[Federal Register: December 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77175-77192]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17de02-12]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 22 and 24
[WT Docket No. 01-108; FCC 02-229 and FCC 02-247]
Public Mobile Services and Personal Communications Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Report and Order and Second Report and Order, the
Commission makes significant modifications to its rules that cover the
Cellular Radiotelephone and other services as part of its Biennial
Review of rules. The Commission modifies or eliminates various rules
that have become outdated due to supervening rules, technological
change, or increased competition among providers of Commercial Mobile
Radio Services (CMRS). The actions that the Commission takes in these
items amends its rules to modify the requirement that cellular carriers
provide analog service compatible with Advanced Mobile Phone Service
(AMPS) specifications by establishing a five-year transition period
after which the analog standard will not be required, but may still be
provided.
DATES: Effective February 18, 2003. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of February 18, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Noel or Linda Chang, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a consolidated summary of the
Federal Communications Commission's Report and Order (R&O), FCC 02-229,
adopted August 8, 2002, and released September 24, 2002, and Second
Report and Order (2nd R&O), FCC 02-247, adopted September 10, 2002, and
released September 24, 2002. The full text of the R&O and 2nd R&O is
available for public inspection during regular business hours at the
FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor: Qualex International, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-
2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail at qualexint@aol.com.
Synopsis of Report and Order
I. Background
1. In June 2001, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking seeking to identify and address outdated rule sections of
part 22. See Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of part 22
of the Commission's Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules
Affecting the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and other Commercial
Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 FR 31589 (June
12, 2001) (NPRM). As the Commission observed in the NPRM, technological
advances have allowed cellular carriers to increase the capacity of
their systems, and to provide advanced services to their customers in
the form of enhanced service quality and advanced calling features.
Moreover, the mobile telephony industry has become much more
competitive with the entry of CMRS providers using technologies other
than analog cellular into the market. Many of the Commission's cellular
rules, however, do not reflect these developments, and continue to be
more applicable to the earlier forms of cellular than the more advanced
digital services available today. Accordingly, the Commission concluded
in the NPRM that it is appropriate to re-examine its original cellular
rules to determine whether certain rules should be eliminated or
modified.
II. Discussion
A. Section 11 of the Communications Act
2. In 1996, Congress anticipated that the development of
competition would lead market forces to reduce the need for regulation
and amended the Communications Act of 1934 to permit and encourage
competition in various communications markets. See Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Pub.
[[Page 77176]]
Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (``1996 Act''), introductory
statement (the 1996 Act was intended ``[t]o promote competition and
reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality
services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the
rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.''); Joint
Managers' Statement, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.
113 (1996) at 1 (stating that the 1996 Act would establish a ``pro-
competitive, deregulatory national policy framework''). Section 11 of
the 1996 Act requires the Commission to review biennially all of its
regulations ``that apply to the operations or activities of any
provider of telecommunications service'' and to ``determine whether any
such regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as a
result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such
service.'' See 47 U.S.C. 161. In the past, the Commission has looked to
the plain meaning of the text for guidance in exercising its obligation
pursuant to section 11. See In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory
Review Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Commercial Mobile Radio
Services, WT Docket No. 01-14, Report and Order, 67 FR 1626 (Jan. 14,
2002). The Commission has stated that ``the language places an
obligation on the Commission to `determine' if the regulation in
question `is no longer necessary in the public interest as the result
of meaningful economic competition.' '' Id. at 1617. Further, section
11 explicitly provides that ``the Commission shall repeal or modify''
any regulation that it determines is no longer necessary in the public
interest as a result of meaningful economic competition. 47 U.S.C.
161(b). The Commission notes that section 11 places the burden on the
Commission to make the requisite determinations; no particular burden
is placed on the opponents or proponents of a given rule. The
Commission has previously interpreted the language of section 11 as
directing it to examine why a rule originally was ``necessary'' and
whether it continues to be necessary. The Commission has found that in
making the determination whether a rule remains ``necessary'' in the
public interest once meaningful economic competition exists, the
Commission must consider whether the concerns that led to the rule or
the rule's original purposes may be achieved without the rule or with a
modified rule. Id. at 1628.
B. Analog Cellular Compatibility Standard
3. In establishing the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in the early
1980s, the Commission found that a single technology--analog--should be
mandated to accomplish two goals: (1) To enable subscribers of one
cellular system to be able to use their existing terminal equipment
(i.e., mobile handset) in a cellular market in a different part of the
country (roaming); and (2) to facilitate competition by eliminating the
need for cellular consumers to acquire different handset equipment in
order to switch between the two competing carriers within the
consumers' home market (thus ensuring reasonable consumer costs.). To
facilitate these goals, all carriers were required to provide service
exclusively in accordance with the then-existing compatibility standard
for analog systems, known as Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS). The
detailed technical standards for AMPS were set out in the Office of
Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 53 (OET 53) in April 1981. The
OET 53 specifications established technical operational parameters and
descriptions of call processing algorithms and protocols to be used by
analog cellular systems. Pursuant to Sec. 22.901, a carrier must
provide service to any subscriber within the carrier's CGSA, including
both the carrier's subscribers and roaming customers that are using
technically compatible equipment. 47 CFR 22.901. Section 22.901(d)
specifically requires that carriers make mobile services available to
subscribers whose mobile equipment conforms to the AMPS compatibility
standard. 47 CFR 22.901(d). The Commission's cellular rules, in effect,
continue to obligate carriers to provide analog service consistent with
the standard identified two decades ago in OET 53.
4. After reviewing the record, the Commission concludes that in
light of the present competitive state of mobile telephony, the
nationwide coverage achieved by cellular carriers, and the clear market
demand for nationwide, ubiquitous coverage by carriers, the analog
requirement has substantially achieved its purpose of ensuring that the
public has access to low-cost, compatible equipment and to nationwide
roaming. Not only does the Commission determine that the rule is no
longer necessary to achieve its purposes, it concludes that it imposes
costs and impedes spectral efficiency. The development of the mobile
telephony industry further leads the Commission to find that these
objectives can largely be accomplished by market forces without the
need for regulation. The Commission therefore concludes that the analog
requirement should be removed. However, eliminating the rule
immediately without a reasonable transition period would be extremely
disruptive to certain consumers, particularly those with hearing
disabilities as well as emergency-only consumers, who currently
continue to rely on the availability of analog service and lack digital
alternatives. Accordingly, the Commission modifies its rules requiring
application of the analog compatibility standard to include a sunset
period of five years, during which time the Commission anticipates that
problems regarding access will likely be resolved. In order to enable
the Commission to monitor the adequacy of access to mobile telephony by
those currently reliant on analog service, certain CMRS carriers will
be required to file reports prior to the sunset, describing the extent
to which hearing aid-compatible digital devices are available to and
usable by consumers with hearing disabilities, and the progress made in
informing their customers of the impact of the 5-year sunset date on
911-only phones and analog-only phones, as well as the availability of
digital replacements for donated analog phones.
1. Indefinite Retention of the Analog Requirement is not Warranted
5. The Commission finds that it is not necessary to retain the
analog requirement in order to ensure competition. Indeed, the
Commission concludes that continuing to require carriers to operate
consistent with the AMPS standard may hinder competition by causing
spectral inefficiencies and increased costs to those carriers who would
prefer to concentrate on digital technology. Additionally, the robust
mobile telephony market leads the Commission to conclude that the
analog requirement is no longer necessary to ensure reasonable costs,
as well as the continued availability of roaming to the vast majority
of consumers. Removal of the requirement is consistent with its desire
to move toward a less regulatory approach, as well as a congressional
directive to treat similarly-situated CMRS in a like manner.
6. The analog requirement is no longer needed to foster
competition. The Commission sought to ensure that there was
competition, albeit limited, within any given market by compelling
carriers to operate consistent with AMPS specifications as well as
requiring that carriers serve all consumers using AMPS-compatible
handsets. The mobile
[[Page 77177]]
telephony industry, however, has changed immensely in the two decades
since the establishment of the cellular service. The market for mobile
telephony service now includes the Personal Communications Services
(PCS) and the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service in addition to
cellular. The Commission noted in its Seventh CMRS Competition Report
that 268 million people, or 94 percent of the total U.S. population,
currently reside in areas in which three or more different operators
(cellular, broadband PCS, and/or digital SMR providers) offer mobile
telephony service in the counties in which they live. Over 229 million
people, or 80 percent of the U.S. population, live in counties with
five or more mobile telephony operators offering service, while 151
million people, or 53 percent of the population live in counties with
at least six different mobile telephony operators.
7. Rather than encouraging competition, the Commission concludes
that, in many instances, the analog requirement harms competition by
imposing unnecessary operating costs and impeding the spectral
efficiency of the two cellular providers in the market. First, the
analog requirement places a financial burden on cellular licensees who
would prefer to use their spectrum and other resources on digital
technology rather than setting aside a portion to support their analog
facilities. Cellular licensees that deploy digital technologies must
also maintain a minimum scale analog network. These cellular licensees
incur operation and maintenance costs for two mobile telephony networks
in order to comply with Commission rules. Also, by maintaining two
networks, operation and maintenance costs associated with the digital
network may be higher because the carrier is not able to optimize the
system as efficiently as it would if there was only one network.
Second, the Commission also agrees with commenters who argue that
imposition of the analog requirement impedes spectral efficiency.
Digital technologies are more efficient than analog, use less
bandwidth, and give consumers access to advanced services not feasible
with analog. The analog requirement prevents cellular licensees from
choosing to efficiently utilize their spectrum by installing an all-
digital network and potentially providing additional advanced services.
Further, the analog requirement may result in certain carriers being
capacity constrained in certain geographic markets depending on the
amount of spectrum dedicated to AMPS, usage by AMPS customers, type of
digital technology, and how intensively their digital customers utilize
their services. Thus, to the extent that a cellular carrier incurs
costs to operate an analog network that it would not maintain but for
the analog requirement, the Commission concludes that the rule imposes
unnecessary financial burdens and hinders spectral efficiency. These
factors in turn impede the ability of the cellular carrier to compete
vis-[agrave]-vis other mobile telephony providers who are not subject
to the requirement.
8. Access to reasonably priced equipment is not dependent on the
continued imposition of the analog requirement. It is no longer the
case that the analog requirement is needed to ensure reasonably priced
equipment, and, as a result, increased competition. Because early
cellular mobile equipment was expensive, the Commission concluded that
it was cost-prohibitive for consumers to switch providers in the event
the two carriers in the market utilized different technical standards.
The Commission found that consumers would be discouraged from switching
cellular providers if they had to purchase additional equipment in
order to be served by the second carrier. The Commission found that
mandating a specific technology would enable consumers to choose
between carriers without regard to cost of equipment, thereby
encouraging competition between the carriers. Today, however, mobile
handsets are much less expensive. The declining cost of such equipment
as well as the frequent carrier subsidy of the cost of the telephones
have diminished the handset disincentives for consumers switching
between providers (whether cellular or other CMRS). Consumers are now
able to easily choose from a panoply of carriers and technologies.
