Creation of Interstitial 12.5 Kilohertz Channels in the 800 MHz Band Between 809-817/854-862 MHz; Improve Access to PLMR Spectrum; Land Mobile Communications Council

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) updates its rules to provide new spectrum capacity and eliminate unnecessary restrictions in the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) bands, while reducing administrative burdens on applicants and licensees.

DATES:

Effective Date: December 27, 2018.

Compliance Date: Compliance will not be required for § 90.175(b) and (e) or for § 90.621(d)(4) until after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that compliance date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Public Safety licensee information: Brian Marenco, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0838, Brian.Marenco@fcc.gov.

Industrial/Business licensee information: Melvin Spann, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1333, Melvin.Spann@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order, FCC 18-143, adopted on October 19, 2018 and released on October 22, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The complete text of the order also is available on the Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. Additional Industrial/Business Pool Frequencies. Spectrum in the 450-470 MHz band is designated for use by various services, including part 74 Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), part 90 PLMR, and part 95 General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). Frequencies at or near the edges between part 90 spectrum and spectrum designated for other services currently lie fallow and have not been designated for use by any service because they could not be used without overlapping spectrum designated for an adjacent service. When the 450-470 MHz frequency designations were adopted, PLMR stations operated in wideband (25 kilohertz) mode. Since 2013, however, the Commission has required narrowbanding (maximum 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth or equivalent efficiency) by such PLMR licensees. The implementation of PLMR narrowbanding and the development of very-narrowband four kilohertz equipment now make it possible to use some frequencies near the band edges for PLMR systems without overlapping spectrum designated for other services. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission noted those developments and proposed to add certain frequencies near the band edges to the Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool frequency table. We now make available such frequencies where it would allow more efficient use of the spectrum without conflicting with other services.

2. Frequencies between BAS spectrum and PLMR spectrum. Currently, the 450.000-451.000 MHz and 455.000-456.000 MHz blocks are designated for use by BAS low power auxiliary stations (LPAS). The first assignable 450-470 MHz band frequency pair in the I/B Pool frequency table is 451/456.01875 MHz. No frequencies between 451.000/456.000 MHz and 451/456.01875 MHz are designated for use on a primary basis by any service.

3. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend the I/B Pool frequency table to add frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidths not exceed six kilohertz (the widest bandwidth that would avoid overlap between the frequency pairs). The Commission also sought comment on whether to add frequency pairs 451/456.000 MHz and 451/456.009375 MHz to the table, but it tentatively concluded this would not serve the public interest because (1) operation on 451/456.000 MHz would overlap BAS LPAS operations in the 450.000-451.000 MHz and 455.000-456.000 MHz bands; and (2) operation on 451/456.009375 MHz would preclude use of frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/445.0125 MHz in the same area, resulting in the addition of only one new frequency pair instead of two.

4. Based on the record before us, we make available to PLMR applicants additional frequencies that can be used without overlapping currently assignable frequencies and without causing harmful interference. Commenters support the proposal to add frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 to the I/B Pool table. Although the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) objects generally to authorizing frequencies between the BAS spectrum and PLMR spectrum due to concerns about interference, it directs its comments to the use of frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz, which overlaps the BAS band, rather than to channels spectrally separated from the BAS band. Consequently, we amend our rules to add to the I/B Pool frequency table frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidth not exceed six kilohertz.

5. We decline to add frequency pair 451/456.009375 MHz to the table, because use of this channel would conflict with frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz. Mobile Relay Associates, LLC (MRA) agrees that adding two frequency pairs—451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz—is more spectrally efficient than adding only one pair. Although some commenters argue that the decision whether to add two six-kilohertz channels or one eight-kilohertz channel in an area should be addressed in the frequency coordination process, we continue to believe that our goal—enhancing access to PLMR spectrum—is better served by adding two channels. This not only accommodates more users but encourages use of more efficient equipment.

