[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17570-17584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07154]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22

[WT Docket Nos. 12-40, 10-112; RM-11510, RM-11660; FCC 17-27]


Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts revised rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular 
Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service. The Commission revises the outdated 
Cellular radiated power rules and related technical provisions, most 
notably allowing licensees the option to comply with power spectral 
density (PSD) power limits, while also safeguarding systems that share 
the 800 MHz band, especially public safety systems, from increased 
unacceptable interference. These updated rules will allow Cellular 
licensees to deploy advanced mobile broadband services such as long 
term evolution (LTE) more efficiently. The Cellular licensing rule 
revisions continue the transition to a geographic-based regime by 
eliminating certain filing requirements, and also eliminate the 
comparative hearing process for Cellular license renewals. Both the 
technical and licensing reforms provide Cellular licensees with more 
flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, and enable Cellular 
licensees to respond more quickly--and at lower cost--to changing 
market conditions and consumer demand. They also promote similar 
treatment across competing commercial wireless spectrum bands.

DATES: Effective May 12, 2017, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 
22.317, 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), (c), and (f), 22.947, and 
22.953(c), which contain information collection requirements that have 
not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those 
amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Shafran (Legal), (202) 418-2781, 
or Moslem Sawez (Technical), (202) 418-8211, regarding the Cellular 
Second R&O and Kathy Harris, (202) 418-0609, regarding the WRS R&O. 
All three contact persons are in the Mobility Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, and may also be contacted at (202) 418-7233 
(TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order in the Cellular Reform proceeding (Cellular Second 
R&O), WT Docket No. 12-40, RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, and the 
Commission's companion Report and Order in the Wireless Radio Services 
(WRS) Reform proceeding (WRS R&O), WT Docket No. 10-112, FCC 17-27, 
adopted March 23, 2017 and released March 24, 2017. The full text of 
the Cellular Second R&O and WRS R&O, including all Appendices, is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A157, 
Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's 
Web site at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-27A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by 
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and 
Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

I. Second Report and Order (Cellular Reform Proceeding, WT Docket No. 
12-40)

A. Background

    1. In a Report and Order released on November 10, 2014 in the 
Cellular Reform proceeding (WT Docket No. 12-40) (2014 Cellular R&O), 
the Commission adopted new and revised rules to change to a geographic-
based licensing regime. Specifically, it revised the rules to establish 
geographic licenses based on cellular geographic service area (CGSA) 
boundaries and provided licensees with significant new flexibility to 
improve their systems through modifications within those boundaries. It 
preserved the ability of licensees to expand their CGSAs into Unserved 
Area if the area is at least 50 contiguous square miles, but 
dramatically reduced application filing burdens by permitting 
incumbents to serve indefinitely, on a secondary basis, Unserved Area 
parcels smaller than 50 contiguous square miles. It eliminated other 
filing requirements and established a field strength limit rule 
tailored to reflect the continued ability to expand Cellular service 
area coverage. These reforms put Cellular licensing more on par with 
the flexible licensing schemes in other similar mobile services, such 
as the Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), the commercial 
service in the 700

[[Page 17571]]

MHz band (700 MHz Service), the 600 MHz Service, and various advanced 
wireless services (AWS).
    2. Also in the Cellular Reform proceeding, the Commission released 
a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 10, 2014 
(Cellular Further Notice) proposing additional reforms of the Cellular 
licensing rules as well as reforms to the Cellular radiated power and 
related technical rules to further enhance flexibility and spectral 
efficiency. The Commission sought comment on its proposed reforms, 
including various options that would accommodate the use of a power 
spectral density (PSD) model, and on numerous related technical issues 
and licensing matters. The Commission sought comment on all aspects of 
its proposals as well as on other ideas, proposals, and comments 
discussed in the Cellular Further Notice, and also invited the 
submission of alternative ideas.
    3. In response to the Cellular Further Notice, interested parties 
submitted comments, reply comments, and ex parte letters. The specific 
reforms adopted by the Commission in the Cellular Second R&O are 
described below.

B. Power Spectral Density (PSD) Limits and Safeguards To Protect Public 
Safety Systems

    4. Introduction. ``PSD'' describes the amount of effective radiated 
power (ERP) \1\ that would be allowed per unit of bandwidth from a base 
station antenna (e.g., 100 watts/MHz), such that wider bandwidth 
emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their 
bandwidth. With adoption of the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission 
adds a definition of PSD to the part 22 definitions in the rules, 
substantially as proposed in the Cellular Further Notice. Under the 
existing Cellular radiated power rules, as set forth in 47 CFR 22.913, 
power limits are expressed in terms of ERP without any reference to 
bandwidth, and these limits are applied per emission. The existing 
limits favor narrowband technologies, such as GSM, and disadvantage 
licensees wishing to deploy wideband technologies such as LTE. To 
facilitate efficient provision of advanced mobile wireless services 
using wideband technologies such as LTE, based on the record, the 
Commission adopts PSD limits as an option for Cellular licensees, with 
an advance notification requirement at specified higher PSD levels, and 
a power flux density (PFD) limit that will apply for a seven-year 
transition period if the Cellular licensee operates at PSD limits that 
exceed a certain threshold. For the purposes of this proceeding, 
``PFD'' is the amount of radio frequency energy that would be present 
over a given unit of area (e.g., 100 microwatts per square meter). 
Therefore, PFD can be used to describe the strength of signals at 
ground level in a given location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A generic definition of the term ``effective radiated 
power'' is in existing part 2 of the rules: ``[t]he product of the 
power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-wave 
dipole in a given direction.'' 47 CFR 2.1. Pursuant to 47 CFR 
2.1(a), terms and definitions appearing in part 2 serve as 
definitive terms and definitions that prevail throughout the 
Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In reaching its decisions revising the Cellular power rules, the 
Commission recognizes that PSD and PFD limits are not a complete answer 
to eliminating unacceptable Cellular interference to public safety 
systems in the 800 MHz band, at least for the immediate term. The 
restructuring (rebanding) of the 800 MHz band commenced soon after the 
Commission adopted its Order in the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding in WT 
Docket No. 02-55 (2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order) to address the root 
cause of interference to public safety communications by moving public 
safety entities spectrally further from the Cellular and commercial 
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) frequencies. The rebanding has 
not yet been completed in portions of states bordering Mexico where 
complex international coordination is required, and in these areas, 
some public safety licensees continue to operate on frequencies 
adjacent to the lower edge of the Cellular band at 869 MHz. Even after 
rebanding is fully complete, some public safety licensees may still be 
susceptible to Cellular base station (and ESMR band) interference 
because the filtering in their legacy radios does not reflect the post-
rebanding channel plan. Therefore, in revising the Cellular power rules 
in the Cellular Second R&O, the Commission has taken steps to protect 
public safety systems from a potential increase in unacceptable 
interference from Cellular PSD operations. These steps include: (1) 
Retaining (without change) the existing provisions in 47 CFR 22.970 
through 22.973 which, by placing strict responsibility for remedying 
unacceptable interference on the licensee(s) causing that interference 
to public safety communications, serve as a ``backstop'' to help ensure 
that first responders' critical communications are not impeded; and (2) 
additional safeguards that will apply to Cellular PSD systems under 
certain circumstances. The Commission emphasizes that the additional 
safeguards, described further below, are in addition to, and not a 
replacement for, the interference resolution procedures set forth in 47 
CFR 22.970 through 22.973. The Commission also directs the Wireless 
Telecommuni ca tions Bureau (Bureau), in conjunction with the 
Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and 
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) (collectively, Bureaus), to 
convene a public forum to facilitate stakeholder-led co-existence 
efforts. The components of this multi-pronged approach, including the 
specific PSD limits adopted for the Cellular Service, are discussed 
below.
    6. PSD Limits. To meet the ever-increasing demand for ubiquitous, 
mobile data services, Cellular licensees need to utilize their spectrum 
as efficiently as possible. LTE is more spectrally efficient than other 
commercial wireless broadband technologies being used by Cellular 
carriers today; it can bring faster speeds, reduced latency, and better 
mobile service for the public. Carriers have already deployed LTE on 
their 700 MHz, AWS, and PCS spectrum, and the Commission's rules 
governing those services provide for use of a PSD model. If carriers 
were to deploy LTE on Cellular frequencies using the existing non-PSD 
limits, the result would be reduced coverage. To compensate for this 
reduction of coverage, additional sites would be needed. The resulting 
higher concentration of sites could potentially worsen the existing 
interference environment, especially near Cellular base stations where 
the risk to public safety communications is greatest. Additionally, 
while utilizing techniques such as multiple-input-multiple-output 
(MIMO) can achieve spectral efficiency, Cellular broadband licensees 
using 2X2 MIMO transmitters under the existing ERP limits will double 
their power, and here too, the result is potentially increased 
interference to public safety operations.
    7. Providing technological flexibility and, to the extent 
practicable, regulatory parity for Cellular licensees via a PSD model 
to facilitate efficient use of more advanced wideband technologies 
without increasing the potential for unacceptable interference to 800 
MHz public safety operations has been the primary two-pronged objective 
in this proceeding concerning power reform. The Commission finds that 
revising its rules to permit a PSD model option serves the public 
interest by allowing for efficient use of wideband