9. Roaming is not dependent on the analog requirement. The
Commission continues to consider the existence of a nationwide,
compatible service to be a major goal for the cellular service.
However, given the current competitive state of mobile telephony, the
Commission concludes that consumers will continue to have the ability
to roam outside of their home markets even in the absence of the analog
requirement. In the years since the cellular service was established,
many CMRS providers using digital technology, particularly broadband
PCS and SMR services, have developed and established a strong market
presence. When the rules for market-based PCS and SMR services were
established, the Commission declined to impose technological
compatibility rules, and allowed carriers the flexibility to implement
air interface technologies of their own choosing. In the absence of a
Commission-mandated standard for PCS and SMR, carriers have nonetheless
established systems providing seamless nationwide service in response
to customer demand. Service providers have been successful in
establishing nationwide systems, even though they employ different air
interface technologies, by acquiring licenses in as many markets as
possible, establishing roaming agreements with other carriers who have
implemented the same digital technology, and providing multimode
handsets that allow customers to roam using analog cellular service
where interoperable digital service is not available.
10. The Commission does not find persuasive arguments that
elimination of the analog requirement will force small and regional
carriers to convert to digital earlier than they would otherwise in
order to ensure seamless service to their customers and other
consumers, or that such a transition will be cost-prohibitive for such
service providers or their customers. The choice to switch from analog
to digital technology, as well as the rate at which the transition
occurs, are business decisions made by the individual carrier. Indeed,
the Commission concludes that market forces are already at work with
respect to small and regional carriers. After reviewing current and
future market trends in mobile telephony, the Commission finds that
many small and regional carriers are or will be shifting their systems
towards digital technology. The Commission expects that construction by
PCS licensees in rural areas will continue to increase, thereby
providing digital services to customers in rural areas. With the
introduction of digital services by PCS providers, cellular licensees
are likely to find it competitively necessary to install or expand
their digital network, regardless of whether or not the analog
requirement is retained. Moreover, the Commission expects that the
increasing presence of multimode handsets will minimize the necessity
for small and regional carriers to completely switch to a digital
system. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that roaming and
interoperability concerns held by small and regional carriers are not a
sufficient basis to require the continued application of the analog
requirement.
11. The Commission notes that the five-year sunset period it is
establishing for other reasons should mitigate the concerns of small or
regional carriers, such as the disruptions to operations that an
immediate elimination of the
[[Page 77178]]
analog requirement might cause. For example, a transition period
permits carriers to evaluate their current and future technology
choices as well as those of their current roaming partners. Carriers
will have the opportunity to negotiate new contracts where needed to
ensure the availability of roaming services to their customers. Also,
the elimination of the cellular analog requirement will increase the
demand for the development and commercial implementation of multimode/
multiband handsets, a process that is already occurring. By the end of
the transition period, these handsets should be widely available and
customers may choose to migrate to these new handsets depending on
their roaming needs. Further, the transition period provides additional
time for PCS licensees in both Rural Service Areas (RSAs) and
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to further build out their
licensed service areas in order to enhance opportunities for roaming
for all consumers.
12. The possible impact on telematics providers does not justify
retention of the analog requirement. Telematics providers argue that
the elimination of the rule will significantly impair their ability to
provide service because these systems require analog technology due to
its ubiquitous coverage, and that there is currently no other widely-
deployed technology available to adequately support telematics
services. While digital service providers are continuing to expand
their service area footprint, commenters argue that there are still
large gaps in coverage, and note that the various digital standards are
not interoperable. Commenters argue that digital systems cannot yet
transmit both voice and data on the same call, a feature that
commenters argue is important for telematics providers. Commenters
assert that the interoperability problem is particularly difficult for
telematics devices because manufacturers must choose a technology that
is embedded in a vehicle that will have a useful life of ten or more
years. Telematics providers contend that, unlike the typical cellular
subscriber who can readily switch to digital handsets if necessary, the
development cycle (the length of time necessary to design, test, and
install equipment in vehicles) and hardware basis of telematics-
equipped vehicles prevents users of such services from quickly and
easily migrating to a new technology. Commenters argue that, in
evaluating this issue, the Commission should take into account the
useful life of the vehicle, the vehicle development cycle, as well as
investments made by owners of vehicles with embedded telematics
systems.
13. The Commission concludes that arguments advanced by telematics
providers do not constitute sufficient basis to warrant the indefinite
imposition of an outdated technical standard. Each of the factors
identified by telematics providers--e.g. development cycles of
vehicles, choice of hardware and technology platforms--are
considerations within the control of the individual provider or the
original equipment manufacturer with whom it partners. However, as in
the case of regional carriers, the Commission finds that the sunset
period it is establishing for other reasons should also mitigate any
significant impacts that might affect telematics providers. During the
transition period, the Commission anticipates that telematics providers
will be able to partner with cellular, PCS, and SMR carriers in order
to secure service on the carriers' digital networks. Based on the
record, the Commission concludes that within the next five years, the
telematics industry will make great strides towards developing
multimode devices that will provide interoperability and facilitate
roaming on digital networks. Moreover, the majority of commenters
concede that a reasonable transition period would ease any concerns
regarding the elimination of the analog requirement.
14. Modification of the rule is supported by section 332 of the
Communications Act. Another factor supporting the modification of the
analog requirement to include a five-year sunset is section 332 of the
Act, which directs the Commission to regulate CMRS providers to
technical and operational rules comparable to those that apply to
providers of substantially similar common carrier services. Section 332
requires that differences between rules governing competing services
should be conformed if the Commission determines that the differences
distort competition by placing unequal regulatory burdens on different
types of CMRS providers. Over the years, the Commission has shifted
towards taking a less regulatory approach in setting out technical
standards for the various wireless services. Yet in the case of
cellular, while the Commission has afforded carriers the flexibility to
deploy new technologies and to offer digital services similar to that
offered by PCS providers, cellular carriers must nonetheless continue
to provide analog service. The analog standard forces cellular carriers
to incur costs and burdens not assumed by other CMRS licensees despite
the similarity of services provided by cellular carriers as compared
with other providers.
2. Sunset of the Analog Requirement
a. 911-Only Phones and Unsubscribed Emergency Phones
15. A primary reason for the growth of mobile telephony is the
safety and security functions of wireless telephones. Indeed, some
consumers acquire wireless telephones that can only make 911 calls.
These 911-only consumers can be categorized as: (1) ``Unsubscribed''
consumers of recycled phones that were previously, but are no longer,
service-initialized by a wireless carrier, and have been reissued under
some type of donor program, such as phones donated to victims of
domestic violence, and (2) subscribers of newly manufactured 911-only
phones that can only make 911 calls but are incapable of receiving any
incoming calls. Consumers of the latter are often elderly persons who
cannot afford basic wireless service or do not want typical wireless
service, but desire immediate access to emergency services. The
Commission concludes that a transition period is warranted in order to
mitigate possible negative effects to emergency-only consumers that
might otherwise occur with an immediate elimination of the analog
requirement. Also, in some geographic areas in which digital coverage
is currently insufficient, a transition period will allow carriers time
to enhance coverage. The transition period will allow for the continued
expansion of digital networks and further conversion of analog networks
to digital, thereby providing for a more extensive network of digital
technologies. During the transition period, service providers can
conduct customer outreach in order to educate consumers that analog
services may be discontinued on a certain date, thereby providing
emergency-only consumers with time to migrate from analog to digital
handsets.
16. Although there is currently a sizable number of unsubscribed
analog and 911-only consumers, it can be assumed that the total number
of such users will decline in the future, as digital networks expand
and carriers migrate current analog customers to digital services. The
Commission expects that unsubscribed consumers will have access to
digital equipment as digital handsets are being donated as well as
analog handsets. It is reasonable to assume that the number of digital
handsets will increase over time because the number of digital
subscribers is approximately three times that of analog subscribers,
and a
[[Page 77179]]
consumer uses a handset on average for 1.5 to 2.5 years before
acquiring a new one. Because handsets are recycled every 18 to 30
months, the Commission concludes that a transition period should ensure
that recipients of donated mobile telephones have access to digital
equipment.
b. Accessibility Issues
17. The Commission has for some time been cognizant of the concerns
held by persons with hearing disabilities regarding their ability to
access wireless technologies and services. Although most consumers have
a variety of mobile technologies and services available to them,
persons with hearing disabilities desiring to use wireless devices must
currently rely on analog service or the small number of digital phones
that are currently compatible with hearing aids--a compatibility that
is limited to certain types of hearing aids. Unlike analog handsets,
digital technologies have been shown to cause interference to hearing
aids and cochlear implants. For the most part, analog wireless
equipment does not pose interference problems for hearing aid wearers
because they transmit signals at a steady rate; no extraneous audible
noise is produced because these signals are not demodulated by the
handset and in turn amplified by the hearing aid. Unlike analog
equipment, however, digital wireless telephones do not transmit
electromagnetic energy at a steady rate, and the fluctuations can cause
disruptive interference to hearing aids or cochlear implants.
Currently, nearly all digital equipment can cause some interference to
many types of hearing aids and cochlear implants.
18. The Commission's review of the record leads it to conclude that
immediately removing the requirement that cellular carriers operate
consistent with the analog compatibility standard would indeed be
detrimental to persons with hearing disabilities. Because persons with
hearing disabilities must continue to rely on analog technology for
access to wireless service at this time, the Commission finds that the
record supports implementing a transition period during which time it
anticipates that digital solutions to the hearing aid-compatibility
problem will be developed and made widely available. In order to ensure
that analog service remains available to persons with hearing
disabilities while industry seeks to develop accessible digital
technologies, the Commission provides for a five-year transition period
before the elimination of the analog requirement. The Commission
concludes that a five-year period provides a reasonable time frame for
the development of solutions to hearing aid-compatibility issues. The
progress made in developing digital TTY solutions leads it to determine
that the industry will also likely be able to develop digital solutions
for telephones within a five-year period. Moreover, mandating a shorter
timeframe may result in persons with hearing disabilities gaining
access to digital handsets more quickly than if the Commission sets out
a longer period. Because the Commission is reserving the right to
extend the sunset period in the event that solutions to hearing aid-
compatibility problems are unsatisfactory, the industry has an
incentive to develop digital solutions to the access problem.
19. The Commission notes that it is establishing a transition
period to safeguard the ability of persons with hearing disabilities to
access mobile telephony services even though carriers are otherwise
obligated to ensure that telecommunications service is accessible to
persons with disabilities. Section 255 of the Communications Act
requires that ``[a] provider of telecommunications service shall ensure
that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if readily achievable.'' See 47 U.S.C. 255(c). In the
NPRM, the Commission observed that if the analog requirement was
eliminated, section 255 would still require that carriers to make
digital services compatible with hearing aid devices. Although a few
commenters argue that mobile telephony providers and manufacturers can
circumvent the provisions of section 255, the Commission concludes that
section 255 requires providers to ensure that their services remain
accessible to persons with hearing disabilities. However, the
independent requirements of section 255 notwithstanding, the Commission
finds that it is appropriate to also establish a five-year transition
period in order to address the particular current problem of hearing
aid-compatibility with digital handsets, and ensure access to mobile
telephony service for persons with hearing disabilities.