6. We also decline to add frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz to the table. This channel would overlap with BAS LPAS spectrum. NAB concurs that it would not serve the public interest to designate for PLMR use a channel that overlaps BAS LPAS spectrum. It argues that spectrum overlap would result in interference to BAS LPAS operations in the 450.000-451.000 MHz and 455.000-456.000 MHz bands. According to NAB, this spectrum will be used increasingly by broadcasters because the broadcast incentive auction reduced the amount of spectrum available for BAS use in the 470-698 MHz band. MRA argues that PLMR operation on frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz with a four kilohertz bandwidth would not cause interference because of the small amount of spectral overlap into the 450.000-451.000 MHz and 455.000-456.000 MHz bands. Given the low power at which BAS LPAS devices operate and the difficulty in coordinating with itinerant BAS use (both geographically and spectrally), we conclude that authorizing PLMR operations that overlap BAS spectrum poses an unacceptable risk of harmful interference to BAS operations.

7. Frequencies between PLMR spectrum and GMRS spectrum. Currently, the last assignable I/B Pool frequency pair below 462/467.5375 MHz is 462/467.53125 MHz. GMRS frequencies begin with 462/467.550 MHz and end with 462/467.725 MHz. The first currently assignable I/B Pool frequencies after the GMRS blocks are 467.74375 MHz and 462/467.750 MHz. Frequencies between these I/B Pool frequencies and the GMRS channels are not designated for use by any service.

8. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend the I/B Pool frequency table to add frequency pairs 462/467.5375 MHz and 462/467.7375 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidth not exceed four kilohertz (the widest bandwidth that would avoid overlapping any GMRS frequencies). We conclude, based on the record before us, that it is in the public interest to make available to PLMR applicants additional frequencies that can be used without overlapping the occupied bandwidth of currently assignable frequencies and without causing harmful interference. Commenters addressing this proposal support it. We note, with respect to the concern of Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) that operation on the proposed frequency pairs not cause interference to GMRS operators, that the proposed channels do not overlap GMRS spectrum and that neither Motorola nor any other commenter has established that PLMR operations on frequency pairs 462/467.5375 MHz and 462/467.7375 MHz will interfere with GMRS operations.

9. Other undesignated 450-470 MHz frequencies. We decline to add any other currently undesignated 450-470 MHz frequency pairs to the I/B Pool frequency table. All of the frequency pairs added above are adjacent to an assignable I/B Pool channel on one side and to spectrum designated for another service on the other side, so these actions simply expand existing I/B Pool blocks to include unused adjacent spectrum.

10. We reject MRA's proposal to designate for general I/B Pool use certain 454/459 MHz frequency pairs that are surrounded on both sides by spectrum designated for other uses. In each case, the proposed frequency pair would be inserted between part 22 spectrum on one side, and channels designated for something other than general I/B Pool use on the other side. Unlike the 451/456 MHz and 462/467 MHz frequency pairs discussed above, none of these 454/459 MHz frequency pairs is adjacent on either side to unrestricted I/B Pool frequencies. MRA has not explained why designating these frequency pairs as PLMR channels is more efficient than allotting them for the same uses as any of the adjacent channels. Determining the best use for these frequency pairs requires a broader review than we have in the record before us. Commission staff is examining potential rule changes to promote efficient use of narrowband part 22 spectrum by increasing service, technical, and operational flexibility. We conclude that the disposition of the part 22-adjacent frequency pairs suggested by MRA is better addressed in a future rulemaking proceeding.

11. Interstitial Channels in the 800 MHz Band. We also create new opportunities for licensees by adding channel capacity in the heavily used 800 MHz Mid-Band, subject to certain protections designed to safeguard adjacent-channel incumbents from interference. The addition of these interstitial channels will enable licensees to take advantage of the increased availability of equipment that uses narrower bandwidth than the 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels historically used in the 800 MHz band, such as equipment used in the PLMR bands below 470 MHz and the 700 MHz public safety band. Thus, the Commission's narrowbanding proceeding required all 150-174 MHz and 450-470 MHz band PLMR licensees to narrowband their facilities to operate within a 12.5 kilohertz channel or with equivalent efficiency, and the 700 MHz narrowband allocation requires a spectrum efficiency of at least one voice path per 12.5 kilohertz of spectrum bandwidth.

