See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on these proposed ACs and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains information related to the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

On February 27, 2014, the FAA issued Notice No. 14-10, “ Changes to Production Certificates and Approvals” (79 FR 11004). In addition to the NPRM, the FAA proposed revisions to three advisory circulars (ACs):

(1) AC No. 21-43A, Production Under 14 CFR Part 21, subparts F, G, K, and O, provides information about Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21, Certification Procedures for Products and Parts. This AC addresses the manufacturing and production requirements of part 21, subpart F, Production Under Type Certificate; subpart G, Production Certificates; subpart K, Parts Manufacturer Approvals; and subpart O, Technical Standard Order Approvals. This AC provides guidance on how a production approval applicant or production approval holder should develop and maintain its quality system. In addition, the AC provides guidance on how to meet the production-related requirements of subparts F, G, K, and O.

(2) AC No. 21-44A, Issuance of Export Airworthiness Approvals Under 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart L, provides guidance for an acceptable means, but not the only means, to comply with requirements in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21, Certification Procedures for Products, Articles, and Parts, subpart L, Export Airworthiness Approvals.

(3) AC No. 45-2E, Identification and Registration Marking, provides information about Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 45, Identification and Registration Marking. This AC describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, to comply with the requirements for marking aircraft and aircraft engines with identification plates, marking of propellers, and marking aircraft with nationality and registration marks.

Copies of these revised ACs were included in the docket along with the NPRM, and the FAA requested that members of the public submit any comments on or before May 28, 2014. However, due to erroneous information in the docket, commenters on the ACs were led to believe they could not file their comments on the ACs during the comment period. Therefore, to ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide comments specifically on the ACs posted in the docket (FAA-2013-0933), the FAA is opening a 30-day comment period to allow for comments on the referenced ACs only. The FAA will not accept or address comments on the NPRM because the comment period for the NPRM closed on May 28, 2014.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this request for comment by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments should reference a specific portion of the AC, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. All comments received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the FAA before we issue the final ACs.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov );

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number when submitting a request.

We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this proposed rulemaking (USCG-2014-0213), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online ( http://www.regulations.gov ), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2014-0213] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0213) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one by January 21, 2015 using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES . Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the U.S. 101 Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, Coquille River, mile 3.5, Coos Bay, OR, and has requested that the drawbridge regulation be amended to allow the bridge to remain in the permanently closed position. ODOT provided the Coast Guard with bridge logs which indicated no request for bridge openings have been received since 1998. The U.S. 101 Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, Coquille River, in the closed position, provides 28.1 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water and 35 feet at low water. In the open position the span provides 74.3 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water. Coquille River is transited by commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic.

The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable, and if implemented, should continue to meet the present and future needs of navigation. Based on the records provided by ODOT to the Coast Guard, it is expected that the proposed change will have no known impact to navigation or other waterway users.

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.875 which requires the U.S. 101 highway bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge to open on signal if at least two hours notice is given to the drawtender at the Coos Bay South Slough bridge. The amendment allows the bridge to remain closed to the passage of vessels. However, pursuant to 117.39, the draws must be able to operate within six months of being required to do so by the District Commander. The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule change will meet the current and future reasonable needs of navigation since the drawbridge has not received a request to open for marine traffic since 1998.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard basis of this finding is on the fact that the bridge has received no requests for openings and has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years without any impacts to waterway users.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. Furthermore, no known waterway users have requested a bridge opening within the last 16 years.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Worldwide Web (WWW)

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will also be available through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html.

In this action, the EPA is providing notice that the public hearing date for the proposed rule titled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems” has changed. That proposal was published on December 9, 2014, and the previous date for a public hearing, if requested, was 15 days later on December 24, 2014. On December 15, 2014, the EPA received a request for a public hearing along with a request to move the date of the public hearing to accommodate holiday vacation schedules. The EPA is moving the date of the public hearing from December 24, 2014 to January 8, 2015 in response to this request. The comment period for this proposal is unchanged. Public comments for this proposal are due February 9, 2015.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) in WT Docket No. 12-40, RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, FCC 14-181, adopted November 7, 2014, and released November 10, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202)488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com . The full text may also be downloaded at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1110/FCC-14-181A1.pdf . Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ .

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Parties should only file in WT Docket No. 12-40.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

1. In this document, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on several additional reforms of the Cellular Service to establish a more flexible and efficient licensing approach and to facilitate the use of more advanced wireless technologies, as explained in detail in the sections below. The Commission also invites comment on the costs and benefits of all the proposals discussed herein.

2. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on a new rule governing the permanent discontinuance of operations, which is intended to afford licensees operational flexibility to use their spectrum efficiently while ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle for extended periods. Under 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.” The current § 22.317 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.317) applicable to part 22 Public Mobile Services stations, including Cellular Service stations, defines permanent discontinuance as the failure to provide service to subscribers for 90 continuous days (up to 120 continuous days with an extension). If a Cellular site is permanently discontinued under § 22.317, the licensee's Cellular Geographic Service Area (“CGSA”) is modified accordingly to reflect the reduction in licensed area. Through ex parte letters, a coalition of associations—CTIA, the Rural Wireless Association (“RWA”), and the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (“NTCA”) (collectively, the “Coalition”)—proposes that a Cellular licensee should be required to file to report a reduction in service area only when it's “actual coverage area drops below 50 percent of its coverage area . . . for more than 12 months.”

3. Consistent with its approach in recent proceedings involving other flexible commercial wireless services, notably certain Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) bands and the 600 MHz band, the Commission now proposes a new Cellular Service-specific rule, § 22.947 (47 CFR 22.947), defining permanent discontinuance as 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not operate or, in the case of a Cellular commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) provider, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier. The Commission also proposes to revise § 22.317 to make it clear that it would no longer apply to the Cellular Service. As in the Commission's proceedings concerning the rules governing other flexibly licensed wireless services ( e.g., AWS-3 and 600 MHz), the Commission's proposed new definition recognizes that, while most Cellular licensees use their systems to provide CMRS offerings, flexibility is needed where Cellular licensees use their systems for private, internal communications because such licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal.

4. The Commission also proposes that the new service discontinuance rule be applied to the entire geographic license area, i.e., the CGSA, rather than individual cell sites. Affording Cellular licensees a discontinuance of service period longer than 90 (or 120) days, and applying it on a geographic license area basis, might better enable them to implement technology upgrades involving reconfiguration and possible relocation of cell sites and other network elements. Following the effective date of the new discontinuance rule adopted in this proceeding, a Cellular system not in operation or not providing service within the CGSA to at least one unaffiliated subscriber for the defined permanent discontinuance period—180 consecutive days under our proposal—would terminate automatically.

5. If an Unserved Area application is filed by a new entrant and granted for a new Cellular system (versus an incumbent's CGSA expansion) in compliance with the Commission's applicable rules, the Commission proposes that the new Cellular system licensee would not be subject to the proposed 180-day permanent discontinuance rule until the expiration of the one-year construction period for that system (including extensions, if any), so as not to penalize new entrants that choose to operate and provide service early in their construction periods.

6. In addition, consistent with 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), the Commission proposes that, if a Cellular licensee permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 so that the Commission can update its Universal Licensing System (“ULS”) to reflect the cancellation for the entire CGSA. The license would automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently discontinued, even if the licensee fails to file the required FCC Form.

7. The Commission tentatively concludes that the approach described above increases licensee flexibility and serves the public interest, and seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal, including the associated costs and benefits. Also, comment is invited on the alternative advocated by the Coalition and on any additional alternatives not discussed in this FNPRM, including the expected costs and benefits and how it would better serve the public interest.

8. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment on requiring that frequency coordinators perform review of new-system and CGSA-expansion applications in the Cellular Service, pursuant to a new proposed rule (47 CFR 22.985), as it tentatively concludes that frequency coordination will result in authorizing Cellular service more efficiently and effectively. The Commission proposes to require that frequency coordinators perform the first-line review of Cellular applications, including exhibits and attachments such as the electronic map files, for CGSA expansions and new Cellular systems, and to advise the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) on whether, in the coordinator's assessment, these applications comply with applicable Commission rules. Many Cellular applications contain inaccuracies, even when resubmitted after return by Bureau staff for correction, and errors delay service and also needlessly consume Commission resources. The Commission tentatively concludes that having frequency coordinators review certain major applications under the new Cellular licensing paradigm would further advance the goal of better focusing limited Commission staff resources.

9. Frequency coordination in other wireless services generally involves third parties who advise the Commission on whether potential or actual licensees' proposed operations comply with the applicable technical rules of a particular service, while also working to minimize interference to licensees operating in a given frequency block, band, or geographic area. Depending on the service, they may recommend restrictions to appear on licenses and comment on other technical issues in applications. In services with multiple frequency coordinators, the Commission often requires a frequency coordinator to notify and transmit certain information to other coordinators certified to coordinate in the affected frequency(ies). A prominent example is in the part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”) Service, including the 806-824/851-869 MHz and 896-901/935-940 MHz bands that are adjacent to the Cellular band. The Commission has recognized the value of PLMR frequency advisory committees since the 1950s, and by the late 1980s, the Commission had mandated the use of private frequency coordinators for most PLMR frequencies. Frequency coordination also is used in a variety of other wireless services, such as certain part 80 maritime and part 87 aviation frequencies, in which frequency coordinators must consider interference to all other similar frequencies within a specific geographic range. More recently, the Commission decided to require the use of frequency coordinators for licensees operating in the part 95 WMTS and Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (“MedRadio”).

10. In its November 2013 ex parte letter, the Coalition suggests that, if the Commission opts to use frequency coordination for the Cellular Service, it should give the designated coordinators full authority to approve applications. This would include, the Coalition asserts, authorization of proposed CGSA-expansions, and that such authorizations “would become effective 30 days after the frequency coordinator notifies” the Commission. By this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment generally on the use of Cellular frequency coordinators, and specifically on the details of our proposal outlined below. However, in light of a federal court decision, USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the Commission does not seek comment on the suggestion to delegate authority to coordinators to grant applications. We especially urge all parties that preliminarily determine they would be interested in being frequency coordinators to indicate such interest during the comment or reply comment period.

11. All commenters should be specific and detailed, and should review the proposed new rule in Appendix B of this FNPRM and comment on its wording. To the extent commenters offer alternative ideas not considered herein, they should explain how such alternatives would better serve the public interest and achieve the Commission's goals, consistent with Commission precedent and current spectrum management policies.