20. Reporting requirement. In order to monitor the progress made by
the wireless and hearing aid industries in developing solutions, and to
ensure that wireless services are continuing to be made available to
persons with hearing disabilities as well as 911-only consumers, the
Commission will require that, no later than the third and fourth
anniversary of the effective date of this order, certain CMRS licensees
and other entities file reports with the Commission. The reports will
be required from all cellular licensees providing nationwide coverage.
In addition, the reports must inform the Commission whether each
carrier intends to discontinue analog service, identify the markets in
which it plans to discontinue analog service, and for how long it plans
to continue analog service and in which markets. If a carrier intends
to discontinue analog service, the carrier must certify and provide
information in its report that there are hearing aid-compatible digital
devices available to persons with hearing disabilities at the time of
filing, or, if no such equipment is available at the time of filing,
describe the extent to which, by the end of the fifth year, digital
equipment will be available to persons with hearing disabilities in
market(s) where the carrier intends to discontinue analog service.
Carriers may also be required to show in their reports that they are in
compliance with the provisions of section 255 of the Act, as well as
with any other obligations required of them by the Commission. Such
carriers, in their reports, may also be required to describe their plan
for informing its subscribers, the public and other interested parties
regarding plans to discontinue analog service. Finally, other
interested parties will be able to file reports or comments as
appropriate, and the Commission encourages joint efforts. Such Reports
will be made publicly available to all interested parties who may file
supplemental information as appropriate to ensure that the Commission
has a full record. The information contained in the reports will be
used to determine whether or not the Commission will initiate a
proceeding to extend the sunset date or take appropriate enforcement
action under section 255.
21. Further, the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act)
requires almost all new telephones to ``provide internal means for
effective use with hearing aids that are designed to be compatible with
telephones which meet established technical standards for hearing aid
compatibility,'' but provides an exemption for certain categories of
phones including those used with CMRS and the private mobile radio
services (or PMRS). 47 U.S.C. 610(b)(1); see 47 CFR 68.4(a). In
November 2001, the Commission initiated a proceeding to examine whether
this exemption continues to remain necessary, or whether the statutory
criteria for revocation or limitation of the exemption have been
satisfied. See In the Matter of Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket
[[Page 77180]]
No. 01-309, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 20558 (2001) (HAC
Proceeding). The action taken here does not preclude the Commission
from independently requiring carriers to comply with HAC requirements,
even during the 5-year transition period, in the event that the
Commission determines in the HAC Proceeding that the statutory criteria
for revocation or limitation of the exemption have been satisfied.
Finally, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in conjunction with
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, will work closely with the
Food and Drug Administration and the Commission's Office of Engineering
and Technology in the development of standards for hearing aid design
that alleviate interference.
C. Electronic Serial Number Rule
22. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to remove Sec. 22.919 of
its rules, which sets forth electronic serial number (ESN) design
requirements for manufacturers of cellular telephones. The purpose of
this rule was to address the problem of cellular ``cloning'' fraud that
was prevalent in the mid-1990s. Over the years, however, other measures
have developed to combat cloning fraud. For example, Congress enacted
the Wireless Telephone Protection Act of 1998 to address fraudulent and
unauthorized use of wireless telecommunications services. Further, the
cellular industry has developed a more secure access protocol, known as
authentication. Other anti-fraud countermeasures developed by the
industry include ``radio frequency fingerprinting,'' which identifies a
mobile handset by its unique radio transmission characteristics, as
well as ``call profiling,'' which enables carriers to monitor for
unusual, sudden changes in calling patterns.
23. After reviewing the original purpose of the rule, the anti-
fraud techniques that have been developed since the adoption of the
rule, as well as the comments in this proceeding, the Commission
concludes that the ESN rule is no longer necessary in the public
interest and adopts its proposal to eliminate Sec. 22.919. The
concerns that led to the adoption of this rule have been addressed and
no longer require retention of this rule. The Commission finds that it
is unnecessary to continue to mandate detailed hardware design
requirements given the success the wireless industry has had in
developing other more effective anti-fraud measures.
D. Channelization Requirements
24. Section 22.905 identifies the part of the electromagnetic
spectrum that is allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and
divides it into two blocks, labeled A and B. See 47 CFR 22.905. It also
sets forth a channelization plan that sub-divides each block into 416
paired 30 kHz channels and designates 21 of these paired channels as
control channels. Alternative technologies, including the principal
digital technologies many cellular licensees have overlaid on top of
their analog networks, are exempt from this channelization plan rule.
The Commission proposed in the NPRM to remove the channelization plan
for compatible AMPS cellular systems from Sec. 22.905 of its rules,
and to rephrase the remainder of that section such that it specifies
only the portions of the electromagnetic spectrum allocated to the
Cellular Radiotelephone Service and which frequency ranges make up the
two initial blocks. The Commission reasoned that the analog technology
to which the channelization plan is applicable is well-established
nationwide, and thus removing the plan would not pose any risk of
decreased cellular technical compatibility.
25. Given the number of standard analog base stations and handsets
in use today and the efficiencies to be gained by implementing
alternative digital (not analog) technologies, it appears highly
unlikely that any carrier would have the incentive to deploy an
alternative analog technology during the five-year sunset adopted in
this proceeding. Further, carriers will continue to be bound by
existing roaming agreements for at least some portion of the sunset,
again making it highly unlikely that there would be any incentive to
deploy an alternative analog technology. The Commission notes that the
AMPS channelization plan is the current industry standard for AMPS and
will presumably continue to provide guidance to licensees through the
sunset of the analog requirement.
E. Modulation Requirements and In-band Emissions Limitations
26. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to
modify Sec. 22.915 of its rules, which sets out a number of technical
specifications for, inter alia, the performance of audio filter and
deviation limiter circuitry in analog cellular telephones, and
adjustment of the modulation levels in analog cellular telephones.
Consistent with its less regulatory approach with PCS and other CMRS,
as well as its proposal to eliminate the analog requirement, the
Commission proposed to eliminate the provision set out in Sec. 22.915
requiring cellular systems to have the capability to provide service
using the modulation types specified in OET 53 (analog compatibility
standard). The Commission also proposed to remove all rules governing
audio filter and deviation limiter performance, modulation levels, and
in-band radio frequency emission limits.
27. The Commission also proposed changes to Sec. 22.917 of its
rules, which prescribes emission masks limiting both in-band and out-
of-band radio frequency emissions. As with the proposal to remove the
channelization requirements, the Commission proposed changes to the
introductory paragraph of Sec. 22.917, which requires that analog
modulated emissions be transmitted only on the communication channels.
Further, the Commission sought comment regarding how it should define
the out-of-band emission limit in order to provide an adequate measure
of interference protection to other licensees and service, while also
allowing licensees the flexibility to establish a different limit where
appropriate. Specifically, the Commission asked whether licensees
should be permitted to operate transmitters on frequencies closer to
the edge of their authorized spectrum than full compliance with Sec.
22.917 would normally allow, as long as all potentially affected
parties (i.e. adjacent licensees) agree to such a provision. The
Commission also noted that its Wireless Communications Service (WCS)
rules provide this flexibility, and it indicated that cellular and
broadband PCS licensees would also benefit from such flexibility.
Accordingly, the Commission sought to conform the language and
provisions of the out-of-band emission limit rules specific to the
cellular service and broadband PCS with those applicable to WCS.
28. As the Commission is moving toward a less regulatory approach
with respect to its service rules and is permitting carriers to deploy
technologies that best fit the needs of the market, the Commission
adopts its proposal with certain modifcations. Further, the Commission
concludes that, because it seeks to ensure regulatory conformity
wherever practical, its rules regarding out-of-band emissions limits
for the various services should be similar.
29. However, certain commenters to the proceeding point out that
implementation of the measurement resolution bandwidth specified in the
proposed rule would have the effect of imposing a stricter out-of-band
emission
[[Page 77181]]
limit than that which currently applies. Specifically, the commenters
object to the proposed rule's specification that compliance with the
out-of-band emissions limit should be measured by using instrumentation
employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or more from the center of
the band. In proposing the rule change, the Commission sought only to
harmonize certain procedures in the WCS, PCS and cellular services, and
did not intend to make the out-of-band emission limits more
restrictive. Accordingly, the Commission modifies the proposed rule by
substituting in language that is more consistent with recently adopted
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) standards for emissions.
See ITU-R SM.329.
F. Vertical Wave Polarization Requirement
30. Section 22.367(a)(4) of the Commission's rules provides that
electromagnetic waves radiated by base, mobile, and auxiliary test
transmitters in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service must be vertically
polarized. 47 CFR 22.367(a)(4). This rule was originally adopted in
order to promote technical compatibility for cellular systems, as well
as to reduce the likelihood of interference from cellular transmitters
to broadcast television (TV) reception on the upper UHF TV channels.
See In the Matter of Revision of part 22 of the Commission's Rules
Governing the Public Mobile Services, CC Docket No. 92-115, Report and
Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6513 (1994). The Commission tentatively concluded in
the NPRM to relax Sec. 22.367 of its rules to provide that cellular
stations no longer be limited as to the polarization of the transmitted
waves. The Commission specifically sought comment on what interference
or adverse effects might be caused to mobile, fixed, and broadcast
services operating in the cellular service spectrum or adjacent
spectrum.
31. The original purposes of the rule no longer warrant this
requirement on cellular carriers. The Commission is persuaded that
relaxation of this requirement will have little effect on
interoperability or UHF television channels. Even if a base station's
transmissions are vertically polarized, many hand-held mobile units may
not benefit from vertical polarization because they are either held in
a manner such that their antenna is not vertical, or because the
transmission's polarization will be shifted due to reflections from
man-made structures. Accordingly, a vertically polarized transmission
generally will provide little interoperability benefit to users of
hand-held mobile phones. Furthermore, cellular base stations transmit
on frequencies above 869 MHz (a minimum separation of 63 MHz from the
closest UHF television frequency), thereby reducing the likelihood of
interference with upper-band UHF television channels.
32. The Commission is not persuaded by arguments that the vertical
polarization requirement should not be removed because it could result
in reduced RF coverage for its end users, and impair telematics'
ability to provide geographic location information for emergency
services. The Commission notes that such concerns are limited to rural
areas, where cellular carriers are unlikely to use other than vertical
polarization because they have little incentive to do so. In addition,
it is anticipated that cellular carriers will make the appropriate
technical adjustments to account for varying polarization of transmit
and receive antennas, and thereby obtain equivalent analog cellular
performance at the boundaries of a rural cell site when using
alternative technologies. The Commission notes that cellular carriers
already have the flexibility to reduce coverage or turn off their
systems for short or long periods without seeking prior approval of the
Commission or notifying customers of their intended action. Further,
telematics carriers may negotiate with cellular carriers and may enter
into voluntary contractual relationships to accommodate specific
coverage needs. Finally, the Commission believes that the industry and
not regulation should dictate technical specifications wherever
possible. Given these reasons, the Commission is not persuaded that it
is necessary to retain this rule simply to ensure coverage for
telematics subscribers attempting calls on the fringe of rural cell
sites.