[[Page 17572]]

technologies in the Cellular Service.\2\ Consistent with the radiated 
power rules adopted for other commercial wireless services, such as PCS 
and AWS, which include doubled PSD limits to facilitate economical 
coverage in rural areas, the Commission also finds that it serves the 
public interest to apply to PSD operations the doubling of power in 
rural counties (as permitted under the existing rule for non-PSD 
operations)--defined as counties with population densities of 100 
persons or fewer per square mile, based on the most recently available 
population statistics from the Bureau of the Census. As in the case of 
the existing Cellular rule for non-PSD limits, this rural area power 
increase is limited to base stations more than 72 km (45 miles) from 
the Mexican and Canadian borders, consistent with current agreements 
with those countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To accommodate filings by licensees and applicants, several 
of the rules that the Commission adopts in this Cellular Second R&O 
will require changes to FCC Form 601 and/or the Commission's 
Universal Licensing System (ULS). The Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau will issue public notices, as appropriate, announcing 
completion of these changes and, where required, OMB approval 
thereof, along with the effective date(s) of the new rules pursuant 
to the Ordering Clauses, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that the 
appropriate PSD limits for the Cellular Service are as follows: (1) 400 
W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, and 800 W/MHz in rural areas, without a 
PFD requirement; and (2) higher limits--up to 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-
rural areas, and up to 2000 W/MHz ERP in rural areas (Higher PSD 
Limits) with, in both non-rural and rural areas, a PFD limit for seven 
years and an advance notification requirement. The advance notification 
requirement and the seven-year PFD limit are described further below.
    9. PSD limits of 400 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas and 800 W/MHz ERP 
in rural areas--without any PFD restriction--represent an equivalent 
amount of power across the Cellular band when compared to existing 
Cellular CDMA deployments. This achieves the two-pronged goal of 
providing enhanced technological flexibility for Cellular carriers 
while protecting public safety communications from increased 
interference. Consistent with the Commission's decisions for the 700 
MHz Service, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest to 
permit Cellular Service operations at the Higher PSD Limits--up to 1000 
W/MHz ERP (non-rural)/up to 2000 W/MHz ERP (rural)--with a PFD limit. 
This will afford Cellular carriers additional system design flexibility 
where, for example, increased power is needed for sites at higher 
elevation to achieve sufficient coverage in sparsely populated 
areas.\3\ As explained below, this higher-PSD-plus-PFD approach will 
enable better broadband service in such areas without increasing 
interference to public safety communications, as the PFD on the ground 
will be maintained at a level equivalent to that of a low site 
operating at lower power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission also adopts a revised definition of 
``Cellular system.'' See 47 CFR 22.99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission further concludes that the PSD limits should be 
applied per sector, rather than per transmitter. If the PSD limit were 
applied per transmitter, then using MIMO techniques of 2x2 or 4x4 could 
potentially double or quadruple the total energy radiating from a cell 
site and would likely worsen the interference environment, which 
undermines one of the primary goals in this proceeding and is contrary 
to the public interest. The Commission declines to adopt a bandwidth 
dividing line for PSD operations, finding it unnecessary and 
potentially a disadvantage to certain carriers.
    11. Advance Notification Requirement at the Higher PSD Limits. As 
established in the record, public safety receivers remain vulnerable to 
interference from Cellular licensees in the 800 MHz band, and the 
Higher PSD Limits could increase the potential for interference. 
Therefore, one of the important safeguards the Commission adds to 47 
CFR 22.913, as adopted in the Cellular Second R&O, is an advance 
notification requirement. Every Cellular licensee preparing to activate 
a cell site at the Higher PSD Limits will be required to provide a 
minimum of 30 days (but not more than 90 days) written advance notice 
to any public safety licensee then authorized in the frequency range 
806-816 MHz/851-861 MHz with a base station located within a radius of 
113 km of the Cellular base station to be deployed. The written notice 
shall include the location, ERP PSD level, height of the transmitting 
antenna's center of radiation above ground level, and the timeframe for 
activation of the cell site, as well as the Cellular licensee's contact 
information, with additional parameters to be provided upon request by 
a public safety licensee within the 113 km radius. This notification 
will be for informational purposes only; the notified public safety 
licensee(s) will not have the right to oppose the planned Cellular 
operations, but could analyze the cell site's potential for 
interference and suggest changes before the cell is activated. The 
Cellular licensee will have discretion to make changes, but will remain 
obligated to address complaints of interference in compliance with the 
applicable resolution procedures in 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973.
    12. The advance notification will be required only one time. Thus, 
for example, if the Cellular licensee prepares to operate a cell site 
at a PSD level of 425 W/MHz, it will be required to provide the 
requisite written notice at least 30 days (but not more than 90 days) 
in advance of that cell site's deployment, including the data specified 
above. Thereafter, if the same Cellular licensee increases the ERP PSD 
level at that same cell site (e.g., from 425 W/MHz to 550 W/MHz), it 
will not be required to provide additional notice under 47 CFR 22.913. 
To require more than a one-time notification would impose an 
unnecessary burden on Cellular licensees; once notified that a 
particular cell site will operate above 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in 
rural areas), a local public safety licensee will already be in a 
position to identify that particular cell site as a possible source of 
any new interference that is encountered. This requisite one-time 
notification will be yet another valuable tool to help public safety 
licensees assess a cell site's potential for interference and will 
enhance the interaction between Cellular and public safety 
communications operators that is so vital to co-existence in the 800 
MHz band. This component of the Commission's approach thus advances its 
goals to provide system design flexibility to Cellular carriers, 
achieve parity among competing or complementary services, and safeguard 
spectral compatibility with licensees in adjacent markets and adjacent 
bands. Accordingly, the revised rule 22.913 adopted in the Cellular 
Second R&O includes an advance notice requirement.
    13. The Commission emphasizes that this mandatory notice 
requirement is in addition to, and not a replacement for, any notice 
that a Cellular licensee may choose to provide voluntarily, nor is it a 
replacement for any other information exchanges that Cellular and 
public safety licensees undertake in the interest of interference 
avoidance.
    14. The Commission places great weight on stakeholder-led 
measures--involving Cellular licensees, public safety licensees, and 
the manufacturers of public safety equipment--to achieve improved co-
existence between commercial broadband and public safety communications 
in neighboring bands. The Commission therefore applauds the discussions 
that have

[[Page 17573]]

already taken place among AT&T, Verizon, and the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO), and it 
applauds the resulting voluntary commitments made by AT&T and Verizon, 
as documented on the record and summarized in paragraphs 25 and 26 of 
the full text of the Cellular Second R&O--particularly their 
commitments that will entail testing, extensive collaboration with 
local public safety entities, and phased PSD roll-out in select 
markets. The Commission expects AT&T and Verizon to fulfill these 
commitments. The measures AT&T and Verizon have outlined, coupled with 
AT&T's experience to date in deploying PSD pursuant to four interim PSD 
waivers granted by the Bureau, will be extremely important to near-term 
co-existence of more advanced Cellular broadband services, such as LTE, 
and public safety communications. The Commission also acknowledges the 
additional voluntary commitment of AT&T and Verizon to give 30-day 
advance notice to public safety licensees when transitioning to PSD in 
additional markets after their planned testing and phased roll-out, as 
also summarized in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the full text of the 
Cellular Second R&O. This could include advance notice even for PSD 
operations at 400 W/MHz or less (or, in rural areas, at 800 W/MHz or 
less). The Commission encourages any and all cooperation aimed at 
avoiding interference to public safety communications.
    15. Non-PSD ERP Limits. The Commission concludes that it serves the 
public interest to retain non-PSD ERP limits for Cellular licensees 
that either cannot or choose not to deploy systems using a PSD model. 
It further finds that the existing non-PSD ERP limits of 500 watts (W) 
ERP (non-rural) and 1000 W ERP (rural) continue to be sufficient and 
appropriate for the Cellular Service, and makes explicit in the rule 
that these non-PSD ERP limits apply per emission. The doubled power 
limits for Cellular licensees' rural operations that do not deploy 
technologies using PSD will continue to apply only to base stations 
that are more than 72 km (45 miles) from the Mexican and Canadian 
borders, consistent with current agreements with those countries. The 
decision to retain the existing non-PSD limits as an option will ensure 
that carriers using narrowband technologies such as GSM are not 
disadvantaged, as a requirement to use PSD could result in a power 
reduction in certain instances, which in turn would result in reduced 
coverage--a result that would be detrimental to consumers and licensees 
alike.
    16. Cellular licensees will continue to be subject to the field 
strength limit rule adopted in the 2014 Cellular R&O, and thus, 
regardless of the location, power level, or height of the Cellular base 
stations, the signal level at the neighboring licensee's CGSA boundary 
may not exceed 40 dB[micro]V/m, with certain exceptions outlined in the 
rule (47 CFR 22.983). Cellular licensees not deploying PSD operations 
will also continue to be subject to the coordination requirements set 
forth in 47 CFR 22.907 (discussed further below).
    17. Seven-year PFD Limit at Higher PSD Limits; Sunset Date. The 
Commission's PSD decisions in this Cellular Second R&O further align 
the rules for the Cellular Service band with other bands used to 
provide competing commercial wireless services, but the Commission also 
considers the Cellular band's unique circumstances that warrant special 
requirements to prevent interference. The record shows that public 
safety equipment remains vulnerable to interference from Cellular 
Service operations even in areas where rebanding has been completed. 
Therefore, as an additional safeguard, the Commission adopts a PFD 
limit for Cellular base transmitters and repeaters operating at the 
Higher PSD Limits, to remain in effect for seven years from the 
effective date of revised rule 22.913. Specifically, the Commission 
adopts a modeled PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz at 1.6 meters 
above ground level, which represents the average height above ground of 
a public safety receiver being used by a person, and the Commission 
requires that the limit be observed over at least 98% of the area 
within 1 km of each base station antenna. For purposes of the Cellular 
Second R&O, the Commission uses ``on the ground'' and ``at ground 
level'' interchangeably to mean this 1.6-meter height above ground of a 
public safety receiver being used by a person. To determine compliance, 
this limit is to be modeled using good engineering practices accounting 
for terrain and local conditions--at the time of initial deployment at 
the Higher PSD Limits and for any site modifications thereafter that 
may increase the PFD levels around the site.
    18. Factors other than ERP that contribute to the strength of PFD 
are antenna height, antenna down tilt, and ground elevation. Because of 
these factors, most sites have small ``hot spots'' where PFD will reach 
a high level in an extremely small area, making adoption of an absolute 
PFD limit impractical. Technical data provided by Cellular carriers 
depicting real-world deployment scenarios--using the existing radiated 
power limits--indicate that current Cellular operations produce a PFD 
of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz, and that this limit is not exceeded in at 
least 98% of the area within 1 km of the base station. The Commission 
therefore concludes that a modeled PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\/
MHz--not to be exceeded over 98% of the area within 1 km of the base 
station at 1.6 meters above ground--is appropriate for the Cellular 
Service.
    19. This PFD limit will require Cellular licensees to consider very 
carefully the impact near the ground for each deployment at the Higher 
PSD Limits to ensure that the potential for interference around a 
Cellular base station is not increased, while affording them 
flexibility to deploy more advanced broadband services where the PSD 
limits of 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural areas) would not permit 
sufficient coverage and could result in a loss of service to consumers. 
Moreover, this PFD limit is consistent with the limit applicable to 
competing wireless systems in the 700 MHz Service.
    20. The Commission declines to adopt a commenter's proposal to 
apply any PFD limit to (1) non-PSD Cellular systems that operate above 
500 W ERP, and (2) non-PSD Cellular systems operating at or below 500 W 
ERP after receipt of an interference complaint or when replacing radio 
equipment or antennas. Imposing such a heavy new burden on Cellular 
licensees for their extensively deployed facilities is unwarranted. 
First, given that the Commission is not adopting any increase to the 
existing non-PSD power limits, the potential for interference from 
systems operating at or below those limits will not increase. Second, a 
PFD limit is intended to limit the amount of energy from antenna sites 
that are closer to ground level with large down tilts, and under the 
current ERP limits, sites operating above 500 W ERP are located in 
rural areas where antennas are generally located well above ground 
level with very small down tilts. Third, the existing interference 
resolution provisions in 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973 have provided a 
workable mechanism to address interference problems as they arise. 
Applying a PFD limit to non-PSD Cellular systems (as proposed by one of 
the commenters) could potentially require modification of existing 
Cellular systems, which might adversely affect the wireless coverage 
(including 911 calling) of narrowband licensees who