12. In the Report and Order released November 10, 2014 in this proceeding (`R&O”), the Commission eliminated the need for many different types of Cellular applications. Of the applications that will continue to be filed, the Commission proposes to require the use of Cellular frequency coordinators to review the following: (1) Major modification applications claiming at least 50 contiguous square miles of Unserved Area as CGSA; and (2) applications seeking authorization for new Cellular systems. Under this proposal, all other applications, including construction notifications and renewal applications, for example, would continue to be filed directly with the Commission. The Commission further proposes, however, that to the extent such other filings are submitted with a CGSA-expansion or new-system application, those other filings would also need to be filed with a Cellular frequency coordinator for initial review. For example, an application that modifies and/or adds a location requiring an Environmental Assessment, which normally would come directly to the Commission, would have to be submitted to a frequency coordinator if such application is filed along with a CGSA-expansion or new-system application. Using frequency coordinators in this manner could greatly assist in developing and managing the Cellular spectrum.

13. The Commission proposes that Cellular frequency coordinators be private organizations certified by the Commission to review certain categories of applications (as outlined above), including any exhibits, FCC Form Schedules, and electronic maps required with those applications, to ensure compliance with all rules applicable to the Cellular Service. Cellular coordinators would review only applicable technical information for compliance with the rules; they would not, for example, review an applicant's financial or ownership information that may accompany or be linked in an application. Frequency coordinators would work with the applicants to resolve any inaccuracies involving technical information, including the service area boundary (“SAB”) and CGSA calculations, ensure compliance with all applicable rules, and submit the application to the Commission. Consistent with rules governing frequency coordination in other wireless services, the Commission proposes that the frequency coordinators' recommendations be purely advisory, not binding on either the applicant or the Commission. However, the Commission proposes that, in the event of a dispute between an applicant and a frequency coordinator, an applicant would be able to direct the coordinator to submit the application at issue to the Commission without the coordinator's recommendation. In that event, the application would need to explain that the applicant sought frequency coordination but the coordinator did not recommend the proposed operations. The Commission proposes that the applicant have the burden of proceeding and the burden of proof in requesting the Commission to grant its application notwithstanding a coordinator's unfavorable recommendation.

14. Part 90 PLMR frequency coordinators are required to file applications electronically using the ULS electronic batch format. The Commission seeks comment on whether Cellular frequency coordinators should be subject to the same requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on what preparations the Commission would have to make before implementing a frequency coordination regime, such as modifying ULS to accommodate frequency coordinator information and receive electronic batch filing of the applications, including any maps submitted electronically, and educating the frequency coordinators. The Commission seeks comment also on whether Cellular frequency coordinators should have additional duties. Commenters are invited to address all these issues surrounding the appropriate duties of frequency coordinators for the Cellular Service and they should indicate how their positions serve the public interest, including a cost-benefit analysis.

15. If it appears that a Cellular frequency coordinator's performance is inconsistent with the public interest obligations that would be imposed on it through this proceeding, an inquiry would be initiated that could lead to its decertification, as with other wireless services for which frequency coordinators are used. The Commission would also continue to maintain the Cellular license data, including the online CGSA map files. Given that frequency coordinator recommendations are proposed to be advisory and not binding upon either the applicant or the Commission, we envision that Cellular applications would continue to go on public notice once received by the Commission and that the Commission would resolve competing applications and petitions to deny, if any.

16. Many part 90 PLMR applicants that undergo frequency coordination receive conditional authority; that is, they are permitted to commence their proposed operations once the application has been favorably reviewed and submitted by a frequency coordinator and is pending before the Commission. In that situation, a minimum wait time of ten days is imposed between submission of the application and the onset of operation, during which the Commission can evaluate the proposed operations, including the frequency coordinator's recommendation, and take adverse action if necessary. The Commission seeks comment on whether Cellular applicants should receive similar conditional operating authority while their applications are pending before the Commission. Making conditional authorization available following the frequency coordinator's recommendation—if the Commission does not find a problem with the recommendation—could provide flexibility to Cellular applicants and benefit consumers by permitting more rapid deployment of proposed service. Commenters are invited specifically to address whether sound administrative principles support permitting conditional operation before the 30-day public comment period ends, and whether it should continue even if a competing application or petition to deny is filed.

17. In addition, the Commission proposes to oversee the Cellular frequency coordinators and their processes on an ongoing basis, and to work to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved between an applicant and frequency coordinator. The Commission seeks comment on the circumstances under which the Commission should become involved in such a dispute, and the timing. Should the Commission specify a reasonable timeframe, e.g., 60 days following the frequency coordinator's recommendation to the applicant, during which the applicant and the frequency coordinator are to endeavor in good faith to resolve the matter before appealing to the Commission? Once the dispute is brought before the Commission, what procedures are appropriate for Commission staff to resolve the dispute? The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the continued role for the Commission.

18. In 1997, the Commission generally permitted certain frequency coordinators in the PLMR Industrial/Business Pool band below 512 MHz to coordinate any frequency in the pool, thus ending exclusive frequency coordination and allowing competition among coordinators on certain frequencies. The Bureau subsequently introduced competitive coordination to other part 90 PLMR bands. The introduction of competition among coordinators was intended to promote lower coordination costs for applicants and foster better service to the public, and it has accomplished this purpose. Consequently, the Commission proposes to authorize multiple frequency coordinators for the Cellular Service.

19. If there are multiple Cellular frequency coordinators, the Commission proposes that they have notification requirements similar to those for part 90 PLMR frequency coordinators. In particular, a Cellular frequency coordinator would be required to notify other Cellular frequency coordinators within one business day of making a coordination recommendation and on any day when it does not make a recommendation. At a minimum, the notification would include the following information: Name of the applicant; type of application at issue; license (call sign) of the applicant (if applicable); CMA description and channel block of the existing license (if applicable); CMA designator(s) and channel block pertaining to where the applicant is expanding its CGSA or starting a new system; new or modified transmitter location(s) along with coordinates and the antenna height; effective radiated power, antenna center of radiation height above average terrain, height above sea level or height above mean sea level, and distance to the SAB and to the CGSA for the eight radials of each new/modified location; and date and time of the recommendation. Upon request, the notifying frequency coordinator would provide any additional information requested by another certified coordinator regarding a Cellular application already reviewed by the notifying coordinator but still pending before the Commission.

20. Under the Commission's proposal, it would be the responsibility of each Cellular frequency coordinator to ensure that its recommendations do not conflict with the recommendations of any other Cellular frequency coordinator. Should a conflict arise, the affected coordinators would be jointly responsible for taking action to resolve the conflict, up to and including notifying the Commission that an application may have to be returned. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed notification process, including what information should be provided to coordinators with each notification, and the timing of notifications.

21. The Commission also invites commenters, including parties that at least preliminarily have an interest in being a frequency coordinator candidate, to address whether the market for Cellular frequency coordination is likely to support multiple entities, as well as whether they perceive any problems in allowing more than one frequency coordinator for the Cellular Service.

22. Fees. Because the Commission proposes to have multiple coordinators, the Commission proposes that market forces determine the Cellular frequency coordinators' fees, rather than have the Commission regulate fees. Given that the Commission would continue to process and act on the reviewed applications, as proposed above, applicants would continue to pay Commission application fees (and also regulatory fees). Should the Commission adopt a pricing scheme for the frequency coordinators? If so, what should it be, and how would such an approach better serve the public interest? What are the costs and benefits of a particular scheme? If there is only one frequency coordinator, should the Commission regulate the coordinator fees?

23. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to certify more than one frequency coordinator and to allow market forces to govern coordinators' processing fees. Commenters should include an analysis of the costs and benefits of whatever proposal they advocate.

24. The Commission proposes that, at a minimum, Cellular frequency coordinators must have the following qualifications: knowledge of the Cellular Unserved Area licensing process (as revised by the companion R&O in this proceeding); ability to register and maintain application information and transmit such information to ULS; technical capability to review applicants' proposed licensing areas to determine compliance with all rules and procedures applicable to the Cellular Service; and both ability and willingness to develop procedures to work with Cellular applicants, which includes offering coordination services on a non-discriminatory basis and responding to applicant requests or concerns on a timely basis. The Commission also expects that the frequency coordinators would not have a conflict of interest when reviewing applications (or can show that any pre-existing conflict of interest has been resolved). Although we do not propose at this time to require that the coordinators be national in scope and representative of all eligible Cellular licensees, the Commission expresses strong preference for those characteristics.

25. Permitting current Cellular applicants or licensees to serve as frequency coordinators—either for themselves or for other applicants—could run counter to the public interest and undermine the goals of the proposal. As discussed above, a key goal is to have frequency coordinators resolve the high volume of inaccuracies in Cellular applications so that new service is not delayed, and also so that Commission staff resources are no longer needed for repeated review and return of such filings. The Commission expects that frequency coordinators specifically dedicated to this task would ensure that applications are accurate and compliant with Commission requirements prior to submitting them to the Commission. Furthermore, having a current Cellular applicant or licensee as a frequency coordinator would increase the likelihood of a conflict of interest—a problem the Commission wishes to avoid, as it could delay the processing of Cellular applications contrary to the goal to expedite new service. Therefore, the Commission proposes to make Cellular licensees ineligible to be certified as Cellular frequency coordinators. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to not certify Cellular frequency coordinators that are current or prospective Cellular Service licensees. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a current Cellular applicant or licensee's agent ( e.g., a law firm or a consulting engineering firm), and affiliates of Cellular licensees and applicants, should also be prohibited from serving as a frequency coordinator. If not, how would potential conflicts of interest be resolved? Also, if the Commission decides not to certify affiliates of Cellular licensees and applicants as frequency coordinators, the Commission invites comment on how to define “affiliate” in this context. In particular, the Commission invites comment on whether the definition of affiliate used for purposes of determining whether an auction participant is a “designated entity” could also be used in this context.

26. Under 47 CFR 0.131(m), the Bureau has delegated authority to certify frequency coordinators for the services that it administers, including the Cellular Service. The Commission proposes that, pursuant to this delegated authority, the Bureau would select the Cellular frequency coordinators using the same procedures that were adopted for WMTS and MBANs. Accordingly, in the event that the Commission ultimately adopts rules establishing the use of frequency coordinators for the Cellular Service, the Commission would direct the Bureau to issue a Public Notice announcing procedures for interested parties to submit requests to become coordinators. Thereafter, the Bureau would be directed to issue an Order to designate the coordinators and execute a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with those selected. The MOU would set forth the coordinators' authority and responsibilities. The frequency coordinators would assume their duties upon execution of the MOU. The Commission seeks comment on whether this process, which worked well for selecting the WMTS coordinator, would permit the Commission to complete the coordinator selection process in a timely and efficient manner. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the frequency coordination certification and selection criteria.