G. Assignment of System Identification Numbers
33. Section 22.941 of the Commission's rules sets forth the
procedure by which the Commission assigns system identification numbers
(SIDs) to systems in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service. SIDs are used
by cellular systems to identify the home system of a cellular telephone
and by cellular telephones to determine their roaming status. 47 CFR
22.941. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to no longer consider SIDs
as a term of the cellular license and to remove the requirement in
Sec. 22.941 of its rules that cellular licensees notify the Commission
of the use of additional SIDs. The Commission proposed to retain
portions of that rule that provide that a cellular system may transmit
another system's SID only if that system consents to such use.
34. The Commission concludes that it is not necessary in the public
interest to retain the current cellular SID rules as set out in Sec.
22.941 of its rules as there is no public policy rationale that SIDs
must be a term of cellular authorizations. There are no SID rules for
PCS, SMR, or other CMRS, and this administrative function is carried
out successfully within those radio services by the private sector
without Commission involvement. Further, the Commission removes the SID
rule in its entirety, including the ``consent for use'' portion of the
rule (i.e. allowing the usage of another system's SID only pursuant to
consent). The Commission finds no reason to retain a portion of the
rule or intervene when the private sector has shown, as in the case of
PCS, for example, that it is capable of coordinating these types of
administrative functions on its own. For the reasons stated above, the
Commission is eliminating the SID rule in favor of administration of
this function by the private sector. In eliminating this rule, the
Commission must take certain steps to provide a smooth transition of
the SID administration function to the private sector. These steps
include identifying a party or parties to administer the function,
transitioning the Commission's SID database to the party(s), and
publicizing the change to the cellular industry. Therefore, the
Commission authorizes and directs the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau to take all necessary steps to privatize this function.
H. Determination of Cellular Geographic Service Area
35. Section 22.911(a) of the Commission's rules sets forth a
standardized method for determining the CGSA of a cellular system. A
system's CGSA is defined as the geographic area served by the system,
within which that system is entitled to protection and adverse effects
are recognized for the purpose of determining whether a petitioner has
standing. See 47 CFR 22.99. Cellular licensees must provide the
Commission with certain technical parameters describing each cell site
that makes up the external boundary of its system. These technical
parameters (latitude, longitude, height above average terrain, and
power), or in some cases, an alternative study, are used to determine
the service area boundary (SAB) for each cell site. In this vein, the
[[Page 77182]]
geographic area within the aggregated SAB contours of a system
(excluding areas outside the market boundary) is its CGSA. The method
for determining the CGSA uses a general mathematical formula to
calculate distances from the cell site along the cardinal radials to
the SAB of each cell in the system. See 47 CFR 22.911, 22.912.
36. Section 22.911(b) provides, however, that any cellular licensee
may apply for a modification of its licensed CGSA if it believes that
the standard method produces a CGSA that is substantially different
from the actual coverage of its system. In adopting this alternative
approach for calculating the CGSA, the Commission stated that
alternative showings would only be accepted where the change to the
CGSA is substantial and justified by unique or unusual circumstances,
or where the SAB formula is clearly inapplicable. When preparing to
file an application requesting such a modification, the licensee must
employ alternative methods (actual measurements, more accurate
prediction models or a combination of the two) to determine the
location of the median 32 dBuV/m field strength contour and the
distances along cardinal radials to that contour. In describing how
these distances to the median 32 dBuV/m contours must be used to
determine the CGSA, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Sec. 22.911 use
the term SAB in several places. In the Commission's experience, this
occasionally leads licensees to believe that they may employ the
alternative methods to determine an SAB, as opposed to the CGSA, and
then to use that ``alternate'' SAB in connection with various other
rules such as the SAB extension rule or the traffic capture protection
rule. In the NPRM, the Commission sought to clarify that the SAB of a
cell derived using the standard method and the 32 dBuV/m contour that
is used when preparing an alternative CGSA determination are different
and not interchangeable. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to reword
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Sec. 22.911 to replace the word
``SAB'' with ``32 dBuV/m contour.''
37. The Commission adopts the rule clarification as proposed. In
setting out the standard method, the Commission sought to establish a
method that would simplify and remove a measure of uncertainty from the
process of calculating and plotting CGSAs. The Commission sought to
prevent disagreements between parties and the Commission regarding the
accuracy of methods used by parties to predict or measure actual
coverage for a particular location or terrain. Although there may be
certain situations in which it may not represent actual coverage as
closely as other methods, the standard formula provides a simple and
consistent method by which to calculate cellular system coverage. The
Commission's decision to clarify Sec. 22.911(a) is consistent with its
original intent in limiting the scope of alternate CGSA showings, i.e.,
to expedite Commission processing of applications, thereby avoiding
delays in the provision of cellular service to the public. The
Commission does not foreclose, however, the ability of carriers in
adjacent markets to agree to the use of an alternative propagation
method, or to enter into contract agreements, pursuant to Sec. 22.912,
to allow SAB extensions calculated using the standard method into the
other carrier's CGSA. The Commission believes that a process that
affords carriers flexibility and permits parties to enter into
contractual agreements will expedite service to subscribers, in
comparison to a more protracted process whereby parties must present
and argue the merits of conflicting engineering studies before the
Commission.
I. Service Commencement and Construction Periods
38. Section 22.946, which sets out construction requirements
relating to the deployment of new cellular systems, was previously
amended in the Commission's Universal Licensing System proceeding. See
In the Matter of Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of parts 1, 13,
22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules
to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing
System, WT Docket No. 98-20, Report and Order, 63 FR 6894 (Dec. 14,
1998) (ULS Report and Order). In implementing the ULS Report and Order,
however, a table entitled ``H-1--Commencement of Service,'' was
inadvertently deleted from Sec. 22.946. Because certain information in
the table was out-dated, the Commission proposed to correct Sec.
22.946 by re-inserting the table, and to reflect updated information.
The Commission also proposed to delete the final phrase of Sec.
22.946(b), which prohibits cellular system licensees from
``intentionally serv[ing] only roamer stations.''
39. As consumers now have numerous mobile telephony offerings from
which to choose, the concern regarding lack of competition no longer
exists. Accordingly, the Commission will remove the provision that
prohibits service only to roamer stations. Further, after the
Commission adopted the NPRM, it issued a Report and Order in WT Docket
No. 97-112 regarding cellular service in the Gulf of Mexico. See In the
Matter of Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services
in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 97-112, Amendment of part 22 of
the Commission's Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of
Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify
Other Cellular Rules, CC Docket No. 90-6, Report and Order, 67 FR 9596
(March 4, 2002). In that proceeding, the Commission amended Sec.
22.946 to reflect construction requirements for licensees in the Gulf
of Mexico. Because it was necessary to amend Sec. 22.946 to add the
Gulf of Mexico construction requirements, the Commission decided to re-
insert the inadvertently omitted Table H-1 at that time. The Commission
notes that Sec. 22.946 was amended to re-insert Table H-1 after the
comment period in this proceeding had run, and that no one filed
comments opposing that correction to this rule section.
J. Incidental Services Rule
40. Section 22.323 of the Commission's rules authorizes carriers to
provide other communications services incidental to the primary public
mobile service, provided certain conditions are met. In general, Sec.
22.323 requires carriers providing incidental services to protect
mobile subscribers by ensuring that: (1) The costs and charges of
subscribers not wishing to use incidental services are not increased as
a result of the carrier's provision of incidental services to other
subscribers; (2) the quality and availability of primary public mobile
service does not materially deteriorate; and (3) provision of such
incidental services is not inconsistent with the Communications Act of
1934 or the Commission's rules and policies. 47 CFR 22.323. In the
NPRM, the Commission proposed to eliminate these conditions, and sought
comment on whether it should also remove the remaining provision (i.e.,
the statement that incidental services are permitted) as it applies to
some or all part 22 services.
41. In a related matter, the NPRM also sought comment on FreePage
Corporation's (FreePage) request that Sec. 22.323 be amended to
include the ``Limited Program Distribution Service'' (LPDS) service
proposed by FreePage as an ``incidental service.'' In February 2000,
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sought comment on a petition for
rulemaking filed by FreePage requesting that the Commission amend Sec.
22.323 to permit paging licensees to use their assigned channels to
transmit audio programming of interest to a
[[Page 77183]]
narrow or specialized audience. Possible services cited by FreePage
included, without limitation, children's programming, foreign language
programming, and reading services for persons who have sight
disabilities.
42. In the NPRM, the Commission invited comments on whether
spectrum assigned to CMRS licensees could be used for the LPDS service
proposed by FreePage. In particular, the Commission sought comments
addressing whether the service proposed by FreePage is in fact a
broadcast service, and, therefore, whether it would need to change
existing spectrum allocation and service rules to permit LPDS service
in spectrum assigned to CMRS licensees. More generally, the Commission
also requested comments on what effects, if any, the implementation of
FreePage's LPDS proposal would have on other authorized service
offerings or services proposed in pending Commission rulemaking
proceedings. Finally, the Commission solicited comments from members of
the disability community regarding how they might benefit from a
revision of the Commission's rules that would permit use of the
spectrum for programming to narrow or specialized audiences.
43. The Commission agrees with commenters that the imposing of
conditions on the provision of incidental services by part 22 licensees
is no longer necessary. Section 22.323(a) imposes the condition that
the costs and charges to subscribers not wishing to receive incidental
services may not be increased as a result of the provision of
incidental services to other subscribers. Because of the competitive
wireless environment, however, CMRS licensees are not subject to
federal rate regulation and are not permitted to file tariffs with the
Commission. Under these circumstances, the Commission concludes that
this rate restriction is unnecessary, as any dissatisfied subscriber
will have the option of switching to a competing carrier. The
Commission further concludes that there is no reason to retain the
remainder of the rule in the absence of those conditions. The
Commission recognizes that some commenters advocated that it retain
this portion of the rule on the grounds that having an express
provision for incidental services codified in the rules is helpful in
demonstrating to state commissions that certain services must be
treated as CMRS exempt from state and local regulation of rates and
entry.
44. With respect to FreePage's request to include a provision in
Sec. 22.323 that LPDS is an incidental service within the meaning of
the rule, the Commission denies the request but grants alternative
relief as follows. First, the Commission finds that it is unnecessary
to determine whether FreePage's LPDS service constitutes an incidental
service because FreePage may provide any form of fixed or mobile
service under a part 22 authorization, provided only that its service
does not constitute broadcasting. Second, to the extent FreePage's
intended service offering constitutes broadcast service, the Commission
finds that it is in the public interest to provide FreePage with the
flexibility to provide its LPDS service pursuant to the terms of a
developmental authorization. The Commission therefore directs
Commission staff to waive the allocation if necessary in order to
process the developmental license. Accordingly, FreePage may file an
application for developmental authority with the Commission, which will
be processed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau pursuant to the
regulations set forth in Sec. 22.401 of the Commission's rules. The
Commission believes that a developmental license will afford FreePage
the opportunity to assess consumer demand for its LPDS service
offering.