[[Page 17574]]

elect to use the existing non-PSD power rules. Such a result is 
contrary to the public interest. In the 2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order, 
the Commission declined to adopt across-the-board PFD limits for 
Cellular licensees under the non-PSD power limits of 500 W (non-rural)/
1000 W (rural), recognizing that ``the restrictions would require 
modifications of cells that had little, if any, potential for 
generating unacceptable interference.'' The Commission reaches the same 
conclusion in this Cellular Reform proceeding. For all these reasons, 
the Commission declines to add a PFD component to the existing Cellular 
non-PSD power limits.
    21. The Commission also declines to adopt a commenter's 
recommendation to adopt a PFD limit of 625 [micro]W/m\2\ with the goal 
of transitioning to a PFD limit of 3000 [micro]W/m\2\ after five years; 
it also declines to adopt that same commenter's proposals to: (1) Not 
allow licensees to exceed the PFD limit at any ground level locations 
within 1 km of the base station; and (2) only allow non-compliance at 
1% of locations well above ground level within 1 km of the base 
station. The record indicates that these limits are not realistic or 
achievable by Cellular systems even as currently deployed (non-PSD), 
nor are they workable for Cellular systems that will be deployed at the 
PSD limits adopted in the Cellular Second R&O. Cellular carriers will 
deploy wideband technologies such as LTE that use bandwidths of 5 MHz 
or more. A PFD of 625 [micro]W/m\2\ measured across 5 MHz would be 
equivalent to 125 [micro]W/m\2\/MHz. As stated above, technical data 
filed by the parties in this proceeding show that this very low PFD is 
already exceeded in large portions of the areas around their sites 
today, and does not reflect the existing interference environment. Even 
at the PSD limits of 400 W/MHz (or 800 W/MHz in rural areas), which are 
equivalent to the existing non-PSD ERP limits, it would be difficult if 
not impossible to operate Cellular systems that comply with such low 
PFD limits, especially if they were applied as an absolute limit at any 
ground level location as the commenter advocates. Moreover, meeting 
such PFD limits would require power reductions and increase the need 
for a higher concentration of sites, potentially increasing 
interference and reducing the flexibility and efficiency a PSD model is 
designed to afford. Instead, the Commission adopts a PFD limit that is 
achievable to minimize impact at ground level and avoid potentially 
worsening the existing interference environment.
    22. The Commission is not persuaded by a commenter's argument that 
PFD is different from PSD and cannot be specified per unit of 
bandwidth. Any power or energy of a system can be stated per unit of 
bandwidth. The Commission agrees that PSD by its nature is specified 
with a reference bandwidth of 1 MHz, but in the interest of consistency 
and accuracy, adopts the same reference bandwidth for PFD.
    23. The Commission finds that requiring a measured PFD limit would 
be overly burdensome and also unnecessary, given that Cellular 
licensees are still required to resolve unacceptable interference 
should it occur from their operations. A modeled PFD limit nonetheless 
will require the licensee to consider the amount of signal energy it is 
putting on the ground around its base stations to minimize the 
potential for large areas of interference. Cellular licensees must 
perform predictive modeling of the PFD values around each site prior to 
operating their systems at the Higher PSD Limits or, thereafter, prior 
to changing the parameters of these sites such that it could increase 
the PFD levels. The propagation model must confirm that each applicable 
base station meets the PFD limit over 98% of the area within a 1 km 
radius of the base station antennas, at 1.6 meters above ground. If the 
predictive model does not confirm compliance with these requirements, 
the licensee will need to adjust base-station parameters, such as the 
height of the antenna, beam tilt, power, or other parameters, until 
confirmation of the requirements is achieved before deployment, thereby 
reducing the amount of signal energy on the ground around the site. The 
purpose of the modeling requirement is to ensure that the Cellular 
licensee will consider the impact on the ground of ``hot spots'' when 
deploying at the Higher PSD Limits and will use engineering techniques 
to minimize those ``hot spots.'' Licensees must use modeling tools 
(software) that take into account terrain and local conditions. The 
model need not consider areas indoors or in buildings because this 
could vary widely depending on building materials. The Commission 
reiterates that the PFD limit is, for the seven-year transition period, 
an addition to, and not a replacement for, the interference resolution 
process already in place under 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973.
    24. The Commission also rejects a commenter's argument that, no 
matter the PSD limit at which a Cellular licensee is operating, no PFD 
limit should apply in markets where public safety licensees do not 
reasonably plan to operate in the 800 MHz band. There is no evidence 
that such relief is necessary, nor is there evidence that an immediate 
exemption from the Cellular PFD limit at the Higher PSD Limits would 
provide benefits to consumers. The provision for operations at higher 
PSD limits combined with a PFD limit will accommodate cases where a 
carrier needs additional power--for example, systems with antennas well 
above street level or on mountain tops. Moreover, the plans of public 
safety agencies are not known to the Commission and, even if they were 
known today, they would likely change with time. Permitting Cellular 
licensees to deploy at the higher PSD levels without a PFD limit during 
the seven-year transition period could hamper launch of expanded or new 
800 MHz systems by public safety entities and increase their deployment 
costs. For all these reasons, the Commission finds that the commenter's 
proposal does not serve the public interest and, accordingly, declines 
to adopt it.
    25. PFD Sunset. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to 
eliminate the Cellular PFD limit seven years after the effective date 
of the revised rule 22.913 adopted today. This ``PFD Sunset'' decision 
is based on several factors. Providing technologically-neutral rules 
for the Cellular Service in terms of allowing radiated power that 
fosters efficient deployment of more advanced broadband services has 
been delayed for nine years since the Commission adopted PSD models for 
competing CMRS licensees (PCS, AWS, and the 700 MHz Service), to allow 
more time for the rebanding process to evolve. Notably, PCS and AWS 
licensees are not subject to any PFD limit, and 700 MHz Service 
licensees are not subject to a PFD limit at or below their PSD limits 
of 1000 W/MHz (non-rural)/2000 W/MHz (rural). The PFD limit for the 
Cellular Service, while consistent with the Commission's decision 
regarding the 700 MHz Service, is a unique requirement reflecting 
unique characteristics of the 800 MHz band and is designed to protect 
public safety licensees for a transition period that will allow for 
improved spectrum sharing in that band.
    26. The Commission is convinced that the formula for such co-
existence must include good faith efforts on the part of Cellular (and 
other commercial) system operators and public safety communications 
operators, as well as device manufacturers. The seven-year period will 
provide a reasonable amount