27. In this Section of the FNPRM, the Commission considers changes to the Cellular radiated power limits and related technical rules under the following specific topics: Power spectral density (“PSD”); power flux density (“PFD”); technological neutrality for field strength limits; height-power limit; mobile transmitters and auxiliary test transmitters; and power measurement. (For the purpose of this proceeding, PFD is the amount of radio frequency energy or power that would be present over a given unit of area ( e.g., 100 microwatts per square meter). Therefore, PFD can be used to describe the strength of signals on the ground in a given location.) The Commission also addresses coordination requirements, including international coordination, and the SAB formula set forth in § 22.911 of the Commission's rules. The Commission takes this action with a goal of implementing technology neutral rules that allow licensees to choose technologies based upon their deployment plans without being hindered by an unnecessarily restrictive rule. The Commission also strives for regulatory parity among competing services with consideration of unique circumstances for the band at issue that may require special requirements to prevent interference.

28. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals and those of the commenters as discussed herein; it also invites alternative ideas and proposals concerning the Cellular power rules and related provisions. The Commission encourages public safety entities at the local, regional, and national levels to submit their comments on revising the rules to permit all Cellular licensees nationwide to use, at their option, a PSD model. It asks that all commenters be specific, detailed, and include pertinent engineering data and technical analyses. To the extent commenters advocate an alternative or modification, they should include an explanation of the public interest benefits of such alternative or modification, and comment on the economic costs and benefits of the various possible approaches. All interested parties should also review and comment on the proposed rules in Appendix B of this FNPRM, including definitions. Alternative wording should be provided with comments that advocate additions or modifications to our proposals.

29. In a Petition for Rulemaking filed by AT&T Services, Inc. on behalf of AT&T, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“AT&T”), AT&T seeks specifically to modify § 22.913 (47 CFR 22.913) to permit effective radiated power (“ERP”) measurement in terms of PSD, with limits of 250 watts (“W”) per MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz in rural areas. In response to a Public Notice released by the Bureau seeking comment on AT&T's Petition, interested parties filed comments and reply comments, generally supporting a PSD model as an option for ERP measurement, although some expressed concerns or proposed modifications, as discussed below. AT&T also filed a request for interim waiver of § 22.913 to use a PSD model for certain Cellular stations in Florida, and subsequently filed a request for interim waiver to use the PSD model for certain Cellular operations in Vermont. The Bureau sought comment on them, and in the docket concerning the Florida PSD Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 13-202), several Florida public safety and critical infrastructure entities submitted comments; no public safety entities commented regarding the Vermont PSD Waiver Request (WT Docket No. 14-107).

30. In 2007 and 2008, the Commission revised the radiated power rules for several other wireless services, implementing a PSD model (among other related technical rule modifications), but declined at that time to revise the Cellular ERP rules, primarily because of significant restructuring (800 MHz rebanding) ongoing in the immediately adjacent frequencies, which are used by public safety entities, and also because of a lack of industry support and the need for more time to assess the potential impact of using the PSD model in the Cellular band. Ultimately, the rebanding process will move public safety and other narrowband land mobile operations away from the Cellular and high-density ESMR base station transmitting frequencies, thereby reducing the potential for interference between incompatible services. However, in some parts of the country, the rebanding process is not completed and public safety operations continue using frequencies adjacent to the lower edge of the Cellular base station transmitting band at 869 MHz. Further, even after rebanding is accomplished in a region, some public safety entities may continue to use legacy radios that could be susceptible to Cellular base station interference because the filtering of the radio does not reflect the post-rebanding channel plan for public safety operations. The rebanding proceeding outlined the circumstances where legacy devices would be entitled to interference resolution procedures and also created information exchange procedures so public safety licensees could be notified of new or modified ESMR and Cellular base station activities.

31. Based on the preliminary record, and consistent with the Commission's prior revisions to, or newly adopted power rules for, other wireless services, the Commission proposes to revise § 22.913 to permit measurement of base transmitter and Cellular repeater power using a PSD model. The goals are to promote spectral efficiency and provide licensees with flexibility to select the technology that best suits their needs, whether narrowband or wideband, and increase harmonization of the Commission's rules across commercial wireless services to the extent practicable, taking into account the unique features of each service band. At the same time, the Commission is mindful of the need to protect systems in the immediately adjacent bands, particularly public safety operations. The Commission seeks comment in the Sections below on various options to achieve its goals.

32. In considering a PSD model as an option for Cellular licensees deploying wideband technologies, the Commission discusses below and seeks comment on the following three proposals to develop a better record for determining what the appropriate PSD limits should be:

• AT&T's proposal of 250 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 500 W/MHz ERP in rural areas;

• Union Wireless's proposal of 500 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 1000 W/MHz in rural areas; and

• Verizon Wireless's proposal of 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, 2000 W/MHz in rural areas.

The Commission also seeks comment on alternatives not considered in this FNPRM. Each of the proposals listed above specifies power limits that would supplement the current Cellular ERP limits of 500 W in non-rural areas and 1000 W in rural areas. The distinction is that the current limits apply to each emission or channel, so that a licensee using narrow emissions can transmit more total power per MHz than a licensee using wideband emissions. For example, under the current rules, a Cellular licensee using a 5 MHz LTE emission in a non-rural area would be limited to 500 W in those 5 MHz (100 W/MHz), while a licensee in the same 5 MHz could deploy four CDMA channels with an aggregate power of 2000 W ERP (400 W/MHz), or 12 GSM channels with an aggregate power of 6000 W ERP (1200 W/MHz). (This assumes that the licensee is deploying 4 CDMA channels in 5 MHz (4 × 500 W = 2000 W), or using every other GSM channel in 5 MHz for a total of 12 channels (12 × 500 W = 6000 W).)

33. In support of AT&T's proposal, its Petition includes a study that purports to show that shifting to PSD-based power limits would create an interference environment that is “not appreciably different from that of existing Cellular deployments” and which, according to AT&T, is even better in some cases. AT&T states that the study looked at five different technological cases, including GSM, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (“UMTS”), and LTE systems in various configurations in the Cellular band. According to AT&T, the study shows that deployments of 2X2 Multiple Input Multiple Output (“MIMO”) LTE—using the PSD model with the limits advocated by AT&T—would maintain the status quo with respect to the potential interference impacts on adjacent services, and in particular, the Public Safety Services.

34. Broadpoint, LLC d/b/a Cellular One, Cincinnati Bell Wireless LLC, NE Colorado Cellular, Inc., Smith Bagley, Inc., and Union Telephone Company d/b/a Union Wireless (“Union Wireless”) (collectively, the “GSM Licensees”), which own and operate GSM/EDGE Cellular networks, argue that imposing AT&T's proposed PSD limits on carriers using such technologies would result in reducing their existing coverage, with a dramatic increase in roaming costs for customers or loss of signal altogether. One of the GSM Licensees, Union Wireless, adds that the revised rule should articulate measurement in terms of effective isotropically radiated power (“EIRP”), just as for certain other wireless services, including the Broadband Personal Communications Service (“PCS”). Specifically, it argues that carriers operating with less than 1 MHz of bandwidth should be permitted up to 820 W EIRP in non-rural areas, 1640 W EIRP in rural areas (equivalent to the current 500 W ERP and 1000 W ERP limit, respectively), and that corresponding PSD limits for carriers operating with more than 1 MHz of bandwidth should be 820 W/MHz EIRP non-rural, 1640 W/MHz EIRP rural (equivalent to 500 W/MHz ERP and 1000 W/MHz ERP, respectively). Bluegrass Cellular, Inc. and Affiliates d/b/a Bluegrass Wireless (collectively, “Bluegrass”), which is a CDMA carrier, contends that AT&T's proposal would cause stronger signals into Bluegrass markets, thereby increasing the noise level, and that carriers like Bluegrass need a sufficient transition period to renegotiate SAB extension agreements to prevent harmful interference. CTO supports a rulemaking to ensure equity among commercial licensees in different bands, but also expresses concern about the fiscal impact of changes in licensing rules on the budgets of public safety entities. In its reply comments, AT&T emphasizes that it seeks only to supplement the rule to permit carriers to use whichever model is better suited to their circumstances, and that, at the PSD limits AT&T advocates, the power injected into Bluegrass's receivers in adjacent areas or co-located sites remains the same.

35. Verizon Wireless argues that PSD limits should be added to the rule at significantly higher levels, mirroring the limits set for the 700 MHz Services: 1000 W/MHz for non-rural areas, and 2000 W/MHz for rural areas, for stations transmitting on bandwidths greater than 1 MHz. For stations transmitting on bandwidths of 1 MHz or less, Verizon Wireless argues that the Commission should either retain the current ERP limits as an option, or adopt maximum power limits of 1000 W and 2000 W for non-rural and rural areas, respectively. According to Verizon Wireless, the limits proposed in the Petition will negatively impact both coverage and capacity, putting Cellular licensees that deploy broadband technologies at a significant disadvantage compared to carriers deploying such technologies in other service bands, especially in rural areas. Verizon Wireless argues that the Commission should also adopt a PFD limit (discussed in the next Section below).

36. Several Florida public safety entities submitted ex parte letters regarding AT&T's Florida PSD Waiver Request in WT Docket No. 13-202. They expressed a number of concerns, arguing that the technical study submitted by AT&T infers a burden on public safety licensees to incorporate new radios or additional filtering, that using a PSD model will result in a significant increase in power from AT&T, causing harmful interference to radio systems with multiple police users from federal, state, county, city, and Tribal organizations, that AT&T should conduct testing, and alleging increased costs for public safety licensees if a PSD model is adopted, not only in terms of dollars for new radio purchases, but also in terms of extra weight and size of the radios used, reduced sensitivity, and potential operational burdens.

37. AT&T then sought and was granted an experimental special temporary authorization to conduct testing using a PSD model in Florida. Taking into account the results of the testing, as documented in ex parte letters submitted by AT&T and Miami-Dade County, the Bureau recently granted the Florida PSD Waiver Request in part, conditioned on compliance with new rules that may be adopted in this rulemaking proceeding and subject to certain operational conditions to prevent harmful interference. ( See DA 14-1419 in WT Docket No. 13-202.) In addition, the Bureau granted the Vermont PSD Waiver Request, similarly conditioned, also noting the absence of public safety entities with licensed base stations in the Burlington, VT CMA. ( See DA 14-1418 in WT Docket No. 14-107.)