K. Cellular Anti-Trafficking Rules
45. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that Sec. Sec. 22.937,
22.943, and 22.945 were originally adopted to prevent speculation and
trafficking in cellular licenses that were awarded by random selection.
Because the Commission is now required to resolve mutually exclusive
applications for initial cellular licenses through competitive bidding,
it proposed to eliminate or substantially modify rule Sec. Sec.
22.937, 22.943, and 22.945 as they are now unnecessary and no longer
serve the public interest.
46. In adopting Sec. 22.937, the Commission stated that it was
requiring applicants to show financial qualification because of the
large capital investment required to finance the complex and
sophisticated technology associated with cellular operations. The
Commission noted that cellular service was viewed as a relatively high-
cost business venture because the service was still at an early stage
of development. The Commission concludes that Sec. 22.937 is no longer
necessary as a general matter because the cellular radiotelephone
service has matured and there are two authorized cellular carriers in
all MSAs and virtually all RSAs. The Commission's cellular rules have
been amended to permit interested parties to file applications for any
areas not serviced by cellular carriers after the expiration of the
applicable build-out period, and such applications are now subject to
competitive bidding. Although it proposed to retain Sec. 22.937 in the
context of comparative renewal proceedings, the Commission finds that
the rule is not necessary. The Commission has the authority to seek
financial qualification information in a comparative renewal proceeding
if it so chooses. The Commission therefore eliminates Sec. 22.937 in
its entirety.
47. The Commission similarly concludes that Sec. 22.943 should be
removed as unnecessary. The Commission's anti-trafficking rules were
developed to deter speculation on cellular licenses. In setting out the
anti-trafficking rules, the Commission sought to balance the public
interest in liberal transferability of licenses with a means to deter
insincere applicants from speculating on unbuilt facilities.
Accordingly, the Commission proposed to eliminate Sec. 22.943 to the
extent that it prohibits trafficking in cellular licenses and precludes
unserved area licensees from assigning or transferring an authorization
until they have provided service to subscribers for at least one year.
The Commission noted that the cellular service-specific anti-
trafficking rule set out in Sec. 22.943 may be unnecessary and
duplicative as there are similar provisions in part 1 of its rules that
are applicable to all wireless services.
48. While Sec. 22.943 was useful in deterring speculation during
the time period in which it used lotteries to select licensees, the
Commission now uses competitive bidding to resolve mutual exclusivity.
Mutually exclusive applications for licenses in other CMRS are also
required to be resolved through the use of competitive bidding. Yet in
those cases, the Commission does not impose service-specific anti-
trafficking rules, or mandate specific holding periods prior to
assignment or transfer of licenses acquired through competitive
bidding. Accordingly, the Commission eliminates the portions of Sec.
22.943 that prohibit trafficking in cellular licenses, and that require
carriers who acquired unserved area licenses to provide service to
subscribers for at least one year before such licenses may be assigned
or transferred. The Commission further finds that the cellular service-
specific anti-trafficking rule set out in Sec. 22.943 is unnecessary,
given the presence of the anti-trafficking provisions of Sec.
1.948(i), which is applicable to all services. See 47 CFR 1.948(i).
49. The Commission's conclusion to remove service-specific anti-
trafficking provisions of Sec. 22.943 extends to Sec. 22.943(c),
which states that it will not
[[Page 77184]]
accept applications for consent to assign or transfer a cellular
authorization acquired by a current licensee for the first time as a
result of a comparative renewal proceeding until the system has
provided service to subscribers for at least three years. See 47 CFR
22.943(c). The Commission noted in the NPRM that it would leave intact
portions of Sec. 22.937 relating cellular renewal proceedings, but
requested comment on whether to retain Sec. 22.943(c). Although Sec.
22.943(c) also relates to cellular renewals, it is nonetheless an anti-
trafficking provision and should be removed as duplicative of rule
Sec. 1.948(i).
50. Similarly, because Sec. 22.945 was adopted for the sole
purpose of preventing lottery system abuses, the Commission's
obligation to resolve mutual exclusivity through competitive bidding
also makes this rule unnecessary. An applicant filing more than one
application for a specific unserved area under the current rules would
have no advantage over other applicants seeking authorization to serve
the same geographic area.
L. Other Rule Changes Recommended by Commenters
51. In the NPRM, the Commission not only sought comment on its
specific proposals, but also invited comment on whether it should
modify any additional provisions of its part 22 rules as a result of
competitive or technological developments.
1. Overhaul of the Unserved Area Licensing Rules
52. Section 22.941 sets forth the ``unserved area'' licensing
process for the cellular service. Certain carriers recommend that the
Commission replace the unserved area licensing process. 47 CFR 22.941.
In general, the commenters point out that the current site-by-site
approach requires pre-approval each time a licensee wishes to expand
its system. Proposals by two of the commenters favor a one-time process
that licenses the remaining unserved areas, so that pre-approval of
future expansions is no longer necessary. One recommendation proposes
that the Commission abandon the per-application approach of the
unserved area rules and instead: (1) Automatically incorporate areas of
50 square miles or less into the CGSAs of the first-authorized
incumbent adjoining the unserved area; and (2) open a filing window for
all unserved areas exceeding 50 square miles, resulting in either the
incorporation of the unserved area into the incumbent carrier's CGSA,
or an auction among mutually exclusive applicants. Another proposal
recommends eliminating filings for unserved areas of less than 50
square miles that are completely surrounded by an incumbent's CGSA
(i.e., the incumbent is the only one eligible under the rules to file
an application), while another recommends that incumbents should be
able to cover unserved areas of less than 50 square miles on a
secondary basis without having to obtain prior Commission approval.
53. The Commission declines to adopt such changes. Suggestions made
by commenters constitute a fundamental change to its cellular service
licensing model, and, as such, are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
The Commission also notes that under its current process, the
Commission receives approximately 40 unserved area applications each
month, disposing of each usually within 45-60 days. Given that so few
unserved area applications are filed with the Commission today and are
processed quickly, it questions whether the burdens on all licensees of
a major overhaul at this point warrants any corresponding benefits. In
considering the wisdom of making significant changes within the
cellular unserved licensing context, the Commission would need to
identify an alternative approach that is administratively efficient,
less complicated than the current approach, represents an improvement
over the status quo in terms of speed of licensing and convenience for
licensees, and continues to provide small as well as large carriers
with reasonable opportunities to serve currently unserved areas. Given
that the current system results in little administrative delay, the
Commission does not find that commenters have done so. Moreover,
commenters have failed to adequately address construction, interference
protection, and market structure issues that would need to be addressed
under a new processing regime. The Commission believes that a more
complete record must be developed before any Commission action is
warranted.
2. CGSA Expansion Notifications
54. One commenter seeks to remove the requirement that licensees
notify the Commission of each CGSA expansion for markets within the
initial five-year construction period. Currently, Sec. 22.165(e)
requires licensees to notify the Commission within 15 days of expanding
their CGSAs, even during the initial five-year construction period.
Cellular licensees are free to construct facilities anywhere within
their markets without the possibility of competing applications during
the initial construction period. The proposal would have the Commission
require the licensee to file a system information update at the end of
the five-year period, i.e., identify the areas that are served and
unserved in preparation for the unserved area Phase I process.
55. The Commission agrees that generally it and other licensees
have no interest in knowing the precise location of an initial
licensee's CGSA until the end of the initial five-year period. At that
point, the CGSA must be a matter of record available to potential Phase
I unserved area applicants as well as the Commission's staff in order
to process the unserved area applications. Presently, there are only
eleven cellular markets that are still within the initial five-year
construction period. In addition, the Commission will soon issue
initial licenses in three of the remaining RSAs. Even though very few
licensees will be in a position to take advantage of this change, the
Commission will revise the rule substantially as requested. Therefore,
the Commission will revise Sec. 22.165(e) to require licensees in
their initial five-year build-out period to notify the Commission of
cell sites making up their CGSAs once yearly on the anniversary of
license grant, rather than requiring licensees to file notifications
within 15 days of initiating service at each site. The Commission
concludes that revising this requirement to provide for an annual
reporting obligation will minimize unnecessary regulatory burdens for
initial cellular licensees while providing a reasonably up-to-date
source of data for other cellular licensees and Commission staff.
3. Contract Extension Clarification
56. Section 22.912 of the Commission's rules provides that any SAB
extensions into an adjacent carrier's CGSA requires the consent of the
adjacent carrier. One commeter requested the Commission to clarify
that, in the case where an adjacent carrier has already consented to
analog SAB extensions into its CGSA, a separate agreement is not
required in order to extend the SAB of a digital signal into the CGSA
so long as it does not exceed boundary established by the initial
analog agreement. The Commission clarifies that its rules do not limit
the scope of private, contractual agreements between cellular licensees
in this case. To the extent that a carrier enters into an agreement
that provides for extensions of both analog and digital signals into an
adjacent carrier's CGSA, the Commission's rules
[[Page 77185]]
do not require separate notification to the Commission of such
extensions; a single notification of the scope of that extension will
be adequate notice.
III. Administrative Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
57. The actions taken in this Report and Order have been analyzed
with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No.
104-13, and found to impose no new or modified recordkeeping
requirements or burdens on the public.
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM.
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are
discussed below. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
59. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress added sections
11 and 202(h) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requiring
the Commission to (1) review biennially its regulations that pertain to
the operations or activities of telecommunications service providers,
and (2) determine whether those regulations are no longer necessary in
the public interest as a result of meaningful economic competition. 47
U.S.C. 11(b). Following such review, the Commission is required to
modify or repeal any such regulations that are no longer in the public
interest. Accordingly, as part of the Commission's year 2000 Biennial
Review of regulations, the Report and Order amends part 22 of the
Commission's rules by modifying or eliminating various rules that have
become outdated due to technological change, increased competition in
the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) market, or supervening
rules.
60. In particular, the Report and Order removes the cellular analog
requirement after a five-year transition period and requires reports by
certain CMRS licensees and other entities showing the level of access
to mobile telephony had by persons with hearing disabilities or those
using emergency-only phones. The Report and Order also removes the
manufacturing requirements governing Electronic Serial Numbers (ESNs)
in cellular telephones, as well as modifying several other technical
rules. In the same vein, the Commission found some of the cellular
anti-trafficking rules to be outdated because they were adopted during
a period when the Commission resolved mutually exclusive applications
for initial cellular services through lottery, rather than the current
system of resolving such mutually exclusive applications through
competitive bidding. The Commission also reevaluated certain other part
22 rules that apply both to cellular and to other CMRS, specifically
Sec. 22.323, which imposes conditions on the provision of
``incidental'' services by Public Mobile Services providers.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
61. Although the Commission received numerous comments in response
to the NPRM, it received no comments in response to the IRFA. However,
as described below, the Commission nonetheless considered potential
significant economic impacts of the rules on small entities.
62. Analog Compatibility Requirement. Although the comments suggest
that elimination of the analog requirement would not affect the
majority of wireless consumers that are already using digital service,
some commenters contend that there are particular classes of consumers
and service providers that would be harmed by elimination of the rule.
