, and
the area will revert back to the Commission for relicensing. Commencing
on the day following public notice of cancellation of the Cellular
license, the Unserved Area will be available to applicants seeking to
establish a new Cellular system or expand an existing CGSA by at least
50 contiguous square miles. Based on the record, the Commission finds
that it serves the public interest to apply the 180-day discontinuance
period to new Cellular systems--other than the Chambers, TX license
system (Chambers License)--only after the initial construction period
has ended, including extensions, if any, following grant of the new-
system application. This approach will ensure that licensees of new
systems are not penalized in the event they complete construction and
commence operations prior to expiration of their build-out period. The
rule will apply to the entire geographic licensed area--the CGSA, thus
enhancing licensees' flexibility. The Commission also adopts revised 47
CFR 22.317 such that its site-based approach will no longer apply to
the Cellular Service. Thus, consistent with other geographically
licensed services, permanent discontinuance of service at an individual
cell site will no longer result in modification of the CGSA to reflect
reduced service coverage. Once these rules as adopted today have taken
effect, the Commission will dismiss as unnecessary a site-based
cancellation notification, i.e., a filing concerning permanent
discontinuance of any individual cell site(s). Regarding the Chambers
License, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest to
apply the new rule such that the 180-day period for purposes of
determining permanent discontinuance will commence immediately after
the interim construction deadline set forth in 47 CFR 22.961.
44. The flexible approach being adopted regarding permanent service
discontinuance was initially discussed in the Commission's pending WRS
Reform proceeding, which also covers the Cellular Service.
Notwithstanding adoption in the Cellular Second R&O of rule 22.947 and
revised rule 22.317, Cellular Service licensees will remain subject to
any future Commission action affecting wireless radio services in the
WRS Reform proceeding.
2. Elimination of Filings for Certain Minor Modifications
45. Cellular licensees are required under existing rules to file a
minor modification application for any change to a non-internal cell
site that results in a reduction in service area coverage (e.g., an
antenna adjustment to a Cellular site along the CGSA border), no matter
how small the change. The CGSA boundary is modified accordingly in ULS
to reflect the reduction in service coverage. This is a lingering
vestige of the legacy site-based Cellular licensing scheme, similar to
the existing permanent service discontinuance rule addressed above. As
stated in the 2014 Cellular R&O, a hallmark of geographic licensing is
a defined area within which each licensee can make certain system
changes without Commission filings. Throughout this proceeding, the
Commission has pursued the goals of removing unnecessary filing
requirements and providing Cellular licensees with significant new
flexibility to make changes within their CGSA boundaries. In light of
establishment of the CGSA as a geographic license area coupled with
today's elimination of the filing requirement and resulting CGSA
reduction when an individual cell site ceases operating entirely, the
Commission finds that eliminating the site-based provision requiring
filings for non-permanent-discontinuance changes to operational cell
site(s) advances its
[[Page 17579]]
reform goals and serves the public interest.
46. Accordingly, the Commission adopts revised 47 CFR 22.953(c).
Consistent with other geographically licensed commercial wireless
services, even following such minor system changes, the CGSA boundary
will remain fixed, except that Cellular licensees may continue to
expand their CGSAs under 47 CFR 22.949. This should better enable
licensees to implement technology upgrades involving reconfiguration
and possible relocation of cell sites and other network elements. Once
revised rule 22.953(c) as adopted today has taken effect, the
Commission will dismiss as an unnecessary filing an application for a
CGSA reduction. Notwithstanding this rule change, Cellular licensees
remain subject to any future Commission action affecting wireless radio
services in the pending WRS Reform proceeding.
3. Domestic Coordination Requirements
47. Under 47 CFR 22.907, 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 by applicants. As intended by this rule,
coordination has played a major role in avoiding co-channel and
adjacent-channel interference between neighboring systems. However, the
Commission finds that the coordination requirement is not necessary for
systems that deploy technologies such as CDMA and LTE, which do not
utilize frequency re-use techniques. Accordingly, the Commission adopts
a revised introductory paragraph of the rule to exempt those Cellular
licensees that deploy technologies with a frequency re-use factor of
one. In that same paragraph, the Commission deletes the reference to
``tentative selectees''--a vestige of the lottery system that had been
in place for Cellular licensing many years ago that is now obsolete.