38. The Commission proposes to keep the current base station ERP limits (applied per channel or emission bandwidth) for those licensees that use technologies incompatible with a PSD ERP model (applied per MHz of channel or emission bandwidth), and also provide power flexibility to deploy wideband technologies. The Commission tentatively concludes that a PSD ERP model—as an option—would better accommodate newer technologies employing wider bandwidths, notably LTE, by establishing ERP caps per units of 1 MHz of an emission's bandwidth rather than capping the ERP per each emission bandwidth. To minimize adverse effects on licensees operating with GSM and CDMA technologies in the Cellular band, the Commission proposes to permit licensees using narrowband technologies to comply with the current limits of 500 W ERP per emission in non-rural areas and 1000 W ERP per emission in rural areas. Maintaining the existing power limits as an option would allow licensees to continue to operate as currently deployed, and would prevent potential power reductions for non-wideband technologies ( e.g., GSM and CDMA) if a lower PSD limit is applied. (For example, a licensee deploying CDMA technology transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 1.25 MHz could employ a power level of 500 W ERP under the legacy limit; alternatively, in a 250 W/MHz scenario, the same licensee would have a maximum power level of 312.5 W ERP in 1.25 MHz bandwidth.) The Commission seeks comment on this approach. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a need to increase Cellular power levels consistent with other services ( e.g., the 700 MHz Services rules impose a limit of 1000 W ERP for emissions less than one MHz in non-rural areas, and 2000 W ERP for emissions less than one MHz in rural areas), or whether the current limits are sufficient. If insufficient, what new limits would be the most appropriate for per-emission Cellular transmissions in rural and non-rural markets, respectively? The Commission also seeks comment on updating the terminology in the rule. Specifically, should the 500 W ERP be applied per channel, per channel bandwidth, per occupied bandwidth, or some other emission description? All commenters addressing this issue should support their arguments with technical showings.

39. Verizon Wireless recommends applying a PSD limit only to Cellular base stations transmitting emissions greater than 1 MHz. The Commission does not propose any such bandwidth dividing line for the purposes of applying PSD in the Cellular Service because it could disadvantage certain carriers. For example, a licensee using a 1.25 MHz CDMA technology would currently be permitted to use 500 W ERP across that channel, but under a 250 W/MHz PSD requirement, that licensee would have to lower its power and reduce service coverage. The Commission invites comment on its proposal not to establish a bandwidth dividing line and on its assumption regarding the potential effect of such a dividing line on certain licensees.

40. AT&T's PSD proposal (250 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz in rural areas) would provide Cellular licensees with less power than other current CMRS providers, potentially placing Cellular licensees at a competitive disadvantage. Cellular licensees deploying LTE base stations might, as a result, have less reliable coverage, necessitating deployment of more base stations at a greater expense, and might have a difficult time supplementing existing service with Cellular spectrum because of the power discrepancy. This option would allow an LTE 5 MHz emission a total of 1250 W ERP; however, the power would be spread across a wider bandwidth and unlikely in our view to present increased interference potential to other services. Under the current rules, a Cellular licensee using the same 5 MHz could deploy four CDMA channels with an aggregate power of 2000 W ERP, or 12 GSM channels with an aggregate power of 6000 W ERP. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the AT&T PSD proposal, including the adequacy of the proposal to allow the full potential of wideband modulation schemes and services that Cellular licensees may wish to provide, and also the potential to cause interference to other services.

41. Next, the Commission seeks comment on Verizon Wireless's proposal to adopt PSD limits similar to those adopted for upper 700 MHz licensees (1000 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 2000 W/MHz in rural areas), with a PFD limit to minimize the interference potential on the ground within one kilometer of a base station. The proposal would provide power consistent with certain other CMRS bands, thereby allowing Cellular licensees to compete on a level playing field and also allowing CMRS licensees holding both Cellular and other CMRS spectrum to deploy base stations with an expectation that they could achieve consistent and reliable coverage across different service bands. The increased power does, however, come with an increased risk of potential interference to adjacent public safety operations that have not gone through rebanding or that use radios less capable of filtering out emissions from Cellular base stations. As discussed in more detail below in the next section, Verizon Wireless contends that the increased PSD limits paired with a PFD limit would address the increased interference potential around the base station, and the Commission seeks comment on Verizon Wireless's proposal, its adequacy to address the needs of Cellular licensees seeking to deploy wideband technologies, and its potential to cause interference to public safety operations or any other licensees in adjacent markets or service bands.

42. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the interference resolution provisions adopted in the rebanding proceeding allow us to adopt Cellular power rules consistent with other CMRS bands with the assurance that any unacceptable interference that does occur will be appropriately addressed pursuant to §§ 22.970 through 22.973 of our rules. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other commenters' PSD approaches, including the proposal by Union Wireless, which specifies power in terms of EIRP and proposes power limits of 820 W/MHz EIRP for non-rural and 1640 W/MHz EIRP for rural areas.

43. The Commission also proposes to allow the doubling of the PSD limit in rural counties, as in other CMRS bands. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and also on whether the Commission should adopt a staggered power limit, whereby the licensee would operate at the suggested AT&T limits (250 W/MHz in non-rural areas and 500 W/MHz in rural areas) if narrowband land mobile operations exist in adjacent spectrum, and at higher power limits after such entities are rebanded to a new location. The Commission also seeks comment on how base station power limits should be applied in the deployment of base stations. That is, should the limit be applied per emission or channel, per transmitter, per sector, or for the entire base station, and how is this application affected by MIMO antenna configurations? For example, if a licensee uses 2x2 or 4x4 MIMO, should it be forced to divide its power accordingly?

44. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of its proposals and others on the record, and also invites commenters to submit alternative proposals and ideas that would advance the goals to provide power flexibility, ensure parity among competing or complementary services, and safeguard spectral compatibility with licensees in adjacent markets and adjacent bands. The Commission reiterates that commenters should provide engineering data and technical analysis as well as specific wording for the applicable rules to support their showings, particularly if advocating alternatives not discussed in this FNPRM.

45. Verizon Wireless argues that the Commission should adopt a PFD limit to mitigate the potential for interference around Cellular base station transmitters, particularly to public safety operations. According to Verizon Wireless, PFD limits permit the licensee to aim the signal away from the ground, limit signal strength in close proximity to the base station, and allow licensees to operate at greater power levels without sacrificing protection. It further contends that the PFD limit applicable to the upper 700 MHz band is appropriate for the Cellular band and that, with PSD limits of 1000 W/MHz non-rural and 2000 W/MHz rural, the PFD that would be produced by such stations through a combination of antenna height and vertical gain pattern must not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting structure. Verizon Wireless includes a summary of results of testing conducted by V-COMM.

46. It appears that Verizon Wireless intends its proposed PFD limit of 3000 microwatts per square meter to apply to any base station with emissions exceeding 1000 W ERP, similar to the limit for the upper 700 MHz band. For the upper 700 MHz band, the Commission established a PFD limit that applies to emissions greater than 1000 W ERP, regardless of the bandwidth of the emission. For the lower 700 MHz band where there was no public safety spectrum, the Commission established PFD limits that apply, in non-rural areas, to emissions that exceed 1000 W and 1000 W/MHz, and in rural areas to emissions that exceed 2000 W and 2000 W/MHz, allowing more power relative to the upper 700 MHz band before PFD limits apply. This approach might be an effective tool to limit the amount of potentially interfering energy on the ground around base stations if the Commission ultimately decides to adopt higher PSD levels for the Cellular Service than what AT&T proposed. Notably, however, the Commission did not adopt PFD limits for PCS or certain AWS when it revised the radiated power rules for those services to permit use of a PSD model.

47. A factor in the upper 700 MHz band's PFD limit that is shared with the Cellular band is a desire to reduce the interference potential to adjacent channel public safety operations. If the Commission adopts AT&T's proposed PSD limits, or some other PSD limits lower than what is proposed by Verizon Wireless, should the Commission also adopt a PFD limit? If so, should the PFD limit only apply if the ERP exceeds a certain level ( e.g., 1000 W, as in the upper 700 MHz band, or some other level)? Is 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting structure the appropriate PFD level to protect public safety operations? Is a different applicable area more appropriate than Verizon Wireless's proposed area? Should a PFD limit only be applicable in areas where the rebanding process has not been completed? Should it be applicable only to those Cellular carriers using the PSD model to measure their ERP, or to all Cellular carriers?

48. The Commission also seeks comment on several other issues raised by Verizon Wireless's proposal. How should the microwatts-per-square-meter level, whether it is 3000 microwatts or some other value, be measured? Should the parameter have a reference or measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, or some other value, to ensure uniform measurement regardless of channel width? Should the PFD value be an average limit, or a peak value that should not be exceeded at any point within the specified area? Would licensees perform a predictive modeling of this parameter before deployment, or is it a measured value? If the PFD is a modeled parameter, would it be better to establish some allowance for exceeding the PFD over a small portion of the subject area? For example, the Commission could require that the PFD not be exceeded over more than 5% or 10% of the area within 1 km of the transmitting structure. Such an allowance may be needed in areas where rolling terrain could increase the PFD over a small portion of the applicable area. What challenges may be created in enforcing a PFD limit, including consistency and parity in application among different technologies?

49. The Commission seeks detailed and specific comments on all questions and issues mentioned above surrounding the establishment of a PFD limit, and any other issues that commenters believe are related and pertinent. All commenters, whether supporting or opposing the establishment of a PFD limit, should provide a technical demonstration substantiating their position.

50. In its Report and Order in the proceeding concerning AWS-3, the Commission stated that boundary limits that adjust for large differences in channel bandwidth may be appropriate. However, the Commission stated that it intended to explore the issue of a measurement bandwidth to co-channel boundary field strength limits in a future proceeding due to a lack of consensus on how to apply boundary limits for AWS-3. With the introduction of power flexibility in the Cellular band, licensees could be deploying different technologies with emission bandwidths ranging from 200 kHz to 10 MHz. Therefore, to promote technological neutrality in our rules among different technologies and licensees, the Commission seeks comment on whether the new Cellular field strength limit of 40 dBμV/m, which the Commission adopted in its companion R&O in this proceeding, can be applied in a technology neutral fashion or whether the Commission should adopt a specific measurement bandwidth for field strength measurements or some other limit or metric at the license boundary.