These commenters focus particularly on the possibility that, if the
rule were eliminated, cellular carriers in major markets would be
likely to drop analog service in those markets to provide more capacity
for their digital systems. Commenters argue that, at the very least,
the requirement should be eliminated only after a transition period.
The unavailability of analog service in these markets, commenters
contend, would have an adverse impact on the following groups:
63. Small and regional carriers. Small and regional carriers argue
that, if the analog requirement is eliminated, they will be forced to
transition from solely analog services to digital in order to ensure
that their customers will have service outside of their home market, as
well as to continue to provide roaming service to customers of the
large nationwide carriers. They argue that eliminating the analog
requirement will force them to bear the financial burden of immediately
converting to digital, regardless of consumer demand within their
particular markets. Further, these commenters assert that a decision to
adopt any particular digital technology will be dictated by a small/
regional carrier's larger roaming partner. Moreover, commenters argue
that, in certain areas, a small or regional licensee may be positioned
between major markets whose licensees have chosen incompatible digital
technologies, forcing it to choose between roaming partners and
multiple digital standards in the absence of analog technology. These
commenters argue that, in the absence of interoperable digital
technology, the analog requirement should not be eliminated.
64. Analog-only consumers. It is estimated that there are
approximately 26 million analog-only subscribers. These include
consumers who use analog-only handsets because their carriers do not
provide digital service (mainly rural cellular carriers) as well as
subscribers who have purchased 911-only mobile phones. Remaining
analog-only users are non-subscribers, such as certain elderly or
victims of domestic violence, who have received recycled analog
equipment for use for emergency purposes. Presently, a customer using
analog-only equipment can roam on other cellular networks in the event
the consumer is outside of his/her home market. Commenters argue that
these cellular customers would lose the ability to roam with their
current analog-only handset if the analog standard is eliminated and
both carriers within a given area shut down their analog networks.
65. Telematics. Telematics services providers have, for the most
part, relied on analog technology to ensure interoperable
communications nationwide. Telematics advocates assert that analog
service is vital, due to the ambulant nationwide nature of telematics
technology. It is argued that digital systems cannot yet transmit both
voice and data on the same call, a feature that commenters argue is
important for telematics providers. These commenters assert that the
interoperability problem is particularly difficult for telematics
devices because manufacturers must choose a technology that is embedded
in a vehicle that will have a useful life of ten or more years.
Moreover, these providers assert that, unlike the typical cellular
subscriber who can readily switch to digital handsets if necessary, the
development cycle (the length of time necessary to design equipment,
test, and install in compatible vehicles) and hardware basis of
telematics-equipped vehicles prevents users of such services from
quickly and easily migrating to a new technology. These providers argue
that telematics devices are imbedded into vehicles in such a
[[Page 77186]]
way as to make it cost prohibitive to retrofit legacy vehicles with
analog-based equipment. Given the development cycles and life spans of
such vehicles (often longer than ten years), commenters argue that the
immediate elimination of the analog rule would be a setback for
telematics providers and their customers. Instead, certain telematics
providers argue that if the analog requirement must be eliminated, the
industry must be given a reasonable transition period, and suggest that
such a transition period would be ten years.
66. Persons with hearing disabilities. Persons with hearing
disabilities desiring to use wireless devices must currently rely on
analog service or the small number of digital phones that are currently
compatible with only certain hearing aids. Unlike analog handsets,
digital technologies have been shown to cause interference to hearing
aids and cochlear implants. Accessibility advocates and those with
hearing disabilities note that market forces (e.g. need for spectrum
efficiency, enhanced services such as wireless data) make a shift to
digital technology inevitable. These commenters argue that at this
point, however, due to the lack of hearing aid-compatible digital
equipment, persons with hearing disabilities must rely on analog
equipment to access mobile telephony, thereby settling for inferior
sound quality, fewer service options, and higher prices. Commenters
argue that, because persons with hearing disabilities account for only
a small percentage of mobile telephony users, there are not sufficient
economic incentives for carriers to expend resources to ensure that
these individuals have access to wireless service. Accessibility
advocacy groups maintain that the analog requirement should not be
eliminated (if at all) until new digital services are accessible and
readily available to persons with hearing disabilities.
67. Electronic Serial Number. Numerous commenters support the
proposal to remove Sec. 22.919. Commenters agree that the industry is
capable of developing anti-fraud measures on its own and that the rule
prevents carriers from deploying advanced technologies such as smart
cards. One commenter, however, supports elimination of the detailed
design requirements in the rule, but would keep the requirement that
cellular telephones have a unique ESN. Further, two other commenters
argue that removing the ESN rule would be disruptive to other aspects
of cellular service. Alternatively, another commenter supports the
Commission's proposal, but does so because it believes that it should
be legal to clone cellular telephones (in particular, as a small
business activity) for customers who are already legitimate cellular
subscribers, as opposed to those who are not subscribers.
68. Channelization Requirements. A majority of the commenters
addressing this issue support the Commission's proposal. One commenter,
however, opposes the elimination of the channelization plan rule prior
to the elimination of the analog service requirement, stating that some
cellular carriers might start providing analog service using a
different and incompatible analog channel plan, which would leave some
subscribers without roamer service. Another commenter also opposes
removal of the channelization plan because it believes that the rule
provides a legal basis for ``frequency protection'' from adjacent
systems using digital technologies.
69. Modulation Requirements and In-band Emissions Limitations. The
Commission received a number of comments supporting various aspects of
its proposal to a number of technical specifications for, inter alia,
the performance of audio filter and deviation limiter circuitry in
analog cellular telephones, and adjustment of the modulation levels in
analog cellular telephones. One commenter states that Sec. 22.915
should be eliminated because the rule's requirements are specific to
the AMPS analog compatibility standard, and, as such, are contrary to
the goal of allowing carriers to implement the technologies of their
choice, and stifles the development of technologically advanced
systems. Certain commenters, however, object to the specific language
the Commission proposed for the out-of-band emission limit measurement
rule in Sec. 22.917. These parties point out that implementation of
the measurement resolution bandwidth specified in the proposed rule
would have the effect of imposing a stricter out-of-band emission limit
than that which currently applies. A few commenters submitted
alternative language which more accurately reflect the Commission's
intended goal of harmonizing certain procedures in the wireless
communications services (WCS), personal communications services (PCS)
and cellular services.
70. Wave Polarization Requirement. A majority of the commenters
addressing this issue generally support relaxation of the rule
requiring electromagnetic waves radiated by transmitters to be
vertically polarized because of the technical flexibility it will
provide cellular carriers. One commenter notes that flexibility in
polarization is beneficial in order to reduce multipath fading and to
improve signal quality, while another points out that eliminating the
vertical polarization requirement will permit carriers to reduce the
antenna space needed on towers, thereby benefiting carriers as well as
the public by fostering more aesthetically pleasing antenna sites,
reducing the number of antennas required at a particular site (thereby
reducing the need for local zoning clearance in many cases), permitting
collocation of multiple carriers' facilities on the same tower, and
reducing site deployment costs.
71. One commenter, however, objects to relaxing the rule on the
basis that non-vertical antenna polarization could result in reduced RF
coverage for its end users and impair telematics' ability to provide
geographic location information for emergency services. Specifically,
the commenter notes that it utilizes analog cellular technology to
provide location-based telematics service offerings, such as automatic
crash notification, through systems embedded in vehicles of certain
automobile manufacturers. Likewise, another commenter objects to
relaxing the requirement because of the ``isolation'' it provides to
cellular systems from co-channel and adjacent-channel transmitters.
72. Assignment of System Identification Numbers. Commenters
generally support the proposal to eliminate the procedures and rules
set forth in Sec. 22.941 by which the Commission administers cellular
system identification numbers (SIDs). The commenters agree that there
is no regulatory purpose in retaining SIDs as a term of cellular
licenses. As commenters point out, there are no SID rules for PCS, SMR,
or other CMRS, and this administrative function is carried out
successfully within those radio services by the private sector without
Commission involvement.
73. Determination of Cellular Geographic Service Area. Several
cellular carriers oppose the Commission's intent to clarify the
language in Sec. 22.911(b) regarding the term ``SAB'' (service area
boundary) in situations in which a carrier employs alternative methods
to calculate the CGSA of its system. One commenter advocates that the
Commission in fact allow alternative propagation methods to be used for
evaluating signal extensions into adjacent systems, in lieu of the
formula in Sec. 22.911(a), and another commenter argues that when a
carrier has determined its CGSA by use of an alternative method, it is
``illogical
[[Page 77187]]
and inconsistent'' to require that cell SABs be used for all other
purposes.
74. Incidental Services Rule. Commenters generally agree that the
Commission should modify Sec. 22.323 of its rules that permits
carriers to provide other communications services incidental to the
primary public mobile service. Commenters, on the other hand, believe
that the provision in Sec. 22.323 that states that incidental services
are permitted should be retained. Several of the carriers addressing
this issue point out that an express provision for incidental services
is helpful in demonstrating to state commissions that certain services
must be treated as CMRS exempt from state and local regulation of rates
and entry.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which the
Rules Will Apply
75. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
76. This Report and Order results in rule changes that could affect
small businesses that currently are or may become Cellular
Radiotelephone Service providers that are regulated under subpart H of
part 22 of the Commission's rules. In addition, changes to Sec. 22.323
of the Commission's rules could affect service providers that are
regulated under any provisions of part 22 of the Commission's rules.
These include, in addition to Cellular Radiotelephone Service
providers, providers of Paging and Radiotelephone (Common Carrier
Paging), Air-Ground Radiotelephone, Offshore Radiotelephone, and Rural
Radiotelephone services. In addition, pursuant to Sec. 90.493(b) of
the Commission's rules, paging licensees on exclusive channels in the
929-930 MHz bands are subject to the licensing, construction, and
operation rules set forth in part 22. See 47 CFR 90.493(b). As this
rulemaking proceeding may apply to multiple services, the Commission
analyzes the number of small entities affected on a service-by-service
basis. In addition to service providers, some of the proposed rule
changes may also affect manufacturers of cellular telecommunications
equipment. The Commission will include a separate discussion regarding
the number of small cellular equipment manufacturing entities that are
potentially affected by the proposed rule changes.
77. Cellular Radiotelephone Service. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for small businesses in the category ``Cellular
and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' 13 CFR 121.201, North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 513322. Under that SBA
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve firms from a total
of 1,238 cellular and other wireless telecommunications firms operating
during 1997 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve
of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular
carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition,
the Commision notes that there are 1,807 cellular licenses; however, a
cellular licensee may own several licenses. According to the most
recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 806 carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service, PCS, or
SMR telephony services, which are placed together in that data. See
Trends in Telephone Service, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier
Bureau, Table 5.3--Number of Telecommunications Service Providers that
are Small Businesses (August 2001). The Commission has estimated that
323 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
Accordingly, based on this data, the Commission estimates that not more
than 323 cellular service providers will be affected by these revised
rules.