4. International Coordination Requirements
48. 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 part 22 Public Mobile Services licensees, 47 CFR 22.169, states
that channel assignments are ``subject to the applicable provisions and
requirements of treaties and other international agreements between the
United States government and the governments of Canada and Mexico.''
The other two rules--22.955 and 22.957--are in subpart H (Cellular
Service-specific), and each sets forth the text of a condition that is
to be placed on authorizations for all Cellular systems, requiring them
to coordinate any transmitter installations within 72 kilometers (45
miles) of the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico border, as applicable. To
advance its regulatory reform agenda by deleting unnecessary or
redundant provisions, the Commission now eliminates rules 22.955 and
22.957 while preserving rule 22.169 with a minor revision--adding a
reference to ``operation of systems.'' The Commission finds that this
approach is sufficient and consistent with the international
coordination requirements set forth in other rule parts and serves the
public interest.
E. Miscellaneous Other Provisions
1. ERP vs. EIRP; MIMO Antennas; Equipment Standards
49. ERP vs. EIRP. As noted above, the Cellular radiated power
limits are expressed in terms of ERP. There is inconsistency in how the
radiated power limits are expressed in the various bands in which
commercial wireless services are generally provided. For example, in
the PCS rules, EIRP (equivalent isotropically radiated power) is used,
but for AWS and 700 MHz, the power limits are expressed in terms of
ERP. Given that Cellular licensees are long accustomed to ERP limits
under the existing rule 22.913, the Commission concludes that it serves
the public interest to continue to express the non-PSD limits in terms
of ERP, and also to express the newly adopted PSD limits in terms of
ERP. This will avoid unnecessary confusion and maintain consistency for
Cellular licensees.
50. MIMO Antennas. No commenter addressed the Commission's query as
to whether the use of MIMO techniques requires a modification to the
way measurements are performed for equipment authorization. Some
carriers state their intent to use spectrally efficient MIMO techniques
in their Cellular LTE deployments, and the Commission has taken that
into account in adopting the PSD and PFD limits described above.
51. Equipment Standards. Part 2 of the Commission's rules include
equipment certification requirements. In the absence of any interest by
commenters on the issue of whether part 22 equipment standards and
measurement rules need to be updated or modified to be consistent with
the equipment certification rules in part 2, the Commission concludes
that no changes concerning this issue are warranted at this time in
part 22. However, as technologies change, the Commission updates its
procedures in part 2 to keep pace, and licensees should consult part 2
of Commission rules and the FCC Laboratory's KDB Web site so they can
be aware of the most up-to-date requirements, recommended measurement
procedures, and Commission-approved techniques.
2. Mobile Transmitters and Auxiliary Test Transmitters
52. The existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(a)(2) states that the
ERP of Cellular mobile and auxiliary test transmitters must not exceed
7 W. Given that the Commission is retaining the current non-PSD power
limits for Cellular base stations and repeaters as an option so as not
to disrupt systems that use narrowband Cellular technology, a
commenter's argument for a ``corresponding increase'' in the mobile
station ERP limit is moot. Moreover, there is no technical evidence on
the record to suggest that the current 7 W limit is limiting the use of
mobile and auxiliary test transmitters. Accordingly, and in the absence
of comments on the record concerning all the other issues raised in the
Cellular Further Notice related to mobile and auxiliary test
transmitters, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest
to retain the existing provision, including the existing 7 W limit, but
creates a new paragraph of the rule (Sec. 22.913(a)(5)) for this
provision.
3. Frequency Coordinators
53. Although one commenter expressly supported the Commission's
proposal to establish frequency coordinators to perform the first-line
review of Cellular applications for CGSA expansions and new Cellular
systems, and two parties expressed preliminary non-binding interest in
serving as frequency coordinators for the Cellular Service, the
Commission declines to adopt the use of frequency coordinators for the
Cellular Service at this time. While the total number of CGSA-expansion
(major modification) applications in 2013 was 565 (908 if amendments
are included), for calendar year 2015, Commission data show that only
42 CGSA-expansion applications were filed (60 if amendments are
included). This represents a decrease of more than 90 percent since
2013, and the trend is further downward, as only 23 CGSA-expansion
applications were filed through the third quarter of 2016. This is a
far greater decrease than the Commission anticipated when it
[[Page 17580]]
proposed frequency coordination for the Cellular Service. To
accommodate the use of frequency coordinators for Cellular
applications, the Commission would need to make numerous changes to ULS
at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, Commission staff resources
would necessarily be expended for selection and certification of
frequency coordinators and preparation of requisite Commission
releases, including a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with
those selected. Thereafter, the certified coordinators and Commission
staff would need to collaborate on a file format incorporating the
frequency coordination process. The Commission concludes that the
requisite Commission outlay of resources to introduce frequency
coordination into the Cellular Service would not be justified, but it
will monitor the application volume and, if the data show a significant
upward trend, it will revisit establishing frequency coordinators for
the Cellular Service.