[[Page 17575]]

of time for this crucial three-way conversation, which the Commission 
intends to facilitate by holding a public forum (described further 
below), with the goal of implementing important changes in equipment 
and practices of Cellular and public safety communications licensees 
alike. Given the advances in technology for commercial and public 
safety communications, combined with the changing interference 
environment as a result of the restructuring of the band launched in 
2004, the Commission expects evolving capabilities from participants in 
all three groups of stakeholders--Cellular licensees, public safety 
operators, and device manufacturers.
    27. Comments on the record indicate that the specialized equipment 
used by public safety licensees is costly given budget constraints and 
used for longer durations as compared to commercial wireless devices. 
According to one public safety commenter, many public safety 800 MHz 
radios were replaced as a result of the Commission's 2004 800 MHz 
Rebanding Order, which established receiver performance standards 
entitling public safety licensees to full interference abatement 
measures. That same commenter states that public safety equipment 
replacement cycles often run 10-20 years.\4\ A seven-year PFD Sunset 
date will be approximately 20 years after release of the Commission's 
2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order. As noted above, AT&T and Verizon have 
committed to careful deployment of their PSD operations, including PSD 
testing in collaboration with public safety entities, and phased roll-
out. The Commission reiterates its expectation that they will fulfill 
those commitments. To the extent that they elect to operate at the 
Higher PSD Limits in the next several years, they will be subject to 
the PFD limit to minimize ``hot spots.'' With these various obligations 
in mind, Cellular licensees can be expected to design their PSD 
operations with great care, and the Commission expects their deployment 
of more advanced wideband technologies to be substantially completed 
within the next seven years. Moreover, at the Higher PSD Limits, they 
will be subject to the one-time advance notification requirement (with 
no sunset of that rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Consumer Electronics Association estimates the life 
expectancy of the average cell phone to be 4.7 years. Consumer 
Electronics Association, The Life Expectancy of Electronics, https://www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2014/September/The-Life-Expectancy-of-Electronics.aspx. For tax purposes, the U.S. Internal Revenue 
Service allows depreciation of wireless assets such as computer-
based switching equipment, base station controllers, radio network 
controllers, and related assets over a period of either five years 
(general depreciation system specified under I.R.C. 168(a)) or nine 
and a half years (alternative depreciation system specified under 
I.R.C. 168(g)). See Rev. Proc. 2011-22, 2011-18 I.R.B. 737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The PSD limits adopted for the Cellular Service that are 
equivalent to the existing non-PSD power limits, with Higher PSD Limits 
that include an advance notification requirement, plus a transitional 
PFD limit (applicable at the Higher PSD Limits), and continuing 
obligations under 47 CFR 22.970 through 22.973, all in conjunction with 
voluntary commitments of AT&T and Verizon for testing and phased roll-
out of their PSD operations, comprise a comprehensive balanced approach 
to Cellular power reform that affords the Cellular licensees long-
overdue technical flexibility while protecting public safety 
communications. The forthcoming public forum described in the next 
section will provide the opportunity for development of additional 
multi-stakeholder co-existence measures. Based on all of these 
considerations and comments on the record, the Commission concludes 
that a seven-year PFD Sunset date is appropriate and serves the public 
interest.
    29. Public Forum To Facilitate Multi-stakeholder Co-existence. The 
Commission reiterates that it attaches great weight to multi-
stakeholder co-existence efforts--good faith efforts to work through 
the issues by Cellular licenses, public safety entities, and public 
safety equipment manufacturers alike. While the discussions that the 
two major Cellular carriers, AT&T and Verizon, have already held with 
APCO are encouraging, and the voluntary commitments made by AT&T and 
Verizon are commendable, it is clear from the record that additional 
dialogue is crucial to resolving the lingering problems of unacceptable 
interference to public safety receivers--without hindering spectral 
efficiency and technological advances in the Cellular Service. To 
foster the three-way conversation among Cellular carriers, public 
safety entities, and manufacturers of public safety equipment, the 
Commission directs the Bureaus to work together to organize and conduct 
a public forum that brings together representatives of all three 
stakeholder groups. This public forum shall be convened by the Bureaus 
no later than one year following release of the Cellular Second R&O. 
The Bureaus are to invite a broad array of stakeholders, including 
carriers with significant nationwide Cellular operations, as well as 
Cellular rural carrier representatives, public safety representatives, 
including the key public safety associations, and the leading public 
safety equipment manufacturers. The Commission defers to the Bureaus 
concerning development of the full list of invitees, format, and 
specific date of the forum. A forum attended by licensees, engineers, 
manufacturers, Cellular carriers, and any others (as determined by the 
Bureaus) who have first-hand experience with interference cases will 
focus attention on what has been achieved, what remains to be done, and 
how it can be accomplished.
    30. The Commission did not seek comment on public safety receiver 
standards in this proceeding, but several commenters raised this issue. 
Equipment manufacturers are not currently subject to Commission rules 
that mandate particular standards for public safety equipment. The 
Commission is nonetheless disappointed that such equipment has not 
improved to the extent necessary to filter out the undesired 800 MHz 
Cellular (or ESMR) signals over the past 12 years since adoption of the 
2004 800 MHz Rebanding Order identifying the problem of deficient 
receivers. The Commission expects these radio manufacturers to be part 
of the conversation now--and particularly encourages them to 
participate in the public forum to explain why receivers with better 
interference rejection features are not available to public safety 
users at affordable prices, and to present practical options and 
potential steps for improving interference rejection in public safety 
devices. The Commission also expects public safety equipment purchasers 
to specify interference rejection in their requests for proposal for 
new radio systems, putting manufacturers in a position to respond to 
these specifications and requirements. The public forum is one way to 
educate public safety users so they can become savvier purchasers of 
communications equipment. Cellular licensees likewise need to be open 
to developing and executing best practices for site selection and 
coordination with public safety entities when they deploy PSD 
operations. The Commission encourages the stakeholders in the public 
forum to address the adequacy of industry standards to ensure reliable 
receiver performance in strong signal conditions, to assess 
quantitatively the interference risks of degraded receiver performance, 
and to consider the applicability of key recommendations made by the 
Commission's Technological Advisory Council (as

[[Page 17576]]

discussed in the full text of the Cellular Second R&O, para. 68).
    31. Following the public forum, all three stakeholder groups will 
have ample time remaining before the PFD Sunset date to implement 
necessary changes to enable better co-existence thereafter in the band. 
The Commission directs the Bureaus to seek an update on progress from 
all three stakeholder groups no later than four years from the release 
of the Cellular Second R&O, and to issue a Public Notice announcing the 
mechanism for filing such updates. The Commission also encourages all 
stakeholders to share their experiences on spectrum sharing in the band 
throughout the seven-year transition period. It believes that the rules 
and expectations established in the Cellular Second R&O, including the 
PFD Sunset schedule, will serve the public interest by balancing the 
needs of all parties and the important services they provide to their 
customers and to the public.
    32. Retention of Part 22 Interference Resolution Rules and 
Procedures. The existing interference resolution provisions in 47 CFR 
22.970 through 22.973 place strict responsibility for remedying 
unacceptable interference on the licensee(s) causing that interference 
to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band. The Commission 
finds that these provisions continue to work well and also notes that 
the number of interference complaints lodged by public safety entities 
against Cellular and ESMR carriers via the 800 MHz Interference 
Notification Site \5\ has been steadily declining. The Commission 
recognizes that identifying sources of interference is burdensome to 
public safety entities and that certain areas of the country such as 
Oakland, CA are unusually troublesome in terms of unacceptable 
interference to public safety operations. At the same time, the 
Commission recognizes that Cellular licensees themselves incur costs to 
investigate and address complaints, including those that are determined 
to arise from non-Cellular operations. Noting that rules 22.970 through 
22.973 were carefully crafted based on the extensive record compiled in 
the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, and that those provisions establish 
shared responsibility between part 22 and part 90 licensees, the 
Commission declines to adopt the proposal made by some commenters to 
amend rule 22.970 such that a Cellular licensee that is found to have 
caused interference to an 800 MHz public safety radio system would be 
required to reimburse that entity's ``reasonable costs expended to 
locate and mitigate the interference.'' The Commission concludes that 
any future unacceptable interference to public safety or other entities 
that occurs as a result of Cellular operations, including PSD 
operations, will be appropriately addressed pursuant to the existing 
part 22 interference resolution provisions and, accordingly, retains 
the existing rules 22.970 through 22.973 without change. The Commission 
emphasizes that the obligations set forth in those provisions will 
continue to apply notwithstanding the new requirements established 
under revised rule 22.913 including, when applicable, advance 
notification and the PFD limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This is a Web site (www.publicsafety800mhzinterference.com) 
established collectively by Cellular and ESMR carriers in the 800 
MHz band and serves as a vehicle for licensees who operate non-
cellular architecture systems in the 800 MHz band to report 
interference to the commercial carriers in this band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Power-Related Technical Provisions

1. Revision of 47 CFR 22.911 To Accommodate Cellular PSD Systems
    33. Rule 22.911(a) sets forth the formula for calculating the 
service area boundary (SAB) of an individual cell site and the CGSA 
boundary. This formula has been the basis for determining the SAB of 
cell sites and the protected licensed area (CGSA) since the inception 
of the Cellular Service and remains an effective tool for predicting 
reliable signal coverage for narrowband technologies. Under these 
circumstances, for Cellular licensees that do not elect to use the PSD 
model, the Commission concludes that it serves the public interest to 
retain the existing formula in rule 22.911(a) without change, rather 
than requiring such licensees to change their long-standing methodology 
for determining their SABs and CGSA boundaries.
    34. However, for Cellular licensees that elect to use PSD to deploy 
LTE and other more advanced mobile broadband technologies, the 
Commission finds that the formula in rule 22.911(a) is not practical, 
as the result would be much larger SABs and CGSAs that would not 
accurately reflect service coverage. Rule 22.911(b) currently sets 
forth an alternative CGSA determination methodology to depict Cellular 
service coverage that departs from the licensed geographic area (by a 
significant amount--specifically, by ``20% in the service 
area of any cell'') where reliable Cellular service is actually 
provided. The Commission finds that adapting this methodology to 
require a predictive propagation model that takes into account terrain 
and other local conditions, based on the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour, is 
appropriate for the purposes of calculating SABs and determining CGSA 
expansion areas for base stations that operate using PSD. Accordingly, 
the Commission adopts rule 22.911(c) for PSD systems, and requires that 
the SAB be defined in terms of distances from the cell site(s) to the 
32 dB[micro]V/m contour along the eight cardinal radials, consistent 
with SAB calculations under the existing rule. The distances used for 
the cardinal radials must be representative of the coverage within the 
45[ordm] sectors. The Commission concludes that this approach will 
result in accurate coverage calculations when operating a cell site 
using PSD, and thus serves the public interest. If this methodology 
yields an SAB extension comprising at least 50 contiguous square miles, 
regardless of whether the CGSA departs 20 percent in the 
service area of any cell site, the Cellular licensee will be required 
to file an application for major modification of the CGSA using FCC 
Form 601. The applicant will be required to submit its CGSA 
determination pursuant to the new provisions of rule 22.911(c), 
depicting the CGSA using a predictive model. If the predictive model 
results in calculations that depict an SAB extension comprising less 
than 50 contiguous square miles, the licensee may not claim the area as 
part of its CGSA; it may provide service in the extension area on a 
secondary basis only. No application should be filed in that scenario.
2. Height-Power Limit--Exemption for PSD Systems
    35. The existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(b) limits the height of 
a base station antenna: the ERP may not exceed an amount that would 
result in the average distance to the SAB being 79.1 km for licensees 
authorized to serve the Gulf, 40.2 km for all other licensees. The 
existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(c) provides an exemption from the 
height-power limit if the licensee coordinates with, and obtains 
concurrence from, all co-channel licensees within 121 km. The Cellular 
height-power rule was developed to ensure that the average distance to 
the SAB does not exceed certain limits, and thus prevents excessively 
large SABs that could otherwise result from the SAB calculation using 
the formula in rule 22.911(a). Although the distance to the SABs of 
many Cellular base stations would not exceed the limits specified in 
the height-power rule, the existing provision recognizes that the 
limits might well be exceeded in some instances, especially in the case 
of narrowband technologies. Given that the Commission is retaining the 
formula set