78. Paging. The Commission has adopted, and the SBA has approved, a
two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning
licenses in the paging services. Under this definition, a small
business is defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $3 million, or (2) an entity
that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than
$15 million. See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Third Report, FCC 98-91(rel. June
11, 1998). The Commission has estimated that as of January 1998, there
were more than 600 paging companies in the United States. In the August
2001 Trends in Telephone Service data, 427 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging service; 407 of
these firms identified themselves as having 1,500 or fewer employees.
The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these
carriers that are not independently owned and operated or meet the
small business thresholds set forth above, or the number of these
carriers that are regulated under part 22 of the Commission's rules,
and thus is unable at this time to estimate with precision the number
of affected paging carriers that would qualify as small business
concerns under its definition. However, the Commission estimates that
the majority of existing paging providers qualify as small entities
under its definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there
are up to approximately 600 currently licensed small paging carriers
that may be affected by the rule changes set out in the Report and
Order. Further in December 2001, 182 bidders placed high bids for 5,323
geographic area paging licenses in Auction No. 40. Applications remain
pending as of the release of this Report and Order. Thus, in addition
to existing licensees, the rule changes adopted in the Report and Order
could affect paging licenses won in Auction No. 40.
79. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not
adopted a definition of small business specific to the Air-Ground
radiotelephone service. Accordingly, the Commission uses the SBA
definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 24
licensees in the Air-Ground radiotelephone service, and the Commission
estimates that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition.
80. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not
used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering
the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are less than ten licensees in
this service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small
business specific to the Offshore Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly,
the Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to radiotelephone
companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500
[[Page 77188]]
persons. The Commission assumes that all licensees in this service are
small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
81. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). The Commission
therefore uses the SBA definition applicable to radiotelephone
companies; i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There
are approximately 100 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service,
and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition.
82. Cellular Equipment Manufacturers. Some of the actions adopted
in the Report and Order will also affect manufacturers of cellular
equipment. The Commission does not know how many cellular equipment
manufacturers are in the current market. The 1997 Economic Census
provides that there were 1,089 communications-related equipment
manufacturing companies as of 1997. This category includes not only
cellular equipment manufacturers, but television and AM/FM radio
manufacturers as well. Under SBA regulations, a ``radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing''
company, which includes not only U.S. cellular equipment manufacturers
but also firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and
other communications equipment as well as electronic components, must
have a total of 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
business concern. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220. Although the exact
number is unknown, the number of cellular equipment manufacturers is
considerably lower than 1,089. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
Census, Manufacturing Subject Series, at Table 3--Detailed Statistics
by Industry: 1997, NAICS code 334220 (October 2000).
83. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband PCS
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has
created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity
that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three
previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small business size
standard for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an
entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues
of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.
These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS
auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the
SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for
licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that
qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93
``small'' and ``very small'' business bidders won approximately 40% of
the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the
Commission reauctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 48
small business winning bidders. Based on this information, the
Commission concludes that the number of small broadband PCS licensees
will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying
bidders in the D, E, and F blocks plus the 48 winning bidders in the
re-auction, for a total of 231 small entity PCS providers as defined by
the SBA small business standards and the Commission's auction rules. On
January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in
this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
84. The Commission will require that, (1) three years from the
effective date of this order and (2) four years from the effective date
of this order, certain CMRS licensees and other entities file reports
with the Commission. In the reports, the carrier must either certify
that, within their own markets, there are, at the time of filing,
hearing aid-compatible digital devices available to and usable by
persons with hearing disabilities for use with that carrier's digital
network, or, if no such equipment is available at the time of filing,
describe the extent to which, by the end of the fifth year, digital
equipment will be available to and usable by persons with hearing
disabilities, and describe how the public is being informed of their
availability. If upon review of the filings, the Commission determines
that significant problems remain regarding access to mobile telephony
by persons with hearing disabilities, the Commission may find that the
analog requirement will be removed only for technologies where hearing
aid-compatibility solutions are available, or that the sunset period
will be extended for all carriers. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered.
85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
86. Because several commenters argued that certain entities, such
as persons with hearing disabilities and small and regional carriers,
may be harmed by the immediate removal of the analog requirement, the
Commission instituted a five-year transition period to ease the
transition to digital technology. By establishing this five-year
transition period, the Commission takes account of the potentially
smaller resources available to small entities.
87. The Report and Order concluded that several of the Commission's
technical and anti-trafficking cellular rules are outdated. Therefore,
modifying or eliminating these rules should decrease the costs
associated with regulatory compliance for cellular service providers,
provide additional flexibility in manufacturing cellular equipment, and
also enhance the market demand for some products. Also, amending the
incidental services rules will allow licensees in the part 22 services
greater flexibility in the types of services they offer. The Commission
notes that the intent underlying its actions is to lessen the levels of
regulation, consistent with its mandate for undertaking biennial
reviews. The Commission has therefore described, supra, actions
intended to lessen the regulatory burden on carriers and equipment
manufacturers, including small entities.
88. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
Report and Order, including the associated FRFA, in a report to be sent
to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
Report and Order, including the associated FRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report
[[Page 77189]]
and Order and associated FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
IV. Ordering Clauses
89. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f),
303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, the rule
changes specified below are adopted.
90. The rule changes set forth below will become effective February
18, 2003.
91. Certain commercial mobile radio service carriers and other
entities must submit reports regarding access to mobile telephony
services by emergency-only consumers and persons with hearing
disabilities at one and two years prior to the sunset of the rules
requiring cellular carriers to provide analog service compatible with
Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS) specifications.
92. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is authorized to carry
out such actions necessary to transfer the administration of cellular
system identification numbers as identified herein.
Synopsis of the Second Report and Order
I. Background
93. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify various general
cellular service requirements set out in Sec. 22.901 of the
Commission's rules. First, the Commission proposed deleting current
Sec. 22.901(d), which addresses alternative cellular technologies.
Because the rule is drafted as though the principal cellular technology
is analog technology, the Commission therefore proposed deleting
current Sec. 22.901(d) and adding the following language to the
introductory paragraph of the rule: ``In providing cellular services,
each cellular system may incorporate any technology that meets all
applicable technical requirements in this part.''
94. The Commission also proposed deleting certain Sec. Sec.
22.901(a) and 22.901(b) of its rules. Section 22.901(a) requires that
cellular licensees provide subscribers with information regarding the
service area of the cellular provider. The Commission sought comment on
whether there is any material difference between the service-area-
related information provided by cellular providers in comparison with
other providers of CMRS services. The NPRM also requested comment on
whether, in light of the current level of competition in the provision
of CMRS services, such a requirement is still necessary to ensure that
consumers have access to service-area-related information. Section
22.901(b) requires the cellular licensee to notify the Commission in
the event that a subscriber's request for service is denied due to lack
of cellular system capacity. See 47 CFR 22.901(b). The Commission
proposed removing this requirement, noting that the rule does not
provide any mechanism for ameliorating any instance of a lack of system
capacity. The Commission also explained that, given the current level
of competition, consumers who are denied service by a particular
provider due to lack of capacity will be very likely to have other
service options.
95. Further, the Commission proposed deleting the first sentence of
the introductory paragraph, which provides that ``Cellular system
licensees must provide cellular mobile radiotelephone service upon
request to all cellular subscribers in good standing . . . .'' 47 CFR
22.901. The Commission also proposed removing the specific reference in
the introductory paragraph that provides that a cellular system may
terminate service when a subscriber ``operates a cellular telephone in
an airborne aircraft.''
II. Discussion
96. First, the Commission concludes that the competitive state of
the mobile telephony market renders unnecessary both Sec. 22.901(d) to
the extent it characterizes certain technologies as ``primary'' or
``alternative'' as well as the first sentence in the introductory
paragraph of Sec. 22.901 to the extent it requires licensees to
``provide cellular mobile radiotelephone service upon request to all
cellular subscribers in good standing.'' The Commission deletes the
existing text of Sec. 22.201(d) (which implies that analog is the
principal technology in use). The Commission adds a technologically-
neutral statement to Sec. 22.901: ``In providing cellular services,
each cellular system may incorporate any technology that meets all
applicable technical requirements of this part.'' Further, the
Commission finds that the statement in the introductory paragraph about
provision of service to ``cellular subscribers in good standing'' is
unnecessary because, even in the absence of this rule, cellular service
providers, like all common carriers, are required to comply with
sections 201 and 202 of Title II of the Act. Those sections require
cellular carriers to provide service upon reasonable request, to have
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations that are just and
reasonable, and to avoid unjust or unreasonable discrimination in their
charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or
services. Further, the Commission notes that there are no other
comparable rule requirements placed on other CMRS licensees.
97. Second, the Commission finds that it is no longer necessary to
require cellular carriers to provide subscribers with information
regarding the service area of the provider and therefore delete Sec.
22.901(a). While the Commission agrees that consumers should have
access to information about carriers' service areas prior to purchasing
wireless services, as well as while using the services, it finds that
cellular carriers, as well as PCS and digital SMR carriers are already
making this information available at retail outlets, as well as via the
internet. The Commission notes that PCS and digital SMR providers are
doing so without any comparable regulatory requirement, presumably
because consumers demand this information. Notably, the Commission
believes the rule is no longer necessary because, even in the absence
of the rule, cellular carriers will continue to make this information
available while marketing their services in today's competitive
marketplace.
98. Third, the Commission finds that the current level of
competition renders unnecessary the provision in Sec. 22.901(b) that
carriers must notify the Commission in the event that a subscriber's
request for service is denied due to lack of capacity. As a threshold
matter, the Commission is unaware of any cellular licensee having filed
such a notification with the Commission. The Commission notes that
carriers must provide sufficient capacity for analog service in
instances where it is required. In fact, revised Sec. 22.901(b)(2)
states in part that ``[c]ellular licensees must allot sufficient system
resources such that the quality of AMPS provided, in terms of
geographic coverage and traffic capacity, is fully adequate to satisfy
the concurrent need for AMPS availability.'' The Commission believes
that this rule provision, combined with the choices of wireless
services available to consumers today, will ensure that consumers of
analog services will continue to receive adequate service even in the
absence of the notification requirement.
99. Finally, the Commission concludes that it is unnecessary to
retain the provision in the introductory paragraph to Sec. 22.901
stating that a carrier may terminate service to a customer who operates
a cellular telephone while on board an airborne aircraft. The
Commission finds that there is no basis to retain this provision
[[Page 77190]]
because its rules already explicitly prohibit operation of cellular
telephones on board airborne aircraft, and a cellular licensee would be
within its obligations under sections 201 and 202 of the Act in
terminating the service of customers who violate the Commission's
rules. Further, such a rule could be misinterpreted to limit a cellular
or other CMRS licensee's ability to terminate service to customers in
the case of other types of rule violations. Therefore, the Commission
finds that an express condition regarding airborne operation is
unnecessary and potentially confusing to licensees.
III. Administrative Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
100. The actions taken in the Second Report and Order have been
analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law No. 104-13, and found to impose no new or modified recordkeeping
requirements or burdens on the public.