4. Definition of ``Rural'' for Purposes of 47 CFR 22.913
54. Revising the definition of a rural area under 47 CFR 22.913 (or
any other part 22 rule) was not raised by any commenter prior to
release of the Cellular Further Notice, nor did the Commission mention
it in that release. Although one commenter subsequently argued that the
definition should be automatically adjusted after each completed U.S.
Census, the Commission is not persuaded by the record that it should
revisit the longstanding definition of ``rural'' for the purpose of
rule 22.913, and it makes no change to the definition in the Cellular
Second R&O.
5. 47 CFR 22.355 (Frequency Tolerance)
55. Although the Cellular Further Notice proposed to correct a
ministerial error that appeared in the third-column heading of the
table in 47 CFR 22.355, the Commission notes that the current edition
of the Code of Federal Regulations does not contain this error, and
therefore no Commission action is required in this proceeding.
II. Report and Order (WRS Reform Proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-112)
A. Background
56. In the WRS Reform proceeding (WT Docket No. 10-112), on May 25,
2010 the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WRS NPRM)
and a companion Order (2010 WRS Order). The WRS NPRM proposed to revise
and harmonize numerous rules applicable to WRS, which include the
Cellular Service. Among other issues addressed in the WRS NPRM, the
Commission generally proposed to establish a uniform license renewal
process modeled after the 700 MHz Service rules, and specifically
proposed to adopt a three-part approach to renewal for all WRS,
including Cellular licensees, that would entail: (1) A uniform
requirement regarding the content of a renewal showing necessary to
support renewal; (2) a prohibition on the filing of competing renewal
applications; and (3) in the event of denial of a renewal application,
return of the associated spectrum to the Commission for reassignment.
Specifically with respect to Cellular licensees, the Commission
proposed to delete all five existing part 22 rules governing Cellular
comparative renewal proceedings--47 CFR 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940,
and 22.943--and sought comment on its proposal. The Commission's
companion 2010 WRS Order imposed a freeze on the filing of new
applications that are mutually exclusive with renewal applications and
established an interim process for addressing renewal applications.
57. In response to the WRS NPRM, interested parties submitted
comments, reply comments, and ex parte letters, addressing, among other
issues, the proposed deletion of the five rules noted above governing
Cellular comparative renewal proceedings. The specific reforms adopted
by the Commission in the WRS R&O are described below.
B. Deletion of 47 CFR 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943
58. These five Cellular license renewal rules in part 22 establish
a two-step comparative hearing process for addressing renewal
applications as well as any timely-filed competing applications. They
require an administrative law judge (ALJ) to conduct a threshold
hearing to determine whether a Cellular renewal applicant is entitled
to a renewal expectancy. If the ALJ determines that the applicant is
entitled to a renewal expectancy and is otherwise basically qualified,
the license is renewed and any competing applications are denied. If,
on the other hand, the ALJ determines that a renewal expectancy is not
warranted, all mutually exclusive applications in the renewal filing
group are considered in a full comparative hearing. The rules also
establish certain specific requirements for the filing of competing
applications, and procedures governing their withdrawal during the
hearing.
59. As part of its efforts to eliminate unnecessary requirements
for Cellular licensees and promote comparable treatment of spectrum
bands commonly used to provide comparable wireless services, the
Commission finds that it serves the public interest to delete--as of
the effective date of this WRS R&O--the part 22 rules pertaining to
Cellular renewal comparative hearings, as proposed in the WRS NPRM.
This action with respect to the Cellular Service is consistent with the
Commission's determinations in various other commercial wireless
service proceedings over the last ten years, including those for
certain AWS (e.g., AWS-3, AWS-4, H-Block) and the 700 MHz Service.