[[Page 17577]]

forth in 47 CFR 22.911(a) to be used by Cellular licensees deploying 
narrowband systems (i.e., licensees not electing to use the PSD model) 
or operating in the Gulf service area, it concludes that the height-
power rule continues to serve the public interest as applied to such 
licensees. Likewise, the Commission finds that the exemption in 
existing rule 22.913(c) continues to afford such licensees flexibility 
when they coordinate with, and obtain the concurrence of, all co-
channel licensees within 121 km. The domestic coordination provision in 
rule 22.907 does not obviate the need for the exemption provided in 
existing rule 22.913(c), which, unlike rule 22.907, includes the 
concurrence requirement. Moreover, the Cellular field strength rule (47 
CFR 22.983) does not obviate the need for the existing provisions in 
rules 22.913(b) and (c). The Cellular field strength limit rule is 
uniquely tailored to reflect the fact that Cellular licensees may 
continue to expand their CGSAs, and CGSA boundaries do not typically 
coincide with defined market boundaries. A Cellular licensee is 
required to observe the field strength limit at every point along its 
neighbor's CGSA, and not necessarily at its own CGSA boundary. With 
adoption of the field strength rule, the Commission concluded there was 
no longer a need to regulate SAB extensions into neighboring CGSAs 
(with limited exceptions). Nonetheless, in the absence of the height-
power limit, SABs calculated under rule 22.911(a) could still 
potentially be excessively large. As noted above, the height-power rule 
was developed to prevent such large SABs, and it will continue to serve 
this important purpose for licensees deploying narrowband systems 
(i.e., not electing to use the PSD model) or operating in the Gulf 
service area.
    36. However, the Commission finds that the Cellular height-power 
rule is not appropriate for systems that are operated using PSD. With 
adoption of a predictive model requirement for SAB and CGSA 
calculations under rule 22.911(c), Cellular licensees that operate 
their cell sites pursuant to the PSD limits will not be calculating 
their service area using the existing formula in 47 CFR 22.911(a). 
Accordingly, the Commission retains the height-power limit and 
coordination exemption provisions for licensees deploying narrowband 
systems, but now exempts licensees operating their systems using PSD. 
Also, the Commission changes the title of the existing rule 22.913(c) 
to ``Exemptions from height-power limit,'' and renumbers paragraphs (b) 
and (c) to accommodate the provisions concerning PSD and PFD limits and 
related measurement provisions, described above.
3. Power Measurement: Peak vs. Average/Peak-to-Average Ratio
    37. Because the peak power associated with a noise-like signal is a 
random variable, it can place unachievable requirements on the 
measuring instrumentation (e.g., a resolution/measurement bandwidth 
that exceeds the signal bandwidth). The same non-constant envelope 
technologies used for PCS and AWS--such as CDMA, W-CDMA, and LTE--have 
been or will be used in the Cellular Service as well. Consistent with 
Commission decisions to permit licensees to meet radiated power limits 
on an average basis for PCS and AWS, as well as for other flexible 
wireless services, including the 700 MHz services (both commercial and 
public safety broadband), the Commission concludes that Cellular power 
limits should be measured on the basis of average power. Also 
consistent with the average power measurement provisions adopted for 
PCS and AWS, the Commission finds that adopting a PAR limit of 13 dB 
for the Cellular Service would better enable the use of technologies 
such as LTE, and that it strikes the right balance between enabling 
licensees to use modulation schemes with high PARs and protecting other 
licensees from high PAR transmissions.
    38. Accordingly, the Commission revises rule 22.913 to specify that 
Cellular power shall be measured on an average basis, and establishes a 
PAR limit of 13 dB. Additionally, as in the rule governing PCS 
measurements, the revised rule specifies that measurement of average 
power for Cellular operations must be made during a period of 
continuous transmission based on Commission-approved average power 
techniques. Licensees should consult the FCC Laboratory's Knowledge 
Database (KDB) Web site regularly for the latest recommended procedures 
concerning Commission-approved average power measurement techniques. 
The Commission's approach will ensure that the correct procedures are 
used for various technologies that are deployed or will be deployed in 
the future in the Cellular Service, such as GSM, CDMA, UMTS and LTE, 
and achieves the important goal of harmonizing, where possible, various 
commercial wireless service rules. Coupled with the average power 
measurement, a 13 dB PAR limit furthers the goal of facilitating the 
deployment of advanced technologies such as LTE in the Cellular Service 
band, while limiting the potential for unacceptable interference that 
might result from high PAR transmissions. The Commission disagrees with 
a commenter's argument to adopt power limits using peak power because 
this approach would hinder Cellular broadband deployments. Spikes are 
inevitable, but the PAR limit in conjunction with the PFD limit takes 
this into account and addresses the concern.
4. Field Strength Limit
    39. As noted above, the Cellular Service rule 22.983 establishes a 
field strength limit of 40 dB[micro]V/m, and (with certain exceptions) 
this limit must be observed at every point along the neighboring 
licensee's CGSA, taking into account that some licensees' CGSAs are 
adjacent to Unserved Area. Cellular licensees are permitted under the 
rule to negotiate different field strength limits with one another. The 
Commission considered a commenter's recommendation to change the limit, 
but there is a lack of consensus, and the record is insufficient to 
compel a change. Moreover, the Commission concludes, altering the rule 
at this time solely for the Cellular Service would be at odds with the 
goal of harmonizing rules among flexible commercial wireless services 
and would not serve the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission 
retains 47 CFR 22.983 without change.
5. Out of Band Emission (OOBE) Limit
    40. Existing rule 22.917 currently specifies that, for the Cellular 
Service, the power of any emission outside of the authorized operating 
frequency ranges (P) must be attenuated below the transmitting power by 
a factor of at least 43 + 10 log(P) dB, and describes the procedures 
for measuring compliance with this OOBE limit. The current resolution 
bandwidth for measuring unwanted emissions outside of the Cellular band 
is 100 kHz or greater. The Commission concludes that the existing OOBE 
limit in 47 CFR 22.917(a), which is the same as the limit for other 
commercial wireless services such as PCS and AWS, continues to serve 
the public interest and declines to change it at this time. In response 
to a commenter's concerns that Cellular PSD operations will cause 
increased interference to its adjacent-band operations, the Commission 
notes its expectation that licensees will work together to resolve 
interference problems, and also notes that rule 22.917(c) allows 
licensees to negotiate a different limit from the one specified in

[[Page 17578]]

rule 22.917(a) by private contractual agreement. The Commission 
encourages Cellular and adjacent-band carriers to continue to work 
together not only to address interference as it occurs, but also to be 
proactive in avoiding increased interference from Cellular PSD 
operations under the revised radiated power rules adopted by the 
Cellular Second R&O. The Commission also reminds parties that, under 
rule 22.917(d), the Commission may require a greater attenuation if any 
emission from a Cellular transmitter results in interference to users 
of another radio service.
    41. Regarding the existing provision in rule 22.917(b), the 
Commission notes that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 
recommends different measurement bandwidths for operations above and 
below 1 GHz. To remain consistent with international practices, the 
Commission concludes that the 100 kHz resolution bandwidth should be 
used only for measurements in the spectrum below 1 GHz, and that any 
measurements in the spectrum above 1 GHz should use a resolution 
bandwidth of 1 MHz. Accordingly, the Commission adopts revised 47 CFR 
22.917(b) to retain the existing provision (renumbered as 22.917(b)(1)) 
and specifies that it applies for measurements in the spectrum below 1 
GHz; the Commission adds 22.917(b)(2) to specify that measurements of 
out of band emissions from Cellular licensees into the spectrum above 1 
GHz should use a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. As technologies change, 
the Commission updates its part 2 rules and its measurement procedures 
to keep pace, and therefore, licensees should regularly consult the KDB 
Web site for the latest recommended measurement procedures and 
Commission-approved techniques, and part 2 of the Commission rules.