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
101. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in
the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are
discussed below. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
102. As part of the Commission's year 2000 Biennial Review of
regulations, the Second Report and Order amends part 22 of the
Commission's rules by modifying or eliminating various rules that have
become outdated due to technological change, increased competition in
the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) market, or supervening
rules.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
103. A number of commenters argue that certain portions of Sec.
22.901 should be removed as outdated, duplicative, and unnecessary.
Other commenters, however, argued that the Commission should retain the
requirement in Sec. 22.901(a) requiring cellular licensees to provide
service area a information to potential customers. They argue that
consumers require access to this information in order to make sound
choices when purchasing wireless services. Likewise, other commenters
urge the Commission to retain the requirement in Sec. 22.901(b)
requiring cellular licensees to notify the Commission in the event a
consumer's request for service is denied due to lack of capacity. They
argue that eliminating the rule may lead to cellular carriers not
providing sufficient capacity for analog services going forward.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Rules Will Apply
104. Cellular Radiotelephone Service. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for small businesses in the category ``Cellular
and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' 13 CFR 121.201, North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 513322. Under that SBA
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve firms from a total
of 1,238 cellular and other wireless telecommunications firms operating
during 1997 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve
of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular
carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition,
the Commision notes that there are 1,807 cellular licenses; however, a
cellular licensee may own several licenses. According to the most
recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 806 carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service, PCS, or
SMR telephony services, which are placed together in that data. See
Trends in Telephone Service, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier
Bureau, Table 5.3--Number of Telecommunications Service Providers that
are Small Businesses (August 2001). The Commission has estimated that
323 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
Accordingly, based on this data, the Commission estimates that not more
than 323 cellular service providers will be affected by these revised
rules.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
105. None.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
106. The Second Report and Order concluded that certain provisions
of Sec. 22.901 are unnecessary in light of meaningful economic
competition or technological advances. Therefore, modifying or
eliminating these provisions should decrease the costs associated with
regulatory compliance for cellular service providers, provide
additional flexibility in manufacturing cellular equipment, and also
enhance the market demand for some products.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
107. None.
108. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
Second Report and Order, including the associated FRFA, in a report to
be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of
the Second Report and Order, including the associated FRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy
of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will
also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
List of Subjects
47 CFR part 22
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment ,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR part 24
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the Preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 22 as follows:
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.
2. Section 22.165 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read, as
follows:
Sec. 22.165 Additional transmitters for existing systems.
* * * * *
(e) Cellular radiotelephone service. During the five-year build-out
period, the service area boundaries of the additional transmitters, as
calculated by the method set forth in Sec. 22.911(a), must remain
within the market, except that the service area boundaries may extend
beyond the market boundary into the area that is part of the CGSA or is
already encompassed by the service area boundaries of previously
authorized
[[Page 77191]]
facilities. After the five-year build-out period, the service area
boundaries of the additional transmitters, as calculated by the method
set forth in Sec. 22.911(a), must remain within the CGSA. Licensees
must notify the Commission (FCC Form 601) of any transmitters added
under this section that cause a change in the CGSA boundary. The
notification must include full size and reduced maps, and supporting
engineering, as described in Sec. 22.953(a)(1) through (3). If the
addition of transmitters involves a contract service area boundary
(SAB) extension (see Sec. 22.912), the notification must include a
statement as to whether the five-year build-out period for the system
on the relevant channel block in the market into which the SAB extends
has elapsed and whether the SAB extends into any unserved area in the
market. The notification must be made electronically via the ULS, or
delivered to the filing place (see Sec. 1.913 of this chapter) once
yearly during the five-year build-out on the anniversary of the license
grant date.
* * * * *
Sec. 22.323 [Removed]
3. Section 22.323 is removed.
4. Section 22.367 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(4) and by revising paragraph (d), to read as follows:
Sec. 22.367 Wave polarization.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(d) Any polarization. Base, mobile and auxiliary test transmitters
in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service are not limited as to wave
polarization. Public Mobile Service stations transmitting on channels
higher than 960 MHz are not limited as to wave polarization.
Sec. 22.377 [Amended]
5. Section 22.377 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
6. Section 22.901 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.901 Cellular service requirements and limitations.
The licensee of each cellular system is responsible for ensuring
that its cellular system operates in compliance with this section.
(a) Each cellular system must provide either mobile service, fixed
service, or a combination of mobile and fixed service, subject to the
requirements, limitations and exceptions in this section. Mobile
service provided may be of any type, including two way radiotelephone,
dispatch, one way or two way paging, and personal communications
services (as defined in part 24 of this chapter). Fixed service is
considered to be primary service, as is mobile service. When both
mobile and fixed service are provided, they are considered to be co
primary services. In providing cellular services, each cellular system
may incorporate any technology that meets all applicable technical
requirements in this part.
(b) Until February 18, 2008, each cellular system that provides
two-way cellular mobile radiotelephone service must--
(1) Maintain the capability to provide compatible analog service
(``AMPS'') to cellular telephones designed in conformance with the
specifications contained in sections 1 and 2 of the standard document
ANSI TIA/EIA-553-A-1999 Mobile Station--Base Station Compatibility
Standard (approved October 14, 1999); or, the corresponding portions,
applicable to mobile stations, of whichever of the predecessor standard
documents was in effect at the time of the manufacture of the
telephone. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the standard may be purchased from Global
Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112-5704
(or via the internet at http://global.ihs.com). Copies are available
for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(2) Provide AMPS, upon request, to subscribers and roamers using
such cellular telephones while such subscribers are located in any
portion of the cellular system's CGSA where facilities have been
constructed and service to subscribers has commenced. See also Sec.
20.12 of this chapter. Cellular licensees must allot sufficient system
resources such that the quality of AMPS provided, in terms of
geographic coverage and traffic capacity, is fully adequate to satisfy
the concurrent need for AMPS availability.
7. Section 22.905 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.905 Channels for cellular service.
The following frequency bands are allocated for assignment to
service providers in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service.
(a) Channel Block A: 869--880 MHz paired with 824--835 MHz, and
890--891.5 MHz paired with 845--846.5 MHz.
(b) Channel Block B: 880--890 MHz paired with 835--845 MHz, and
891.5--894 MHz paired with 846.5--849 MHz.
8. Section 22.911 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3), to read as follows:
Sec. 22.911 Cellular geographic service area.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The alternative CGSA determination must define the CGSA in
terms of distances from the cell sites to the 32 dBuV/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. * *
*
* * * * *
(3) The provision for alternative CGSA determinations was made in
recognition that the formula in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is a
general model that provides a reasonable approximation of coverage in
most land areas, but may under-predict or over-predict coverage in
specific areas with unusual terrain roughness or features, and may be
inapplicable for certain purposes, e.g., cells with a coverage radius
of less than 8 kilometers (5 miles). * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 22.915 [Removed]
9. Section 22.915 is removed.
10. Section 22.917 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.917 Emission limitations for cellular equipment.
The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of
emissions in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service.
(a) Out of band emissions. The power of any emission outside of the
authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the
transmitting power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log(P) dB.
(b) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution 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 the
measured power is integrated over the full required measurement
bandwidth (i.e. 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission
[[Page 77192]]
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.
(c) Alternative out of band emission limit. Licensees in this
service may establish an alternative out of band emission limit to be
used at specified band edge(s) in specified geographical areas, in lieu
of that set forth in this section, pursuant to a private contractual
arrangement of all affected licensees and applicants. In this event,
each party to such contract shall maintain a copy of the contract in
their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees or
transferees and, upon request, to the FCC.
(d) Interference caused by out of band emissions. If any emission
from a transmitter operating in this service results in interference to
users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater
attenuation of that emission than specified in this section.
Sec. 22.919 [Removed]
11. Section 22.919 is removed.
12. Section 22.921 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.921 911 call processing procedures; 911-only calling mode.
Mobile telephones manufactured after February 13, 2000 that are
capable of operating in the analog mode described in the standard
document ANSI TIA/EIA-553-A-1999 Mobile Station--Base Station
Compatibility Standard (approved October 14, 1999--available for
purchase from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness East,
Englewood, CO 80112), must incorporate a special procedure for
processing 911 calls. Such procedure must recognize when a 911 call is
made and, at such time, must override any programming in the mobile
unit that determines the handling of a non-911 call and permit the call
to be transmitted through the analog systems of other carriers. This
special procedure must incorporate one or more of the 911 call system
selection processes endorsed or approved by the FCC.
Sec. 22.933 [Removed]
13. Section 22.933 is removed.
Sec. 22.937 [Removed]
14. Section 22.937 is removed.
Sec. 22.941 [Removed]
15. Section 22.941 is removed.
16. Section 22.943 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.943 Limitations on transfer of control and assignment for
authorizations issued as a result of a comparative renewal proceeding.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the FCC does not
accept applications for consent to transfer of control or for
assignment of the authorization of a cellular system that has been
acquired by the current licensee for the first time as a result of a
comparative renewal proceeding until the system has provided service to
subscribers for at least three years.
(a) The FCC may accept and grant applications for consent to
transfer of control or for assignment of the authorization of a
cellular system that is to be transferred as a part of a bona fide sale
of an on-going business to which the cellular operation is incidental.
(b) The FCC may accept and grant applications for consent to
transfer of control or for assignment of the authorization of a
cellular system that is to be transferred as a result of the death of
the licensee.
(c) The FCC may accept and grant applications for consent to
transfer of control or for assignment of authorization if the transfer
or assignment is pro forma and does not involve a change in ownership.
Sec. 22.945 [Removed]
17. Section 22.945 is removed.
18. Section 22.946 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 22.946 Service commencement and construction systems.
* * * * *
(b) To satisfy this requirement, a cellular system must be
interconnected with the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and
must be providing service to mobile stations operated by its
subscribers and roamers. A cellular system is considered to be
providing service only if mobile stations can originate telephone calls
to and receive telephone calls from wireline telephones through the
PSTN.
(c) Construction period for specific facilities. The construction
period applicable to specific new or modified cellular facilities for
which a separate authorization is granted is one year, beginning on the
date the authorization is granted.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
19. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
20. Section 24.238 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.238 Emission limitations for Broadband PCS equipment.
The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of
emissions in the Broadband Personal Communications Service.
(a) Out of band emissions. The power of any emission outside of the
authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the
transmitting power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log(P) dB.
(b) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth
of 1 MHz or greater. However, 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 the
measured power is integrated over the full required measurement
bandwidth (i.e. 1 MHz 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.
(c) Alternative out of band emission limit. Licensees in this
service may establish an alternative out of band emission limit to be
used at specified band edge(s) in specified geographical areas, in lieu
of that set forth in this section, pursuant to a private contractual
arrangement of all affected licensees and applicants. In this event,
each party to such contract shall maintain a copy of the contract in
their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees or
transferees and, upon request, to the FCC.
(d) Interference caused by out of band emissions. If any emission
from a transmitter operating in this service results in interference to
users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater
attenuation of that emission than specified in this section.
[FR Doc. 02-31382 Filed 12-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P