Also, the elimination of service-specific renewal rules and adoption of
uniform renewal procedures that would apply to all WRS licensees,
including the elimination of comparative renewal hearings, is supported
by the majority of commenters responding to the WRS NPRM. Accordingly,
the revised Cellular Service rules reflect the Commission's deletion of
rules 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943. The Commission
defers, however, any decision on the remaining issues raised in the WRS
NPRM and the 2010 WRS Order, including what standard or requirements to
apply in determining whether a renewal application should be granted,
and whether licensed spectrum that does not meet specified renewal
requirements shall be returned to the Commission for reassignment.
Pending further action in the WRS Reform proceeding, the freeze imposed
on the filing of new competing applications and the procedures
established in the 2010 WRS Order will remain in effect for all covered
wireless services, including the Cellular Service.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
60. Some of the rule amendments adopted by the Cellular Second
R&O--specifically, rules 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), 22.913(c),
22.913(f), 22.947, and 22.953(c)--contain modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. Those rule amendments will be submitted to
OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the
modified information collection requirements. 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.
[[Page 17581]]
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The
Commission has assessed the effects on small business concerns of the
rule changes it is adopting by this Cellular Second R&O and WRS R&O and
finds that businesses with fewer than 25 people will benefit from the
flexibility afforded by the revised technical rules, including the
option of deploying systems using PSD, as well as by the licensing
reforms, including elimination of certain filing requirements and the
comparative hearing process for license renewals.
B. Congressional Review Act
61. The Commission will send a copy of this Cellular Second R&O and
WRS R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act.
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
62. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), set forth in Appendix B of the
Cellular Second R&O and companion WRS R&O, concerning the possible
impact of the rule changes.
D. Ex Parte Presentations
63. Permit-But-Disclose. The Commission will continue to treat the
Cellular Reform and WRS Reform proceedings as ``permit-but-disclose''
proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) available for that proceeding,
and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf).
64. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
IV. Ordering Clauses
65. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i),
4(j), 7, 301, 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, 303,
307, 308, 309, and 332, that this second report and order and second
further notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 are
adopted.
66. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j),
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309,
and 332, that this report and order in WT Docket No. 10-112 is adopted.
67. It is further ordered that the second report and order and the
report and order shall be effective May 12, 2017.
68. It is further ordered that part 22 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR part 22, is amended as specified in Appendix A of the second
report and order and report and order, effective May 12, 2017 except as
otherwise provided herein.
69. It is further ordered that the amendments adopted in the second
report and order, and specified in Appendix A of the second report and
order and report and order, to Sec. Sec. 22.317, 22.911(a) through
(c), 22.913(a), 22.913(c), 22.913(f), 22.947, and 22.953(c), which
contain new or modified information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, will become effective after the Commission
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval
and the relevant effective date.
70. 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 the second report and order, report and order, and
second further notice of proposed rulemaking to Congress and to the
Government Accountability Office.
71. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the second report and order, report and order, and second
further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 22 as follows:
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
0
2. Section 22.99 is amended by revising the definition of ``Cellular
system'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definition of ``Power
spectral density'' to read as follows:
Sec. 22.99 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cellular system. An automated high-capacity system of one or more
multi-channel base stations designed to provide radio telecommunication
services to mobile stations over a wide area in a spectrally efficient
manner. Cellular systems employ techniques
[[Page 17582]]
such as automatic hand-off between base stations of communications in
progress to enable channels to be re-used at relatively short
distances.
* * * * *
Power spectral density (PSD). The power of an emission in the
frequency domain, such as in terms of ERP or EIRP, stated per unit
bandwidth, e.g., watts/MHz.
* * * * *
0
3. 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 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
4. Section 22.317 is revised by adding a sentence at the end to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.317 Discontinuance of station operation.
* * * This section does not apply to the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service (see Sec. 22.947).
0
5. Section 22.907 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 22.907 Coordination of channel usage.
Licensees in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service must coordinate,
with the appropriate parties, channel usage at each transmitter
location within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations
authorized to other licensees or proposed by other applicants, except
those with mutually exclusive applications. Licensees utilizing systems
employing a frequency re-use factor of 1 (universal re-use) are exempt
from this requirement.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 22.911 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a) heading and
introductory text, paragraph (b) heading, and paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 22.911 Cellular geographic service area.
The Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) of a Cellular system is
the geographic area considered by the FCC to be served by the Cellular
system and is the area within which cellular systems are entitled to
protection and adverse effects for the purpose of determining whether a
petitioner has standing are recognized. The CGSA is the composite of
the service areas of all of the cells in the system, excluding any
Unserved Area (even if it is served on a secondary basis) or area
within the CGSA of another Cellular system. The service area of a cell
is the area within its service area boundary (SAB). Licensees that use
power spectral density (PSD) at cell sites within their licensed
geographic area are subject to paragraph (c) of this section; all other
licensees are subject to paragraph (a) (or, as applicable, paragraph
(b)) of this section. If the calculation under paragraph (a), (b), or
(c) of this section (as applicable) yields an SAB extension comprising
at least 130 contiguous square kilometers (50 contiguous square miles),
the licensee must submit an application for major modification of the
CGSA using FCC Form 601. See also Sec. Sec. 22.912, 22.949, and
22.953.
(a) CGSA determination (non-PSD). For the purpose of calculating
the SABs for cell sites and determining CGSA expansion areas for
Cellular base stations that do not operate using PSD (as permitted
under Sec. 22.913), the distance to the SAB is calculated as a
function of effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna center of
radiation height above average terrain (HAAT), height above sea level
(HASL), or height above mean sea level (HAMSL).
* * * * *
(b) Alternative CGSA determination (non-PSD). * * *
(1) The alternative CGSA determination must define the CGSA in
terms of distances from the cell sites to the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour
along the eight cardinal radials, with points in other azimuthal
directions determined by the method given in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section. The distances used must be representative of the coverage
within the eight cardinal radials, as depicted by the alternative CGSA
determination.
* * * * *
(c) CGSA determination (PSD). (1) For the purpose of calculating
the SABs for cell sites and determining CGSA expansion areas for
Cellular base stations that operate using PSD (as permitted under Sec.
22.913), the licensee must use a predictive propagation model that is
appropriate for the service provided, taking into account terrain and
local conditions. The SAB and CGSA boundary must be defined in terms of
distances from the cell site to the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour along the
eight cardinal radials, with points in other azimuthal directions
determined by the method set forth in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
The distances used must be representative of the coverage within the
eight cardinal radials.
(2) An application for major modification of the CGSA under this
paragraph (c) must include, as an exhibit, a depiction of the CGSA
accompanied by one or more supporting propagation studies using methods
appropriate for the 800-900 MHz frequency range, including all
supporting data and calculations, and/or by extensive field strength
measurement data. For the purpose of such submissions, Cellular service
is considered to be provided in all areas, including ``dead spots,''
between the transmitter location and the locus of points where the
predicted or measured median field strength finally drops to 32
dB[micro]V/m (i.e., does not exceed 32 dB[micro]V/m further out). If,
after consideration of such submissions, the FCC finds that adjustment
to a CGSA is warranted, the FCC may grant the application.
(d) Protection afforded. Cellular systems are entitled to
protection only within the CGSA (as determined in accordance with this
section) from co-channel and first-adjacent channel interference (see
Sec. 22.983). Licensees must cooperate in resolving co-channel and
first-adjacent channel interference by changing channels used at
specific cells or by other technical means.
(e) [Reserved]
0
7. Section 22.913 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.913 Effective radiated power limits.
Licensees in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service are subject to the
effective radiated power (ERP) limits and other requirements in this
Section. See also Sec. 22.169.
(a) Maximum ERP. The ERP of transmitters in the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service must not exceed the limits in this section.
(1) Except as described in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4) of this
section, the ERP of base stations and repeaters must not exceed--
(i) 500 watts per emission; or
(ii) 400 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
(2) Except as described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this
section, for systems operating in areas more than 72 kilometers (45
miles) from international borders that:
(i) 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
(ii) Extend coverage into Unserved Area on a secondary basis (see
Sec. 22.949),
[[Page 17583]]
the ERP of base transmitters and repeaters must not exceed--
(A) 1000 watts per emission; or
(B) 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
(3) Provided that they also comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, licensees are permitted to operate their base
transmitters and repeaters with an ERP greater than 400 watts/MHz (PSD)
per sector, up to a maximum ERP of 1000 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector
unless they meet the conditions in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(4) Provided that they also comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, licensees of systems operating in areas more than 72
kilometers (45 miles) from international borders that:
(i) 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
(ii) Extend coverage into Unserved Area on a secondary basis (see
Sec. 22.949), are permitted to operate base transmitters and repeaters
with an ERP greater than 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector, up to a
maximum of 2000 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
(5) The ERP of mobile transmitters and auxiliary test transmitters
must not exceed 7 watts.