51. Given that the Cellular Service is well-established, what are the considerations for or against specifying a measurement bandwidth for the field strength limit? To ensure uniform application of the limit, would a 100 kHz or 1 MHz measurement bandwidth be appropriate or would that be too stringent, and what would the consequences be? If the Commission adopts a measurement bandwidth that is too wide, would it be potentially difficult to meet the limit and still have adequate signal to provide service at the boundary area? Is a field strength limit with a measurement bandwidth the best metric to address service area boundary interference? If not, what limit and type should be applied? It is appropriate that commenters address application of the field strength limit in a technology neutral fashion, and the Commission encourages all commenting parties to support their position with technical demonstrations. The Commission seeks comment on any other part 22 Cellular rules that may not be technology neutral and invites specific proposals on how they should be amended, with analysis of the potential costs and benefits of such changes.

52. Section 22.913(b) currently limits the height of a base station antenna such that the ERP may not exceed an amount that would result in the average distance to the SAB being 79.1 km for licensees authorized to serve the Gulf of Mexico market (the “Gulf”), 40.2 km for all other licensees. Section 22.913(c) provides an exemption from the height-power limit if the licensee coordinates and obtains concurrence from all co-channel licensees within 121 km. No commenter on the record in this proceeding has mentioned changing these height-power provisions. In some other flexible wireless services where the Commission has instituted PSD limits, however, it has also limited the antenna height in which the maximum power may be transmitted and allowed higher antennas if the installation scaled down the power proportionally for antennas above the height allowed for maximum power. For example, under the 700 MHz Services and PCS rules, licensees are required to scale down their power from the maximum levels for antenna heights over 300 and 305 meters, respectively. Other services, such as AWS, are not subject to such limitations.

53. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how the Commission should amend the Cellular height-power limit and exemption rules. Does the Commission need a scaled height-power requirement similar to the one applicable in the 700 MHz band, and if so, what should the values be? With the adoption in the companion R&O in this proceeding of a field strength limit rule to protect neighboring Cellular licensees' CGSA boundaries, the Commission seeks detailed comment, including technical analysis and proposed wording of rules, on whether it is appropriate to delete the current Cellular height-power limit altogether, or whether a limit is still necessary, at least for CGSA expansions into Unserved Area.

54. At this time, the Commission is proposing to permit Cellular licensees to use a PSD model only for base station transmitters and Cellular repeaters. No commenter on the record in this proceeding has suggested changing the power limit for Cellular mobile or portable transmitters. Currently, § 22.913(a)(2) sets a limit of 7 W ERP for mobile and auxiliary test transmitters. While the Commission tentatively concludes that the 7 W ERP limit is adequate even for 10 MHz channel widths, the Commission seeks comment on whether the current limit should be updated or changed, including whether it should be lowered to be consistent with other CMRS bands. While the Commission has not adopted PSD for mobile stations in other services such as PCS or the 700 MHz Services, the Commission seeks comment on whether a PSD limit should be established for mobile and portable Cellular transmitters, and if so, what that limit should be. Does the use of MIMO antenna techniques affect how power is measured and how it should be regulated in mobile devices? The Commission also seeks comment on whether auxiliary test transmitters are still in use and whether a provision applying to such transmitters is still warranted in § 22.913(a)(2). Are there other types of Cellular transmitters that should be addressed in the radiated power rules? Does it serve the public interest to treat Cellular mobile transmitters differently from auxiliary test transmitters, and if so, what should the respective treatments be? The Commission emphasizes that, even if it decides to adopt changes to § 22.913(a)(2), its environmental regulations will still apply.

55. Because mobile devices often operate across multiple service bands, the Commission tentatively concludes that it would serve the public interest to establish consistent measurement techniques for equipment to ease the equipment authorization process, while also taking into account unique factors presented by the band, and seeks comment on whether the measurement techniques for the Cellular Service should be updated. The Commission's Cellular power rules were created when analog technologies were predominantly used, and are not necessarily applicable to current technologies. Here, the Commission discusses peak power versus average power, peak-to-average power ratio, resolution bandwidth, EIRP versus ERP, and accommodating MIMO antenna techniques.

56. Section 22.913 does not specify how power is to be measured, i.e., peak or average power. Digital modulation techniques often produce instantaneous short duration spikes such that the overall power of the emission is lower under average power measurement compared to peak measurement. In revising the radiated power rules for PCS and AWS, the Commission concluded that, for non-constant envelope technologies such as CDMA, WCDMA, and OFDM, limiting PCS and AWS power on an average basis would more accurately predict the interference potential for such technologies. The record in that proceeding demonstrated that using peak power measurements for non-constant envelope technologies inaccurately suggested a much higher overall operational power, compared to average power levels, due to short duration power spikes. The Commission further found that measurement of average power for PCS and AWS operations must be made during a period of continuous transmission based on a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth. Because the average power approach allows for emissions higher than those under peak power limits, the Commission also concluded that it would serve the public interest to adopt a peak-to-average ratio limit to mitigate the potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise. The current rules for PCS and AWS reflect these various measurement decisions.

57. No one on the record in this proceeding has thus far addressed how PSD should be measured if the Commission introduces this model into the Cellular radiated power rules. The Commission tentatively concludes that, to account for the characteristics of digital modulation techniques, Cellular radiated power limits—both the legacy limits the Commission proposes to maintain as an option for narrowband technologies and the PSD limits the Commission proposes as an option for wideband technologies—should be measured in terms of maximum average power as measured with a root mean square power averaging detector. Averaging would, under this approach, be permitted only over the various power levels associated with different symbol states while the device is transmitting at maximum power levels ( i.e., averaging during any transmitter quiescent periods or reduced power transmissions is not permitted). Because the peak power associated with a noise-like signal is a random variable and, as such, can place unachievable requirements on the measuring instrumentation ( e.g., a resolution/measurement bandwidth that exceeds the signal bandwidth), the Commission tentatively concludes that the Cellular output power should not be specified in terms of peak, unless limited to peak PSD (in which case a reference bandwidth should also be specified). The Commission also proposes to specify that power should be measured with a resolution bandwidth, but seeks comment on what that resolution bandwidth should be. The current resolution bandwidth for measuring unwanted emissions outside of the Cellular band is 100 kHz or greater, but the PCS resolution bandwidth for measuring in-band power is specified as being equal to or greater than the authorized bandwidth. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission should craft the Cellular power measurement rules to accommodate the various technologies used in the band and others that may be used in the future.

58. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if the Commission adopts an average power requirement for Cellular licensees, it should be accompanied by a peak-to-average ratio, as the Commission has adopted for PCS and AWS. If the Commission adopts a peak-to-average ratio to be applied over an emission's bandwidth, the Commission proposes that the limit apply to the highest peak power density relative to the highest average power density measured over the entire occupied bandwidth. The reason for specifying the peak-to-average ratio within a reference bandwidth is to be clear the Commission is not referring to the absolute peak power within the total signal but, rather, to the peak within some defined bandwidth, making it a realizable measurement even when the signal greatly exceeds the available resolution/measurement bandwidth. In addition, the peak-to-average ratio would not apply within each and every reference bandwidth bin, as the Commission's Laboratory finds that a peak-to-average ratio limit can be exceeded on a bin-by-bin basis due to intermodulation products, but can be compliant when the overall maximum values are considered. Finally, if the Commission adopts a peak-to-average ratio, the Commission proposes that it be specified on a statistical basis to reflect the fact that the peak power of a “noise-like” signal is a statistical parameter ( e.g., peak-to-average ratio level must comply with the limit 99% of the time). The PCS peak-to-average ratio is 13 dB. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of applying a peak-to-average ratio to the Cellular band, including whether the PCS peak-to-average ratio or some other value is most appropriate for Cellular licensees.

59. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should convert our Cellular power requirements to EIRP instead of ERP, as suggested by Union Wireless. While these two power specifications entail a simple mathematical conversion from one to another, EIRP may make more sense for the Cellular Service, particularly for mobile and portable devices that have integrated antennas. It is our understanding that dipole antennas are infrequently used to perform compliance measurements and that practically all measurement antennas in use today provide gain values in terms of dBi. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the impact of MIMO antenna techniques on our radiated power rules and measurement procedures. Through MIMO, a Cellular base station would deploy multiple antennas, each intended to transmit and receive the same signals, allowing increased throughput and reliability by having multiple signals to add together or to compensate for multipath fading. Does the use of MIMO techniques require a modification to the way the Commission specifies Cellular power or perform measurements for equipment authorization? If so, how should the Commission modify the rules and policies to account for MIMO?

60. The Commission seeks comment also on whether any other part 22 rules regarding equipment standards and measurement need to be updated or modified to be consistent with the equipment certification rules in part 2. For instance, part 2 requirements related to spurious emissions at an antenna terminal assume that the unwanted emissions are measured at the antenna terminals ( i.e., a conducted measurement). Section 22.917 is not clear on whether the Cellular measurement is conducted or radiated. Should § 22.917 be modified to be consistent with this part 2 requirement?

61. The Commission urges all interested parties, including not only Cellular licensees but also licensees in the immediately adjacent bands, equipment manufacturers, and entities that test Cellular equipment, to provide comments on these questions and issues related to power measurement. Commenters should be specific and detailed, explaining the technical reasons for their views, including whether and how the public interest would be served by adopting any or all of the possible revisions discussed in these paragraphs concerning average power, peak-to-average ratio, related measurement techniques, and other technical requirements needed to obtain equipment certification.

62. Section 22.917 (47 CFR 22.917) outlines the current Cellular out of band emission (“OOBE”) limits and how these limits are measured. The Commission seeks comment on whether, given technological developments, the Commission should increase the suppression levels set forth in § 22.917. Would increasing the OOBE limits facilitate higher PSD limits without increasing the potential for unacceptable interference to legacy public safety operations? If so, what should the increased OOBE limits be? Given that changing filtering requirements may temporarily increase the cost of radio equipment, what would be the costs and benefits of increasing the Cellular OOBE limits to protect services outside the Cellular band, including legacy public safety operations that are intended to relocate as part of the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding?