12. In 2015, the Commission proposed to increase channel capacity in the 800 MHz Mid-Band by adding interstitial 12.5 kilohertz offset frequencies, or channels, between the existing 25 kilohertz channels in the band. The Commission requested comment on whether the introduction of interstitial channels would promote more effective use of the 800 MHz Mid-Band and asked what interference protection criteria should apply if interstitial channels were added to the Mid-Band. The Commission also requested comment on eligibility and licensing requirements and on authorized bandwidth and appropriate emission masks. In addition, the Commission sought comment on how the introduction of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) technology in to the Mid-Band could impact the establishment of interstitial channels. The Commission also proposed to make interstitial channels available for licensing in any National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) region only after 800 MHz rebanding is completed in that region and to announce by public notice when licensing of interstitial channels may begin in each NPSPAC region.

13. Most commenters support the addition of interstitial channels to the band, although commenters differed on how best to protect incumbents on adjacent channels from interference. In an attempt to develop a consensus to move forward, the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), which includes all of the part 90 frequency coordinators, proposed in its reply to comments to protect Mid-Band incumbents from adjacent-channel interference by using contour analysis in the frequency coordination process. Because LMCC filed its proposal during the reply comment phase of the proceeding, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively, the Bureaus) sought comment on the LMCC proposal in a public notice. Parties commenting in response to that public notice generally support the LMCC proposal. MRA, however, suggests certain modifications.

14. Availability of interstitial channels. We conclude that the introduction of 12.5 kilohertz offset interstitial channels to the 800 MHz Mid-Band will promote more efficient use of this portion of the 800 MHz spectrum. These channels will be made available for licensing by NPSPAC region. We direct the Bureaus to announce by public notice the date upon which applicants in each NPSPAC region may apply for interstitial channels.

15. We are persuaded by parties arguing that the new interstitial channels will leverage newer, more efficient narrowband technology to alleviate channel congestion and allow licensees in the 800 MHz Mid-Band to increase capacity. Data in the Commission's Universal Licensing System confirm that the Mid-Band is heavily used and that no standard channels are available in some major metropolitan areas. For example, there are no 800 Mid-Band channels available for application in the Interleaved Band, other than channels vacated by Sprint Corporation (Sprint), in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Houston. The Sprint-vacated channels are reserved for public safety for three years following completion of rebanding, however, and for public safety and critical infrastructure applicants for the subsequent two years.

16. Providing additional channels in the 800 MHz band is consistent with the Commission's view that “[t]he 800 MHz spectrum is essential to the future expansion of private land mobile systems.” In many areas of the country, potential applicants have few, if any, options for initiating new service. In those areas, both the 800 MHz “standard” 25 kHz channels and channels in the VHF and UHF bands already are licensed to other parties. Cellular service is not a viable option because it lacks the “one-to-many” message capability inherent in PLMR systems, i.e., the ability of a dispatcher to transmit the same voice message simultaneously to multiple radios. The availability of 800 MHz interstitial channels thus benefits those entities with critical communications needs that they are unable to satisfy using already occupied 800 MHz standard channels or channels in other bands. For public safety entities, this is a particularly important benefit because the ability to communicate reliably with first responders is critical to the health, safety, and welfare of the public at large.

17. We agree with commenters that suggest that potential applicants should not have to wait until the Commission announces the completion of band reconfiguration before interstitial channels become available for licensing in that region. Instead we will use the termination of the application freeze in a NPSPAC region as the trigger for the Bureaus to announce the availability of interstitial channels in a region. That means interstitial channels will be available in all regions except the five bordering Mexico. This will reduce the time required to make interstitial channels available because the Commission lifts the application freeze in a NPSPAC region once all licensees have re-tuned to their replacement channels rather than waiting for a formal declaration of rebanding completion.