D. Other Technical and Licensing Issues

1. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
    42. Under 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will be 
automatically terminated if service is ``permanently discontinued.'' 
Existing rule 22.317, which applies to all part 22 Public Mobile 
Services stations including those in the Cellular Service, defines 
permanent discontinuance as the failure to provide service to 
subscribers for 90 continuous days (up to 120 continuous days with an 
extension). If a Cellular site is permanently discontinued under that 
definition, the licensee's CGSA is modified accordingly in ULS, 
reflecting the reduction in service coverage. While the licensee is 
required to file the appropriate form in ULS, the authorization for the 
permanently discontinued site is automatically terminated without 
Commission action whether or not the appropriate form is filed. After 
the Commission released the NPRM, a coalition of Cellular licensees 
(Coalition) advocated a more flexible rule governing permanent 
discontinuance of service.
    43. Having adopted rules in the 2014 Cellular R&O to transition the 
Cellular Service to a geographically-licensed regime, and consistent 
with the approach in various other commercial wireless services, the 
Commission concludes that it serves the public interest to adopt a 
modernized provision--47 CFR 22.947--that defines permanent 
discontinuance as 180 consecutive days during which a Cellular licensee 
does not operate or, in the case of a Cellular commercial mobile radio 
services (CMRS) provider, does not provide service to at least one 
subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to 
the providing carrier. Under this provision, Cellular licensees will be 
required to notify the Commission of the permanent discontinuance 
within 10 days of the expiration of the 180-day period by filing FCC 
Form 601. However, whether or not the licensee files the proper 
notification form, the license for a Cellular system that has 
permanently discontinued service will be terminated automatically, and 
the area will revert back to the Commission for relicensing. Commencing 
on the day following public notice of cancellation of the Cellular 
license, the Unserved Area will be available to applicants seeking to 
establish a new Cellular system or expand an existing CGSA by at least 
50 contiguous square miles. Based on the record, the Commission finds 
that it serves the public interest to apply the 180-day discontinuance 
period to new Cellular systems--other than the Chambers, TX license 
system (Chambers License)--only after the initial construction period 
has ended, including extensions, if any, following grant of the new-
system application. This approach will ensure that licensees of new 
systems are not penalized in the event they complete construction and 
commence operations prior to expiration of their build-out period. The 
rule will apply to the entire geographic licensed area--the CGSA, thus 
enhancing licensees' flexibility. The Commission also adopts revised 47 
CFR 22.317 such that its site-based approach will no longer apply to 
the Cellular Service. Thus, consistent with other geographically 
licensed services, permanent discontinuance of service at an individual 
cell site will no longer result in modification of the CGSA to reflect 
reduced service coverage. Once these rules as adopted today have taken 
effect, the Commission will dismiss as unnecessary a site-based 
cancellation notification, i.e., a filing concerning permanent 
discontinuance of any individual cell site(s). Regarding the Chambers 
License, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest to 
apply the new rule such that the 180-day period for purposes of 
determining permanent discontinuance will commence immediately after 
the interim construction deadline set forth in 47 CFR 22.961.
    44. The flexible approach being adopted regarding permanent service 
discontinuance was initially discussed in the Commission's pending WRS 
Reform proceeding, which also covers the Cellular Service. 
Notwithstanding adoption in the Cellular Second R&O of rule 22.947 and 
revised rule 22.317, Cellular Service licensees will remain subject to 
any future Commission action affecting wireless radio services in the 
WRS Reform proceeding.
2. Elimination of Filings for Certain Minor Modifications
    45. Cellular licensees are required under existing rules to file a 
minor modification application for any change to a non-internal cell 
site that results in a reduction in service area coverage (e.g., an 
antenna adjustment to a Cellular site along the CGSA border), no matter 
how small the change. The CGSA boundary is modified accordingly in ULS 
to reflect the reduction in service coverage. This is a lingering 
vestige of the legacy site-based Cellular licensing scheme, similar to 
the existing permanent service discontinuance rule addressed above. As 
stated in the 2014 Cellular R&O, a hallmark of geographic licensing is 
a defined area within which each licensee can make certain system 
changes without Commission filings. Throughout this proceeding, the 
Commission has pursued the goals of removing unnecessary filing 
requirements and providing Cellular licensees with significant new 
flexibility to make changes within their CGSA boundaries. In light of 
establishment of the CGSA as a geographic license area coupled with 
today's elimination of the filing requirement and resulting CGSA 
reduction when an individual cell site ceases operating entirely, the 
Commission finds that eliminating the site-based provision requiring 
filings for non-permanent-discontinuance changes to operational cell 
site(s) advances its

[[Page 17579]]

reform goals and serves the public interest.
    46. Accordingly, the Commission adopts revised 47 CFR 22.953(c). 
Consistent with other geographically licensed commercial wireless 
services, even following such minor system changes, the CGSA boundary 
will remain fixed, except that Cellular licensees may continue to 
expand their CGSAs under 47 CFR 22.949. This should better enable 
licensees to implement technology upgrades involving reconfiguration 
and possible relocation of cell sites and other network elements. Once 
revised rule 22.953(c) as adopted today has taken effect, the 
Commission will dismiss as an unnecessary filing an application for a 
CGSA reduction. Notwithstanding this rule change, Cellular licensees 
remain subject to any future Commission action affecting wireless radio 
services in the pending WRS Reform proceeding.
3. Domestic Coordination Requirements
    47. Under 47 CFR 22.907, Cellular licensees are required to 
coordinate channel usage at each transmitter location within 121 
kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations that are authorized 
to other licensees or proposed by applicants. As intended by this rule, 
coordination has played a major role in avoiding co-channel and 
adjacent-channel interference between neighboring systems. However, the 
Commission finds that the coordination requirement is not necessary for 
systems that deploy technologies such as CDMA and LTE, which do not 
utilize frequency re-use techniques. Accordingly, the Commission adopts 
a revised introductory paragraph of the rule to exempt those Cellular 
licensees that deploy technologies with a frequency re-use factor of 
one. In that same paragraph, the Commission deletes the reference to 
``tentative selectees''--a vestige of the lottery system that had been 
in place for Cellular licensing many years ago that is now obsolete.
4. International Coordination Requirements
    48. Cellular licensees are currently subject to three separate part 
22 rules governing coordination between the United States government 
and the governments of Canada and Mexico. The generic rule applicable 
to all part 22 Public Mobile Services licensees, 47 CFR 22.169, states 
that channel assignments are ``subject to the applicable provisions and 
requirements of treaties and other international agreements between the 
United States government and the governments of Canada and Mexico.'' 
The other two rules--22.955 and 22.957--are in subpart H (Cellular 
Service-specific), and each sets forth the text of a condition that is 
to be placed on authorizations for all Cellular systems, requiring them 
to coordinate any transmitter installations within 72 kilometers (45 
miles) of the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico border, as applicable. To 
advance its regulatory reform agenda by deleting unnecessary or 
redundant provisions, the Commission now eliminates rules 22.955 and 
22.957 while preserving rule 22.169 with a minor revision--adding a 
reference to ``operation of systems.'' The Commission finds that this 
approach is sufficient and consistent with the international 
coordination requirements set forth in other rule parts and serves the 
public interest.

E. Miscellaneous Other Provisions

1. ERP vs. EIRP; MIMO Antennas; Equipment Standards
    49. ERP vs. EIRP. As noted above, the Cellular radiated power 
limits are expressed in terms of ERP. There is inconsistency in how the 
radiated power limits are expressed in the various bands in which 
commercial wireless services are generally provided. For example, in 
the PCS rules, EIRP (equivalent isotropically radiated power) is used, 
but for AWS and 700 MHz, the power limits are expressed in terms of 
ERP. Given that Cellular licensees are long accustomed to ERP limits 
under the existing rule 22.913, the Commission concludes that it serves 
the public interest to continue to express the non-PSD limits in terms 
of ERP, and also to express the newly adopted PSD limits in terms of 
ERP. This will avoid unnecessary confusion and maintain consistency for 
Cellular licensees.
    50. MIMO Antennas. No commenter addressed the Commission's query as 
to whether the use of MIMO techniques requires a modification to the 
way measurements are performed for equipment authorization. Some 
carriers state their intent to use spectrally efficient MIMO techniques 
in their Cellular LTE deployments, and the Commission has taken that 
into account in adopting the PSD and PFD limits described above.
    51. Equipment Standards. Part 2 of the Commission's rules include 
equipment certification requirements. In the absence of any interest by 
commenters on the issue of whether part 22 equipment standards and 
measurement rules need to be updated or modified to be consistent with 
the equipment certification rules in part 2, the Commission concludes 
that no changes concerning this issue are warranted at this time in 
part 22. However, as technologies change, the Commission updates its 
procedures in part 2 to keep pace, and licensees should consult part 2 
of Commission rules and the FCC Laboratory's KDB Web site so they can 
be aware of the most up-to-date requirements, recommended measurement 
procedures, and Commission-approved techniques.
2. Mobile Transmitters and Auxiliary Test Transmitters
    52. The existing provision in 47 CFR 22.913(a)(2) states that the 
ERP of Cellular mobile and auxiliary test transmitters must not exceed 
7 W. Given that the Commission is retaining the current non-PSD power 
limits for Cellular base stations and repeaters as an option so as not 
to disrupt systems that use narrowband Cellular technology, a 
commenter's argument for a ``corresponding increase'' in the mobile 
station ERP limit is moot. Moreover, there is no technical evidence on 
the record to suggest that the current 7 W limit is limiting the use of 
mobile and auxiliary test transmitters. Accordingly, and in the absence 
of comments on the record concerning all the other issues raised in the 
Cellular Further Notice related to mobile and auxiliary test 
transmitters, the Commission finds that it serves the public interest 
to retain the existing provision, including the existing 7 W limit, but 
creates a new paragraph of the rule (Sec.  22.913(a)(5)) for this 
provision.
3. Frequency Coordinators
    53. Although one commenter expressly supported the Commission's 
proposal to establish frequency coordinators to perform the first-line 
review of Cellular applications for CGSA expansions and new Cellular 
systems, and two parties expressed preliminary non-binding interest in 
serving as frequency coordinators for the Cellular Service, the 
Commission declines to adopt the use of frequency coordinators for the 
Cellular Service at this time. While the total number of CGSA-expansion 
(major modification) applications in 2013 was 565 (908 if amendments 
are included), for calendar year 2015, Commission data show that only 
42 CGSA-expansion applications were filed (60 if amendments are 
included). This represents a decrease of more than 90 percent since 
2013, and the trend is further downward, as only 23 CGSA-expansion 
applications were filed through the third quarter of 2016. This is a 
far greater decrease than the Commission anticipated when it