63. In measuring Cellular OOBE in close proximity to the authorized frequency band edge, the Commission permits the use of a narrower-resolution bandwidth (of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission) to measure the unwanted emissions that are on frequencies “immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block” without any requirement for subsequently integrating the results over the full reference bandwidth. The Commission proposes to clarify that this provision only applies in the first 100 kHz immediately outside and adjacent to the authorized frequency block/band, and seeks comment on the proposal. Further, this methodology ( i.e., allowing a reduced bandwidth as a percentage of the fundamental emission (occupied) bandwidth) introduces a bias toward narrowband technologies. Therefore, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt a standard reference resolution bandwidth ( e.g., 10 kHz) that would be applicable to all cases irrespective of the signal bandwidth, and thus not create any unnecessary limit discrepancies. The Commission seeks comment generally on revising our Cellular OOBE limits, given the changing 800 MHz spectrum environment, technological developments, and compliance measurement techniques.

64. Section 22.911 (47 CFR 22.911) sets forth the formula for calculating SAB and CGSA contours. The formula, which uses height above average terrain (H) and power (P) values of the proposed new or modified Cellular base station along eight cardinal radials, is designed to establish a uniform license boundary determination method. Under the new rules the Commission adopted in the R&O in this proceeding, Cellular licensees are still permitted to expand their CGSAs and have added flexibility to extend their SABs beyond their CGSA boundaries. The Commission indicated that, for purposes of measuring the service area within an SAB extension or CGSA expansion, the § 22.911 formula is a proven method. Now, in the context of considering the adoption of a PSD model for the Cellular band, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure a technology neutral application of the SAB formula, given that P could vary widely depending on the technology chosen by the licensee.

65. Changing the value could have a significant impact on the CGSA-expansion process because, if the Commission adopts a PSD model as proposed above, P could be increased from a value of 500 W to several thousand W depending on the occupied bandwidth and the specific PSD value. The GSM Licensees argue that the rules should be modified to express what they reference as the 32 dBµV/m field strength limit and the ERP term of the related SAB distance formulas in § 22.911 “in terms of electric field spectral density and ERP spectral density (PSD) respectively for broadband carriers.” If § 22.913 is revised to include a PSD model without some form of normalization, the Commission is concerned that this could unfairly penalize licensees using narrowband technologies and thus would not serve the public interest. Accordingly, while the Commission concluded in the R&O that the § 22.911 formula should continue to be used for the purpose of calculating SAB contours and CGSAs, the Commission tentatively concludes that a normalization method needs to be developed to accommodate higher ERP values created by wideband emissions.

66. The Commission proposes, in the event that it ultimately adopts a PSD model for the Cellular band in this proceeding, to establish some method to allow P in the formula to vary so as to equalize the effects of PSD when applying for Unserved Area to expand a CGSA, or when extending an SAB into Unserved Area and providing service on a secondary basis only, in compliance with the new rules adopted in the R&O in this proceeding. One option could be to require licensees using a PSD model for their Cellular operations to use only the power (P value) contained in 1 MHz or 2 MHz of their occupied bandwidth for the purpose of determining the contour of the new or modified cell site. If the Commission adopts higher PSD limits, the power in 1 MHz of the emission bandwidth could be the appropriate value for P, but if the Commission adopts lower PSD limits, then 2 MHz may be more appropriate. The Commission could allow licensees using the legacy ERP limits to apply in the formula an aggregate ERP value for P that the station would use over a 1 MHz or 2 MHz reference bandwidth. Alternatively, should a separate formula be added to § 22.911 for use by those licensees that opt to use the PSD model in measuring their maximum ERP? If so, how should this formula be different from the current one?

67. The Commission seeks comment on the issues raised in the preceding paragraphs and invites suggestions as to any potential methods of addressing the contour calculation under § 22.911 so that applicants seeking to establish new Cellular systems or expand existing systems into Unserved Area are treated on par with one another regardless of the technology they choose. All suggestions and comments should include a thorough technical analysis and a demonstration of how the various technologies would be impacted. Given the specific provisions in § 22.911(a)(1) and (2), the Commission also seeks comment on whether any revisions to those provisions are warranted in the context of the proposal to permit use of a PSD model for Cellular licensees.

68. Under § 22.907 of the Commission's rules, Cellular licensees are required to coordinate channel usage at each transmitter location within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations that are authorized to other licensees or proposed (except those with mutually exclusive applications). In its companion R&O in this proceeding, the Commission did not change § 22.907, but the Commission now seeks comment in this FNPRM on whether, in the event the Commission adopts a revised § 22.913 to permit the use of a PSD model, the current coordination requirements under § 22.907 are sufficient, or whether they need to be enhanced. Is the coordination distance of 75 miles still adequate? Is there a need for channel coordination if licensees convert to wideband channels of 10 MHz? To the extent commenters argue that the current rule needs to be enhanced or otherwise revised, they should propose specific wording for the new/revised provisions of § 22.907 and explain in detail why the public interest would be served by such changes.

69. Cellular licensees are currently subject to three separate part 22 rules governing coordination between the United States government and the governments of Canada and Mexico. The generic rule applicable to all Public Mobile Services licensees, § 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.-Canadian or U.S.-Mexican border, as applicable.

70. The Commission proposes to streamline the rules by eliminating §§ 22.955 and 22.957, preserving § 22.169 with a minor revision to add a reference to “operation of systems.” This would advance our regulatory reform agenda by deleting unnecessary or redundant provisions. The Commission tentatively concludes that having the proposed single, slightly revised rule for all part 22 licensees is sufficient and consistent with the international coordination requirements set forth in other rule parts, such as in part 27 governing various flexible wireless services, for example, and seeks comment on this proposal.

71. The Commission proposes to correct a clerical error in the third column heading of the table in § 22.355 of our rules. The error was introduced inadvertently in the Federal Register when § 22.355 was revised in 1996. The proposed correction is included in Appendix B (Proposed Rules) of this FNPRM.

72. This FNPRM seeks comment on potential new and revised information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

73. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. The analysis is found in Appendix D. The Commission requests written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the FNPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

74. Permit-But-Disclose. The Commission will continue to treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 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). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

75. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments concerning the FNPRM on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this FNPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 12-40. Comments may be filed using ECFS.

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

76. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

77. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS. 1 These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

78. Additional Information. For further information, contact Nina Shafran of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2781, or by email: Nina.Shafran@fcc.gov.

79. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332, that this report and order and this further notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 are adopted.

80. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the further notice of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register .

81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send a copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.

82. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 0, 1, and 22 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket no. 12-268 and ET Docket No. 13-26 and 14-14; FCC 14-157, adopted October 16, 2014, and released October 17, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM), the Commission seeks comment on proposed rules to govern the interference relationship between broadcast television and wireless service in the 600 MHz Band following the incentive auction. As discussed in the companion Second Report & Order, the Commission anticipates that after the auction some broadcast television stations may operate on channels in the 600 MHz Band as a result of market variation. The Commission proposes to allow no harmful interference from wireless operations to reception of television service. There are two scenarios that present the potential for harmful interference to television stations, depending on whether a station is assigned to the 600 MHz Band downlink or uplink spectrum. First, if a station is located in the downlink spectrum, we will need to protect against harmful interference from wireless base stations to TV receivers (Case 3). Second, if a station is located in the uplink spectrum, the Commission will need to consider interference from wireless user equipment to TV receivers (Case 4). As an initial matter, this FNPRM addresses the level of inter-service interference to television stations in the 600 MHz Band that should be permitted. The Commission also proposes a methodology for new 600 MHz Band licensees to predict whether wireless operations will interfere with television stations in the 600 MHz Band in order to identify the “permitted boundaries” of wireless license areas following the auction. Specifically, for Case 3 scenarios, the Commission seeks comment on requiring wireless licensees to use proposed OET Bulletin No. 74 (OET-74). For Case 4 scenarios, the Commission proposes to adopt the same fixed separation distances adopted in the companion Second Report & Order for use in the incentive auction. In the event that wireless operations actually cause harmful interference to television reception in the 600 MHz Band where interference was not predicted to occur, we also propose to require wireless providers to take action to eliminate the interference.

2. The Commission also seeks comment in this FNPRM on procedures to prevent inter-service interference following the incentive auction. It proposes to require wireless providers to analyze potential interference to any co-channel or adjacent channel television station in the 600 MHz Band within a set distance using the methodology in OET-74 before deploying base stations, regardless of whether the wireless license area was identified as “impaired” in the auction. The Commission also proposes to allow broadcast television stations in the 600 MHz Band to modify their facilities only to the degree that doing so does not extend their contours in the direction of a co-channel or adjacent-channel 600 MHz Band wireless license area within a set distance.

3. This FNPRM also seeks comment on how the ISIX Methodology and inputs adopted in the companion Second Report & Order for predicting interference to wireless operations from television stations (Cases 1 and 2) should be modified to predict harmful interference that LPTV and TV translator stations may cause to 600 MHz Band wireless service as it is deployed following the auction. Further, the Commission proposes to allow new 600 MHz Band wireless licensees that intend to deploy facilities during the 39-month Post Auction Transition Period to use the ISIX Methodology and inputs, as detailed in the proposed OET-74, to determine whether there is any potential for harmful interference to a television station that has not yet cleared its pre-auction channel in the 600 MHz Band.

4. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how the ISIX Methodology and inputs adopted in the companion Second Report & Order can be adapted to predict inter-service interference between wireless services and analog television stations in Canada and Mexico, for purposes of identifying license impairments during the auction.

5. The Commission proposes to establish a zero percent threshold for harmful interference. Under this approach, 600 MHz Band wireless licensees would not be permitted to cause harmful interference within the service area of a full power station or the protected contour of a Class A station, to the degree it affects population within that service area or protected contour.

6. The Commission proposes this threshold for a number of reasons. First, a different, more cautious approach may be warranted than in the context of preventing harmful interference between television stations because this will be the first time such proposed methodology is used. Second, the Commission does not believe that a zero percent interference threshold would undermine the goals for the incentive auction. Third, the Commission is concerned that there is a potential for significant aggregate new interference from wireless operations to television stations if it set a de minimis threshold. The is no safety valve measures available to address aggregate wireless interference like they are in addressing aggregate television-to-television interference, and the risk of significant levels of new aggregate wireless interference is higher. Six megahertz channels in the television bands are aligned, and only a limited number of television stations can operate on the same or adjacent channels in nearby areas. In contrast, varying degrees of spectral overlap between six-megahertz television channels and five-megahertz wireless spectrum blocks in the 600 MHz Band, along with the different technical facilities employed by television and wireless services, create the potential for multiple co- and adjacent-channel relationships between television stations and wireless operations in the 600 MHz Band in the same or nearby geographic areas. Fourth, the Commission does not think that an aggregate threshold for interference to television stations from wireless operations would be either feasible or practical. For these reasons, the Commission proposes a zero percent threshold for interference from wireless operations to television stations following the incentive auction.