(b) Power flux density (PFD). Until May 12, 2024, each Cellular
base station that operates at the higher ERP limits permitted under
paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section must be designed and deployed
so as not to exceed a modeled PFD of 3000 microwatts/m\2\/MHz over at
least 98% of the area within 1 km of the base station antenna, at 1.6
meters above ground level. To ensure its compliance with this
requirement, the licensee must perform predictive modeling of the PFD
values within at least 1 km of each base station antenna prior to
commencing such operations and, thereafter, prior to making any site
modifications that may increase the PFD levels around the base station.
The modeling tools must take into consideration terrain and other local
conditions and must use good engineering practices for the 800 MHz
band.
(c) Advance notification requirement. At least 30 days but not more
than 90 days prior to activating a base station at the higher ERP
limits permitted under paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section, the
Cellular licensee must provide written advance notice to any public
safety licensee authorized in the frequency range 806-816 MHz/851-861
MHz with a base station located within a radius of 113 km of the
Cellular base station to be deployed. The written notice shall be
required only one time for each such cell site and is for informational
purposes only; the public safety licensees are not afforded the right
to accept or reject the activation or to unilaterally require changes
in the operating parameters. The written notification must include the
base station's location, ERP level, height of the transmitting
antenna's center of radiation above ground level, and the timeframe for
activation, as well as the Cellular licensee's contact information.
Additional information shall be provided by the Cellular licensee upon
request of a public safety licensee required to be notified under this
paragraph (c). See also Sec. Sec. 22.970 through 22.973.
(d) Power measurement. Measurement of the ERP of Cellular base
transmitters and repeaters must be made using an average power
measurement technique. The peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the
transmission must not exceed 13 dB. Power measurements for base
transmitters and repeaters must be made in accordance with either of
the following:
(1) A Commission-approved average power technique (see FCC
Laboratory's Knowledge Database); or
(2) For purposes of this section, peak transmit power must be
measured over an interval of continuous transmission using
instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage. The
measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument
limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution
bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth,
sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak measurement for the
emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel.
(e) 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 MSA 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.
(f) Exemptions from height-power limit. Licensees need not comply
with the height-power limit in paragraph (e) of this section if either
of the following conditions is met:
(1) 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; or
(2) The licensee's base transmitter or repeater is operated at the
ERP limits (W/MHz) specified above in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii),
(a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section.
0
8. Section 22.917 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.917 Emission limitations for cellular equipment.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a reference bandwidth
as follows:
(1) In the spectrum below 1 GHz, instrumentation should employ a
reference bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. In the 1 MHz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a resolution
bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower
resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement
accuracy, provided that the measured power is integrated over the full
required reference bandwidth (i.e., 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission
bandwidth, as specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the
width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which
all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter
power.
(2) In the spectrum above 1 GHz, instrumentation should employ a
reference bandwidth of 1 MHz.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 22.935 through 22.943 [Removed and Reserved]
0
9. Sections 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943 are removed and
reserved.
0
10. Section 22.947 is added 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 (CGSA) authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission action, if the licensee
permanently discontinues service. A new-system licensee is not subject
to this provision until after expiration of the construction period
specified in Sec. 22.946.
(2) The licensee's authorization for CMA672-A (Chambers, TX) will
[[Page 17584]]
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 Cellular 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.
0
11. Section 22.953 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.953 Content and form of applications for Cellular Unserved
Area authorizations.
* * * * *
(c) Existing systems--minor modifications. Licensees making minor
modifications pursuant to Sec. 1.929(k) of this chapter must file FCC
Form 601 or FCC Form 603, provided, however, that a resulting reduction
in coverage within the CGSA is not subject to this requirement. See
Sec. 1.947(b). See also Sec. 22.169. If the modification involves a
contract SAB extension into or from the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone,
it must include a certification that the required written consent has
been obtained. See Sec. Sec. 22.912(c) and 22.950.
Sec. Sec. 22.955 and 22.957 [Removed and Reserved]
0
12. Sections 22.955 and 22.957 are removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 2017-07154 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P