[[Page 17580]]

proposed frequency coordination for the Cellular Service. To 
accommodate the use of frequency coordinators for Cellular 
applications, the Commission would need to make numerous changes to ULS 
at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, Commission staff resources 
would necessarily be expended for selection and certification of 
frequency coordinators and preparation of requisite Commission 
releases, including a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with 
those selected. Thereafter, the certified coordinators and Commission 
staff would need to collaborate on a file format incorporating the 
frequency coordination process. The Commission concludes that the 
requisite Commission outlay of resources to introduce frequency 
coordination into the Cellular Service would not be justified, but it 
will monitor the application volume and, if the data show a significant 
upward trend, it will revisit establishing frequency coordinators for 
the Cellular Service.
4. Definition of ``Rural'' for Purposes of 47 CFR 22.913
    54. Revising the definition of a rural area under 47 CFR 22.913 (or 
any other part 22 rule) was not raised by any commenter prior to 
release of the Cellular Further Notice, nor did the Commission mention 
it in that release. Although one commenter subsequently argued that the 
definition should be automatically adjusted after each completed U.S. 
Census, the Commission is not persuaded by the record that it should 
revisit the longstanding definition of ``rural'' for the purpose of 
rule 22.913, and it makes no change to the definition in the Cellular 
Second R&O.
5. 47 CFR 22.355 (Frequency Tolerance)
    55. Although the Cellular Further Notice proposed to correct a 
ministerial error that appeared in the third-column heading of the 
table in 47 CFR 22.355, the Commission notes that the current edition 
of the Code of Federal Regulations does not contain this error, and 
therefore no Commission action is required in this proceeding.

II. Report and Order (WRS Reform Proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-112)

A. Background

    56. In the WRS Reform proceeding (WT Docket No. 10-112), on May 25, 
2010 the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WRS NPRM) 
and a companion Order (2010 WRS Order). The WRS NPRM proposed to revise 
and harmonize numerous rules applicable to WRS, which include the 
Cellular Service. Among other issues addressed in the WRS NPRM, the 
Commission generally proposed to establish a uniform license renewal 
process modeled after the 700 MHz Service rules, and specifically 
proposed to adopt a three-part approach to renewal for all WRS, 
including Cellular licensees, that would entail: (1) A uniform 
requirement regarding the content of a renewal showing necessary to 
support renewal; (2) a prohibition on the filing of competing renewal 
applications; and (3) in the event of denial of a renewal application, 
return of the associated spectrum to the Commission for reassignment. 
Specifically with respect to Cellular licensees, the Commission 
proposed to delete all five existing part 22 rules governing Cellular 
comparative renewal proceedings--47 CFR 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, 
and 22.943--and sought comment on its proposal. The Commission's 
companion 2010 WRS Order imposed a freeze on the filing of new 
applications that are mutually exclusive with renewal applications and 
established an interim process for addressing renewal applications.
    57. In response to the WRS NPRM, interested parties submitted 
comments, reply comments, and ex parte letters, addressing, among other 
issues, the proposed deletion of the five rules noted above governing 
Cellular comparative renewal proceedings. The specific reforms adopted 
by the Commission in the WRS R&O are described below.

B. Deletion of 47 CFR 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943

    58. These five Cellular license renewal rules in part 22 establish 
a two-step comparative hearing process for addressing renewal 
applications as well as any timely-filed competing applications. They 
require an administrative law judge (ALJ) to conduct a threshold 
hearing to determine whether a Cellular renewal applicant is entitled 
to a renewal expectancy. If the ALJ determines that the applicant is 
entitled to a renewal expectancy and is otherwise basically qualified, 
the license is renewed and any competing applications are denied. If, 
on the other hand, the ALJ determines that a renewal expectancy is not 
warranted, all mutually exclusive applications in the renewal filing 
group are considered in a full comparative hearing. The rules also 
establish certain specific requirements for the filing of competing 
applications, and procedures governing their withdrawal during the 
hearing.
    59. As part of its efforts to eliminate unnecessary requirements 
for Cellular licensees and promote comparable treatment of spectrum 
bands commonly used to provide comparable wireless services, the 
Commission finds that it serves the public interest to delete--as of 
the effective date of this WRS R&O--the part 22 rules pertaining to 
Cellular renewal comparative hearings, as proposed in the WRS NPRM. 
This action with respect to the Cellular Service is consistent with the 
Commission's determinations in various other commercial wireless 
service proceedings over the last ten years, including those for 
certain AWS (e.g., AWS-3, AWS-4, H-Block) and the 700 MHz Service. 
Also, the elimination of service-specific renewal rules and adoption of 
uniform renewal procedures that would apply to all WRS licensees, 
including the elimination of comparative renewal hearings, is supported 
by the majority of commenters responding to the WRS NPRM. Accordingly, 
the revised Cellular Service rules reflect the Commission's deletion of 
rules 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943. The Commission 
defers, however, any decision on the remaining issues raised in the WRS 
NPRM and the 2010 WRS Order, including what standard or requirements to 
apply in determining whether a renewal application should be granted, 
and whether licensed spectrum that does not meet specified renewal 
requirements shall be returned to the Commission for reassignment. 
Pending further action in the WRS Reform proceeding, the freeze imposed 
on the filing of new competing applications and the procedures 
established in the 2010 WRS Order will remain in effect for all covered 
wireless services, including the Cellular Service.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    60. Some of the rule amendments adopted by the Cellular Second 
R&O--specifically, rules 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), 22.913(c), 
22.913(f), 22.947, and 22.953(c)--contain modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. Those rule amendments will be submitted to 
OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the 
modified information collection requirements. In addition, the 
Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.

[[Page 17581]]

3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how 
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The 
Commission has assessed the effects on small business concerns of the 
rule changes it is adopting by this Cellular Second R&O and WRS R&O and 
finds that businesses with fewer than 25 people will benefit from the 
flexibility afforded by the revised technical rules, including the 
option of deploying systems using PSD, as well as by the licensing 
reforms, including elimination of certain filing requirements and the 
comparative hearing process for license renewals.

B. Congressional Review Act

    61. The Commission will send a copy of this Cellular Second R&O and 
WRS R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 
to the Congressional Review Act.

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    62. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an 
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), set forth in Appendix B of the 
Cellular Second R&O and companion WRS R&O, concerning the possible 
impact of the rule changes.

D. Ex Parte Presentations

    63. Permit-But-Disclose. The Commission will continue to treat the 
Cellular Reform and WRS Reform proceedings as ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) available for that proceeding, 
and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf).
    64. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

IV. Ordering Clauses

    65. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 301, 303, 
307, 308, 309, and 332, that this second report and order and second 
further notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 are 
adopted.
    66. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
and 332, that this report and order in WT Docket No. 10-112 is adopted.
    67. It is further ordered that the second report and order and the 
report and order shall be effective May 12, 2017.
    68. It is further ordered that part 22 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR part 22, is amended as specified in Appendix A of the second 
report and order and report and order, effective May 12, 2017 except as 
otherwise provided herein.
    69. It is further ordered that the amendments adopted in the second 
report and order, and specified in Appendix A of the second report and 
order and report and order, to Sec. Sec.  22.317, 22.911(a) through 
(c), 22.913(a), 22.913(c), 22.913(f), 22.947, and 22.953(c), which 
contain new or modified information collection requirements that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, will become effective after the Commission 
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval 
and the relevant effective date.
    70. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of the second report and order, report and order, and 
second further notice of proposed rulemaking to Congress and to the 
Government Accountability Office.
    71. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the second report and order, report and order, and second 
further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 22 as follows:

PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.


0
2. Section 22.99 is amended by revising the definition of ``Cellular 
system'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definition of ``Power 
spectral density'' to read as follows:


Sec.  22.99  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cellular system. An automated high-capacity system of one or more 
multi-channel base stations designed to provide radio telecommunication 
services to mobile stations over a wide area in a spectrally efficient 
manner. Cellular systems employ techniques

[[Page 17582]]

such as automatic hand-off between base stations of communications in 
progress to enable channels to be re-used at relatively short 
distances.
* * * * *
    Power spectral density (PSD). The power of an emission in the 
frequency domain, such as in terms of ERP or EIRP, stated per unit 
bandwidth, e.g., watts/MHz.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 22.169 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  22.169  International coordination.

    Operation of systems and channel assignments under this part are 
subject to the applicable provisions and requirements of treaties and 
other international agreements between the United States government and 
the governments of Canada and Mexico.

0
4. Section 22.317 is revised by adding a sentence at the end to read as 
follows:


Sec.  22.317  Discontinuance of station operation.

    * * * This section does not apply to the Cellular Radiotelephone 
Service (see Sec.  22.947).

0
5. Section 22.907 is amended by revising the introductory text to read 
as follows:


Sec.  22.907  Coordination of channel usage.

    Licensees in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service must coordinate, 
with the appropriate parties, channel usage at each transmitter 
location within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations 
authorized to other licensees or proposed by other applicants, except 
those with mutually exclusive applications. Licensees utilizing systems 
employing a frequency re-use factor of 1 (universal re-use) are exempt 
from this requirement.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 22.911 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a) heading and 
introductory text, paragraph (b) heading, and paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  22.911  Cellular geographic service area.