7. In the event that interference is predicted between television stations assigned in the 600 MHz Band, the Commission proposes to treat that interference as “masking interference” in evaluating wireless interference to a television station. That is, in a grid cell where masking interference to one television station from another is predicted to occur, the Commission proposes to ignore the inter-service interference from the wireless operations. This approach would be consistent with the treatment of interference between television stations under the rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

8. If television stations are assigned to the 600 MHz Band downlink spectrum, the Commission proposes to (1) prohibit a wireless licensee from operating base stations within the contour of a co-channel or adjacent-channel DTV station and (2) require the wireless licensee to use the proposed OET-74 to predict interference to such station's service prior to deploying wireless base stations within a specified culling distance of the station's contour. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The culling distances proposed are based on the spectral overlap between wireless operations and broadcast television operations, and the power and antenna height of wireless base stations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the specific distances proposed in OET-74. Because there is the potential for impairments in any license that is co-channel or adjacent channel with a broadcast television station, the Commission proposes to apply these requirements to all wireless operations within the culling distance that are co-channel or adjacent channel to a broadcast television station, regardless of whether the wireless licensee's spectrum block was identified as “impaired” in the auction.

9. The proposed methodology and input values for predicting interference from a wireless base station into DTV service are set forth in detail in the proposed OET-74. The OET-74 methodology is similar to the ISIX Methodology for Case 3 adopted in the companion Second Report & Order, but instead of a placement of hypothetical wireless base stations and the associated technical parameters, wireless providers would be required to use the actual technical parameters of their base stations. The Commission proposes to require wireless providers planning co-channel or adjacent-channel operations with any television stations in the 600 MHz Band downlink spectrum to apply the OET-74 methodology using the actual location, HAAT, ERP, and antenna pattern and orientation of their base stations prior to deployment of such facilities within the specified culling distance of a television station's contour. To provide wireless providers with additional flexibility, the Commission also proposes to allow them to elect to use omnidirectional patterns in their analyses rather than actual antenna patterns, either in azimuth or elevation. The Commission requests comment on this proposal.

10. The Commission proposes to incorporate the root sum square (RSS) method into OET-74 to predict the potential for aggregate interference to a television station from multiple wireless base stations. As noted, broadcasters raise concerns with regard to the potential for interfering LTE signals to combine at the point of DTV signal reception, resulting in additional interference. In the Second Report & Order, the Commission declined to apply the RSS method during the auction because the predictions of inter-service interference will be based on a hypothetical network deployment. In contrast, because proposed OET-74 would be based on real-world network deployments, the Commission believes that its accuracy would be improved by application of RSS method. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to aggregate the interfering field strength at the DTV receiver from the actual wireless base stations to be deployed post-auction using the RSS method.

11. The Commission proposes to specify in OET-74 the same D/U and OFR ratios adopted in the Second Report & Order for predicting interference from wireless base stations to DTV reception during the auction. For the reasons stated in the Second Report & Order, the Commission believes the same values adopted there are appropriate to use as the thresholds for predicting interference in the post-auction environment. The Commission requests comment on this proposal.

12. The Commission proposes to require that a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee perform an interference analysis using the methodology in OET-74 prior to deploying a base station for co-channel or adjacent-channel operations with the televisions stations within the set culling distance. The Commission anticipates that wireless providers will use their own network planning software to process the OET- 74 studies, but the Commission's TVStudy software would be made available for this purpose as well. Before deploying a new base station or making changes to existing base stations located within the specified OET-74 culling distances for co-channel or adjacent-channel operations with a television station, a wireless licensee would have to update its interference analysis to ensure that the RSS evaluations are up-to-date and accurate. The wireless licensee would be required to retain the latest copy of its interference analysis for each co-channel or adjacent-channel Partial Economic Area (PEA) license area where any of its base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances and make the analysis available to the Commission or a subject television station upon request in cases where there are complaints of interference either from the subject television station, a station viewer or the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

13. If broadcast television stations are assigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band uplink spectrum, the Commission proposes to restrict wireless user equipment ( i.e. mobile and portable devices) operating on co-channel or adjacent-channel frequencies to areas outside the separation distances from the DTV station contours adopted in the Second Report & Order. First, for co-channel operations, the Commission proposes to not allow wireless user equipment to operate within the television station's contour and within five kilometers of that contour. Second, for adjacent channel operations, the Commission proposes to restrict user equipment operation within the contour of the television station and within one-half kilometer of that contour. The Commission proposes to limit the one-half kilometer restriction to the first-adjacent channel; thus, wireless user equipment could be operated anywhere within the contour of a broadcast television station if there is a frequency separation of six megahertz or more between the wireless spectrum block edge and a TV channel edge. The Commission seeks comment on the proposals for protecting DTV service from harmful interference caused by wireless user equipment. Wireless providers may meet the distance requirements by limiting their coverage area to areas that are at least five kilometers if co-channel with a broadcast television station or one-half kilometer if they are adjacent channel outside the noise-limited or protected contours of the broadcast television station. Interested parties are also invited to submit suggestions for alternative approaches for providing protection to broadcast television service that would rely on methods other than pre-calculated separation distances. Parties submitting such approaches should include technical analyses and information describing how their suggested method would adequately protect broadcast television services.

14. While the Commission proposes to use a predictive model to prevent inter-service interference to television stations based on wireless base station deployments, it also proposes to require a wireless licensee to eliminate any actual harmful interference to television service in the 600 MHz Band, even if no harmful interference is predicted. This proposed requirement will ensure that television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band are not detrimentally affected by being co-channel or adjacent channel to wireless operations.

15. If a television station operating in the 600 MHz Band experiences harmful interference, the Commission proposes that the television station be required to contact the co-channel or adjacent-channel wireless provider thought to be causing the interference to resolve the issue. In the event of such contact, the Commission proposes to require that the wireless licensee provide the television station with the results of its OET-74 analysis demonstrating that no harmful interference was predicted to occur in the specific geographic area at issue. In the event that the parties do not reach resolution, they can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

16. Given the proposed rules set forth in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on appropriate wireless licensee obligations, both with respect to technical requirements and service rules. Specifically, consistent with the guidance set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission proposes that a 600 MHz Band licensee will hold a license for its entire PEA service area, but operations will be limited to the portions of the license where the licensee will not cause harmful interference to broadcast television stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band. Under this proposal, a wireless licensee will be allowed to operate base stations at the power and out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits authorized by the technical rules only within the areas where it can demonstrate using the proposed OET-74 methodology and inputs that it will not cause harmful interference to a television station, even if the actual boundaries of the license area extend further ( i.e., it may not operate in “restricted” areas). As the Commission stated in the Incentive Auction R&O, nothing in the rules prevents a wireless provider from operating in a part of its service area in which it may receive interference from broadcast operations ( i.e., in an “infringed” area). The Commission seeks comment on the obligations of 600 MHz Band wireless licensees in operating in areas of their PEAs with impairments.

17. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz Band wireless licensees will be required to meet the 600 MHz Band interim and final build-out requirements, except that they may show they are unable to operate in areas where they may cause harmful interference to the broadcast television stations that remain in the 600 MHz Band due to market variation. The areas where a wireless licensee may operate without causing harmful interference are the “permitted boundaries” of a license area. If a licensee is not able to serve its entire license area, when it files its construction notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that it has met the applicable performance benchmark within its permitted boundaries, the licensee must demonstrate why certain areas are excluded from its service area due to impairments. The Commission proposes to require that wireless licensees use the ISIX Methodology adopted in the Second Report & Order for prediction of interference in Cases 1, 2 and 4 and the methodology in proposed OET Bulletin 74 for Case 3 to demonstrate they cannot serve their entire PEA service area, among other evidence. Further, as discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, if the impairing television station ceases to operate, the wireless licensee will be permitted to use the entire license area, and will be obligated to serve the area that was previously restricted in demonstrating that it has met its buildout requirements.

18. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on any additional or modified service rules that should be applied to 600 MHz Band licensees to address the potential for inter-service interference.

19. Consistent with the guidance in the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission proposes not to permit broadcast licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band to expand their noise-limited or protected contours if doing so would increase the potential for interference to a wireless licensee's service area. At the same time, the Commission tentatively concludes that broadcast television stations should be allowed to demonstrate non-interference to a wireless licensee's service area by showing that a proposed modification will not expand its contour in the direction of a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee. This approach will ensure that wireless providers that acquire spectrum through the forward auction can rely on the information available at the time of the auction as to the existence and contours of a co-channel or adjacent television station, and rely on their modeling using OET Bulletin 74 for as long as the such television station is operating. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

20. The contours of broadcast television stations that will be reassigned to new channels in the 600 MHz Band as a result of the repacking process will be specified in the Channel Reassignment PN. For such stations to be able to engineer their modified facilities and quickly transition to their new channels, in the Incentive Auction R&O the Commission granted them a window filing priority to propose transmission facilities in their initial construction permit applications with up to a one percent coverage contour increase if necessary to achieve the contour coverage specified in the Channel Reassignment PN or to address loss of coverage area resulting from their new channel assignment. Consistent with that decision, for purposes of the proposal set forth immediately above, the Commission proposes that the contours of such stations be deemed to be those described in their initial construction permit for their new channel. The impact on a wireless licensee of allowing stations reassigned to channels in the 600 MHz Band such flexibility would be negligible because a one percent increase is de minimis the increase may not be in the direction of the wireless licensee, and the initial construction applications must be filed within three months of release of the Channel Reassignment PN. The Commission does not propose, however, that these stations be permitted to file for further expanded facilities on their new channels, unless they can demonstrate that the proposed expanded facility will not increase their contour in the direction of a wireless license area. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

21. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission stated that during the Post-Auction Transition Period new 600 MHz Band wireless licensees intending to commences operations in areas of their licenses where there is a likelihood of receiving harmful interference from an LPTV or TV translator station, based “on the methodology the Commission adopted to prevent inter-service interference,” must provide LPTV and TV translator stations with advance notification that they will be displaced. In the Second Report & Order, the Commission adopted the ISIX Methodology and input values to predict interference from full power and Class A television stations to wireless services during the course of the auction.

22. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate modifications to the ISIX Methodology to predict interference to 600 MHz Band wireless operations from LPTV and TV Translators. First, the Commission seeks comment on use of the field strength values below for predicting such interference. The interference potential of LPTV and TV Translators that have migrated their operations to digital is evaluated differently from that of full power DTV stations under the rules. In particular, the rules specify different values for the adjacent channel emissions and elevation patterns of low power and full power DTV stations. The Commission examined the effect of the different LPTV/TV translator emission masks, however, and found that the field strength thresholds of these masks and the full power television mask is no more than 1dB. Therefore, the Commission proposes to use the same field strength values as full power television for the interference thresholds of co-channel and adjacent channel emissions for LPTV and TV translators to wireless service in the ISIX Methodology. Those thresholds are based on technical assumptions regarding the wireless receivers (both base stations and user equipment) that appear respectively in Tables 5 and 6 in the ISIX PN, as well as Tables 3 and 4 in the Technical Appendix of the Second Report and Order.

23. In addition, the Commission proposes to use the same elevation patterns for LPTV and TV translators as those patterns appear in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS). In the event the CDBS does not include elevation pattern values for a given low power station, it proposes to use the elevation patterns of LPTV and TV translators as they are defined in § 74.793(d) of the Commission's rules.

24. In the event a potentially interfering LPTV or TV translator station is operating an analog signal, the Commission invites comment on additional modifications to the methodology for predicting inter-service interference that may be appropriate. One potential approach is to use TVStudy' s capability to “replicate” an analog signal as an equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it were operating in digital. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and on any other potential approaches. In the event it uses the TVStudy approach, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should treat the interfering field strength of an analog television signal the same as an interfering digital television signal.

25. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, wireless providers may commence operations prior to the end of the 39-month Post-Auction Transition Period, as soon as their licensed frequencies are vacated by any full power or Class A television stations that occupied those frequencies prior to the incentive auction. Because television stations transitioning to new channels or going off the air may be operating on different timetables under the rules established in the Incentive Auction R&O, there is a potential for inter-service interference between wireless providers that commence operations on frequencies that have been vacated by a broadcast television station in their license area or in part of their license area and broadcast television stations in nearby markets that have not transitioned yet.

26. Accordingly, in the event that a wireless provider seeks to commence operations prior to the end of the 39-month Post-Auction Transition Period and there are co-channel or adjacent-channel broadcast television stations in the wireless licensee's downlink spectrum within the culling distances specified in OET-74, the Commission proposes to require the wireless provider to use OET-74 to predict whether wireless operations in its license area or part of its license area will cause harmful interference to the subject television stations. The wireless licensees would be required to retain the latest copy of the OET-74 study for each co-channel or adjacent-channel PEA license area where any of their base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances and make it available to the Commission and to a subject television station upon request if there are complaints of interference either from a subject television station, a member of the public or the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

27. If there are co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast television stations in the wireless licensee's uplink spectrum that have not cleared their pre-auction channels, the Commission proposes to require the wireless providers to ensure that their user equipment does not operate in the contours and within five kilometers of the contour when co-channel or within a half kilometer when adjacent channel. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

28. The Commission has engaged in extensive discussions with Canada and Mexico to determine interference protection along the border areas. At this time, both Canada and Mexico are transitioning their broadcast services into digital in line with their regulatory requirements. Because the timing of these transitions is under the control of the administration of the respective countries, the Commission seeks comment on using the ISIX Methodology and input values to identify impairments to wireless spectrum along the international borders during the auction.

29. As noted, the ISIX Methodology adopted in the companion Second Report & Order item is not designed for analog signals. As Canada and Mexico have not completed their digital transitions, the Commission also seeks comment on implementing an approach similar to that proposed above for predicting interference from analog LPTV to wireless service. Specifically, in predicting interference to and from foreign analog broadcast television stations along the international borders, it proposes to use TVStudy's capability to “replicate” an analog signal as an equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it was operating as digital.

30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 1 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of this FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 2 In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register . 3

31. The FNPRM addresses issues that arise from the Incentive Auction R&O to repurpose a portion of the broadcast spectrum for new wireless services and proposes rules governing the interference in the 600 MHz Band following the incentive auction. 4 In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission adopted a flexible band plan framework that accommodates market variation. 5 Market variation occurs where broadcast stations remain on spectrum that is repurposed for wireless broadband under the 600 MHz Band Plan. 6 The FNPRM proposes rules for the protection of broadcast services from wireless operations in the 600 MHz Band when co-channel or adjacent channel and for the protection of wireless license areas from broadcast television stations seeking to expand their contours. It proposes a methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74 for predicting when a wireless base station will cause interference to a broadcast station. It proposes to require wireless user equipment to operate outside of certain separation distances from the broadcast station contours to avoid interference to television reception. In the event that wireless operations actually cause harmful interference to television reception in the 600 MHz Band where interference was not predicted to occur, the FNPRM proposes to require wireless providers to take action to eliminate the interference. The FNPRM seeks comment on appropriate wireless licensee obligations, both with respect to technical requirements and service rules. The FNPRM also proposes to adopt the ISIX Methodology to predict whether LPTV or TV Translators will cause interference to a wireless system in the 600 MHz Band. The FNPRM also proposes use of the ISIX Methodology and inputs, as detailed in the proposed OET-74, for ensuring that wireless services that are deployed during the 39-month transition period do not cause interference to broadcast television stations that have not yet transitioned to their final channel assignments.

32. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 6403, 6404, and 6407 of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1404, 1452, and 1454.

33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 7 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  8 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 9 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 10

34. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”  11 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 12 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,388. 13 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less. 14 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

35. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. 15 Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

36. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) television stations to be 395. 16 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. 17

37. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 4,046 TV translator stations. 18 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

38. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

39. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The SBA has classified the manufacturing of audio and video equipment under in NAICS Codes classification scheme as an industry in which a manufacturer is small if it has less than 750 employees. Data contained in the 2007 U.S. Census indicate that 492 establishments operated in that industry for all or part of that year. In that year, 488 establishments had fewer than 500 employees; and only 1 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under the applicable size standard, a majority of manufacturers of audio and video equipment may be considered small.

40. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.”  19 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 20 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. 21 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more. 22 Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) Telephony services. 23 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. 24 Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

41. This FNPRM proposes to establish the following reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. All wireless providers that hold licenses to operate co-channel or adjacent channel to a television station would perform an interference analysis using the methodology in OET-74 prior to deploying a base station within the set culling distance. The rule proposes that wireless licensees retain the latest copy of its interference analysis for each co-channel or adjacent channel Partial Economic Area (PEA) license area where any of its base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances and make the analysis available to the Commission or a subject television station upon request in cases where there are complaints of interference from either the subject television station, a station viewer or the Commission. In addition, in the event that a television station and a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee do not reach resolution of an interference complaint, this FNPRM proposes that they can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission. This FNPRM also proposes that when a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee files a construction notification, it use the ISIX Methodology for certain interference cases and the methodology in proposed OET Bulletin 74 in another interference case to demonstrate that it cannot serve its entire PEA service area, among other evidence. This FNPRM also tentatively concludes that broadcast licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band can demonstrate non-interference to a wireless licensee's service area by showing that a proposed modification will not expand its contour in the direction of a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee. This FNPRM also proposes that, in the event that a wireless provider seeks to commence operations prior to the end of the 39-month transition period and there are co-channel or adjacent-channel broadcast television stations in the wireless licensee's downlink spectrum within the culling distances specified in OET-74, the wireless provider will use OET-74 to predict whether its operations will cause harmful interference to the subject television stations. This FNPRM proposes to require the wireless licensee to retain the latest copy of the OET-74 study and make it available to the Commission and to a subject television station upon request if there are complaints of interference either from a subject television station, a member of the public, or the Commission.

42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 25

43. The proposed reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements will apply to all entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities. Wireless providers may use either the Commission's TVStudy software available for free online at http://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/OET-69/ or their own network planning software in which they can incorporate the Longley-Rice Fortran Code included with the TVStudy source code, to perform the OET-74 analysis.

44. None.

45. This FNPRM contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

46. Pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 6403, 6404, and 6407 of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 4031404, 1452, and 1454, and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted .

47. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 12-268, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 27 and 73 as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 14-245, adopted December 8, 2014, and released December 8, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via email www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2014-0470), and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may draft a request for further comment to support consideration of further regulatory action.

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law. The new law included certain requirements concerning State inspection programs for passenger-carrying vehicles ( e.g., motorcoaches). Specifically, Section 32710 requires the Secretary of Transportation to complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a program for annual inspections of CMVs designed or used to transport passengers. FMCSA must also include an assessment of the following: (1) The risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected CMVs designed or used to transport passengers; (2) the effectiveness of existing Federal standards for the inspection of such vehicles in—(a) mitigating the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles; and (b) ensuring the safe and proper operation condition of such vehicles; and (3) the costs and benefits of a mandatory inspection program. Any data with regard to the topic would be appreciated.

To help inform consideration of the MAP-21 requirements, the Agency believes it would be helpful to conduct a series of public listening sessions to provide all interested parties the opportunity to share their views on the subject.

The Agency requests information on the following questions:

• Does your State or the States in which you domicile buses conduct mandatory bus inspections? Are these inspections conducted annually and by State employees or 3rd party inspectors? If conducted by 3rd party inspectors, what oversight is or should be required? What is the cost of these inspections?

• If your State imposes mandatory inspection of buses, how do you assess the effectiveness of such inspections? For example, have you measured the occurrence of bus-involved crashes, injuries and/or fatalities before and after the imposition of a mandatory inspection requirement?

• Which vehicle defects are most prevalent at these inspections? What conclusions do you draw from the results of these inspections?

• Where should these inspections be performed? At a “brick and mortar” facility or at the carrier's place of business? If at the carrier's place of business, what accommodations must be made to ensure appropriate access ( e.g. pits, lifts, etc.) to conduct full inspections of motorcoaches and other large vehicles? What should the fees be for the various types of inspections?

• How much does it cost to establish and run inspection programs on an annual basis? Would self-inspection or 3rd party inspections be an option to a State inspection? How would the costs differ? Do you envision other more preferable options?

• Should States allow fleets to self-inspect? How many fleets use their own mechanics, as opposed to 3rd party inspectors, to conduct bus inspections?

• Has your State or organization collected data related to crashes, injuries and/or fatalities attributable to improperly maintained or inspected buses? If so, what conclusions have you drawn from that data?

The listening sessions are open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes. No preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the pubic docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate transcription of the listening session will be prepared by an official court reporter.