    The Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) of a Cellular system is 
the geographic area considered by the FCC to be served by the Cellular 
system and is the area within which cellular systems are entitled to 
protection and adverse effects for the purpose of determining whether a 
petitioner has standing are recognized. The CGSA is the composite of 
the service areas of all of the cells in the system, excluding any 
Unserved Area (even if it is served on a secondary basis) or area 
within the CGSA of another Cellular system. The service area of a cell 
is the area within its service area boundary (SAB). Licensees that use 
power spectral density (PSD) at cell sites within their licensed 
geographic area are subject to paragraph (c) of this section; all other 
licensees are subject to paragraph (a) (or, as applicable, paragraph 
(b)) of this section. If the calculation under paragraph (a), (b), or 
(c) of this section (as applicable) yields an SAB extension comprising 
at least 130 contiguous square kilometers (50 contiguous square miles), 
the licensee must submit an application for major modification of the 
CGSA using FCC Form 601. See also Sec. Sec.  22.912, 22.949, and 
22.953.
    (a) CGSA determination (non-PSD). For the purpose of calculating 
the SABs for cell sites and determining CGSA expansion areas for 
Cellular base stations that do not operate using PSD (as permitted 
under Sec.  22.913), the distance to the SAB is calculated as a 
function of effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna center of 
radiation height above average terrain (HAAT), height above sea level 
(HASL), or height above mean sea level (HAMSL).
* * * * *
    (b) Alternative CGSA determination (non-PSD). * * *
    (1) The alternative CGSA determination must define the CGSA in 
terms of distances from the cell sites to the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour 
along the eight cardinal radials, with points in other azimuthal 
directions determined by the method given in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section. The distances used must be representative of the coverage 
within the eight cardinal radials, as depicted by the alternative CGSA 
determination.
* * * * *
    (c) CGSA determination (PSD). (1) For the purpose of calculating 
the SABs for cell sites and determining CGSA expansion areas for 
Cellular base stations that operate using PSD (as permitted under Sec.  
22.913), the licensee must use a predictive propagation model that is 
appropriate for the service provided, taking into account terrain and 
local conditions. The SAB and CGSA boundary must be defined in terms of 
distances from the cell site to the 32 dB[micro]V/m contour along the 
eight cardinal radials, with points in other azimuthal directions 
determined by the method set forth in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. 
The distances used must be representative of the coverage within the 
eight cardinal radials.
    (2) An application for major modification of the CGSA under this 
paragraph (c) must include, as an exhibit, a depiction of the CGSA 
accompanied by one or more supporting propagation studies using methods 
appropriate for the 800-900 MHz frequency range, including all 
supporting data and calculations, and/or by extensive field strength 
measurement data. For the purpose of such submissions, Cellular service 
is considered to be provided in all areas, including ``dead spots,'' 
between the transmitter location and the locus of points where the 
predicted or measured median field strength finally drops to 32 
dB[micro]V/m (i.e., does not exceed 32 dB[micro]V/m further out). If, 
after consideration of such submissions, the FCC finds that adjustment 
to a CGSA is warranted, the FCC may grant the application.
    (d) Protection afforded. Cellular systems are entitled to 
protection only within the CGSA (as determined in accordance with this 
section) from co-channel and first-adjacent channel interference (see 
Sec.  22.983). Licensees must cooperate in resolving co-channel and 
first-adjacent channel interference by changing channels used at 
specific cells or by other technical means.
    (e) [Reserved]

0
7. Section 22.913 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  22.913  Effective radiated power limits.

    Licensees in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service are subject to the 
effective radiated power (ERP) limits and other requirements in this 
Section. See also Sec.  22.169.
    (a) Maximum ERP. The ERP of transmitters in the Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service must not exceed the limits in this section.
    (1) Except as described in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4) of this 
section, the ERP of base stations and repeaters must not exceed--
    (i) 500 watts per emission; or
    (ii) 400 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
    (2) Except as described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this 
section, for systems operating in areas more than 72 kilometers (45 
miles) from international borders that:
    (i) Are located in counties with population densities of 100 
persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most recently 
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census; or
    (ii) Extend coverage into Unserved Area on a secondary basis (see 
Sec.  22.949),

[[Page 17583]]

the ERP of base transmitters and repeaters must not exceed--
    (A) 1000 watts per emission; or
    (B) 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
    (3) Provided that they also comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section, licensees are permitted to operate their base 
transmitters and repeaters with an ERP greater than 400 watts/MHz (PSD) 
per sector, up to a maximum ERP of 1000 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector 
unless they meet the conditions in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (4) Provided that they also comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section, licensees of systems operating in areas more than 72 
kilometers (45 miles) from international borders that:
    (i) Are located in counties with population densities of 100 
persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most recently 
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census; or
    (ii) Extend coverage into Unserved Area on a secondary basis (see 
Sec.  22.949), are permitted to operate base transmitters and repeaters 
with an ERP greater than 800 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector, up to a 
maximum of 2000 watts/MHz (PSD) per sector.
    (5) The ERP of mobile transmitters and auxiliary test transmitters 
must not exceed 7 watts.
    (b) Power flux density (PFD). Until May 12, 2024, each Cellular 
base station that operates at the higher ERP limits permitted under 
paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section must be designed and deployed 
so as not to exceed a modeled PFD of 3000 microwatts/m\2\/MHz over at 
least 98% of the area within 1 km of the base station antenna, at 1.6 
meters above ground level. To ensure its compliance with this 
requirement, the licensee must perform predictive modeling of the PFD 
values within at least 1 km of each base station antenna prior to 
commencing such operations and, thereafter, prior to making any site 
modifications that may increase the PFD levels around the base station. 
The modeling tools must take into consideration terrain and other local 
conditions and must use good engineering practices for the 800 MHz 
band.
    (c) Advance notification requirement. At least 30 days but not more 
than 90 days prior to activating a base station at the higher ERP 
limits permitted under paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section, the 
Cellular licensee must provide written advance notice to any public 
safety licensee authorized in the frequency range 806-816 MHz/851-861 
MHz with a base station located within a radius of 113 km of the 
Cellular base station to be deployed. The written notice shall be 
required only one time for each such cell site and is for informational 
purposes only; the public safety licensees are not afforded the right 
to accept or reject the activation or to unilaterally require changes 
in the operating parameters. The written notification must include the 
base station's location, ERP level, height of the transmitting 
antenna's center of radiation above ground level, and the timeframe for 
activation, as well as the Cellular licensee's contact information. 
Additional information shall be provided by the Cellular licensee upon 
request of a public safety licensee required to be notified under this 
paragraph (c). See also Sec. Sec.  22.970 through 22.973.
    (d) Power measurement. Measurement of the ERP of Cellular base 
transmitters and repeaters must be made using an average power 
measurement technique. The peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the 
transmission must not exceed 13 dB. Power measurements for base 
transmitters and repeaters must be made in accordance with either of 
the following:
    (1) A Commission-approved average power technique (see FCC 
Laboratory's Knowledge Database); or
    (2) For purposes of this section, peak transmit power must be 
measured over an interval of continuous transmission using 
instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage. The 
measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument 
limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution 
bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, 
sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak measurement for the 
emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel.
    (e) Height-power limit. The ERP of base transmitters must not 
exceed the amount that would result in an average distance to the 
service area boundary of 79.1 kilometers (49 miles) for Cellular 
systems authorized to serve the Gulf of Mexico MSA and 40.2 kilometers 
(25 miles) for all other Cellular systems. The average distance to the 
service area boundary is calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of 
the distances determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  22.911 
for the eight cardinal radial directions.
    (f) Exemptions from height-power limit. Licensees need not comply 
with the height-power limit in paragraph (e) of this section if either 
of the following conditions is met:
    (1) The proposed operation is coordinated with the licensees of all 
affected Cellular systems on the same channel block within 121 
kilometers (75 miles) and concurrence is obtained; or
    (2) The licensee's base transmitter or repeater is operated at the 
ERP limits (W/MHz) specified above in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), 
(a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section.

0
8. Section 22.917 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  22.917  Emission limitations for cellular equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on 
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a reference bandwidth 
as follows:
    (1) In the spectrum below 1 GHz, instrumentation should employ a 
reference bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. In the 1 MHz bands 
immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a resolution 
bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the 
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower 
resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement 
accuracy, provided that the measured power is integrated over the full 
required reference bandwidth (i.e., 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission 
bandwidth, as specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the 
width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center 
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which 
all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter 
power.
    (2) In the spectrum above 1 GHz, instrumentation should employ a 
reference bandwidth of 1 MHz.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  22.935 through 22.943   [Removed and Reserved]

0
9. Sections 22.935, 22.936, 22.939, 22.940, and 22.943 are removed and 
reserved.

0
10. Section 22.947 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  22.947  Discontinuance of service.

    (a) Termination of authorization. (1) Except with respect to 
CMA672-A (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section), a licensee's Cellular 
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) authorization will automatically 
terminate, without specific Commission action, if the licensee 
permanently discontinues service. A new-system licensee is not subject 
to this provision until after expiration of the construction period 
specified in Sec.  22.946.
    (2) The licensee's authorization for CMA672-A (Chambers, TX) will

[[Page 17584]]

automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if the 
licensee permanently discontinues service after meeting its interim 
construction requirement as specified in Sec.  22.961(b)(1).
    (b) Permanent discontinuance. Permanent discontinuance of service 
is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a Cellular licensee 
does not operate or, in the case of a commercial mobile radio service 
provider, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is 
not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing 
carrier.
    (c) Filing requirements. A licensee that permanently discontinues 
service as defined in this section must notify the Commission of the 
discontinuance within 10 days by filing, via the ULS, FCC Form 601 
requesting license cancellation. An authorization will automatically 
terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is 
permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a licensee 
fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.

0
11. Section 22.953 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  22.953  Content and form of applications for Cellular Unserved 
Area authorizations.

* * * * *
    (c) Existing systems--minor modifications. Licensees making minor 
modifications pursuant to Sec.  1.929(k) of this chapter must file FCC 
Form 601 or FCC Form 603, provided, however, that a resulting reduction 
in coverage within the CGSA is not subject to this requirement. See 
Sec.  1.947(b). See also Sec.  22.169. If the modification involves a 
contract SAB extension into or from the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone, 
it must include a certification that the required written consent has 
been obtained. See Sec. Sec.  22.912(c) and 22.950.


Sec. Sec.  22.955 and 22.957   [Removed and Reserved]

0
12. Sections 22.955 and 22.957 are removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2017-07154 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P