18. We find the likely costs of implementing this approach to be modest. First, any increase in capacity, whether using 25 kilohertz standard channels or the new 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channels would require the deployment of new equipment. The record does not suggest that narrowband capability will add to the cost of equipment. Some base station transmitters and individual subscriber units (user radios) are already capable of operating on the interstitial channels without the need for new equipment authorizations from the Commission. Others, only certified for the 25 kilohertz standard channels, will have to obtain new certifications. The certifications are based on tests conducted by Commission-approved Telecommunication Certification Bodies. Whether to obtain a new certification and enter the market for 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channel-capable equipment is a business decision to be made by the equipment manufacturer. Given the well-established use of 12.5 kHz technology in the VHF, UHF, and 700 MHz PLMR bands and emission masks and authorized bandwidth limits, we believe that manufacturers would have strong financial incentive to update their equipment authorizations to take advantage of an expanded 800 MHz PLMR market.

19. We reject the argument that interstitial channels should not be introduced because it will make it more difficult for 800 MHz Mid-Band licensees to increase capacity by implementing wideband technology. The Commission's current rules permit 800 MHz Mid-Band licensees seeking to deploy wideband technology to aggregate up to five contiguous standard channels based on a showing that single channel bandwidth is inadequate. Given the high level of 800 MHz usage, however, we believe that there will be far fewer opportunities going forward to aggregate standard channels than there will be to use interstitial channels, particularly in the busiest markets. Consequently, we conclude that spectrum efficiency is better served by introducing interstitial channels. Moreover, to the extent that channel aggregation continues to be feasible, the rules we adopt today do not limit licensees' ability to aggregate channels.

20. We also reject the suggestion from the State of Florida that interstitial channels should be 25 kilohertz rather than 12.5 kilohertz as proposed. Florida supplied no study or technical data on the effects of using 25 kilohertz interstitial channels vs. 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channels. Florida's proposal would result in considerably greater spectral overlap between adjacent channels, thus requiring greater geographical spacing between interstitial and regular channels, with a consequent reduction in spectrum efficiency. Specifying 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channels rather than 25 kilohertz interstitial channels is more spectrum-efficient because most modern digital technologies do not require 25 kilohertz channels for satisfactory operation.

21. Potential interference costs imposed by interstitial channel implementation. Parties endorsing the adoption of interstitial channels contend that appropriate interference safeguards are essential to ensure that the new interstitial channels not interfere with 25 kilohertz channel operations. We agree. The contour protection standards we adopt in this Report and Order—similar to those suggested by LMCC—are conservative but not so restrictive that they would make implementation of interstitial channels infeasible. Thus, in the interest of interference avoidance, we decline to adopt the less stringent contour protection values recommended by MRA.

22. We disagree with parties that claim interstitial channels would cause interference, especially to adjacent-channel operations. In particular, we reject Boeing's claim that the proposed channels could cause interference to its wideband Class B signal boosters because such boosters operate on a secondary basis and thus are not protected against interference. Any new interference to a Class B booster that Boeing might receive could be remedied by replacing the Class B booster with a more selective Class A booster—a more spectrum-efficient alternative than not allowing interstitial channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band because of potential interference to secondary operations. Similarly, we see no cause to expect interstitial channels coordinated in accordance with the contour protection matrix we adopt today to be any less compatible with adjacent TETRA channels than with standard channels using other emission types.

23. In response to SouthernLINC's concern about the potential impact of interstitial channels on its Enhanced SMR (ESMR) operations, we clarify that interstitial channels will only be available for licensing below the dividing line between the 800 MHz Mid-Band and ESMR segments of the band, including in regions of the United States where the Commission adopted alternate channel plans with extended ESMR segments and reduced Mid-Bands. This is reflected in administrative clarifications to the headings of several tables in our rules, as suggested by SouthernLINC, to define more accurately the frequency range of the Mid-Band in portions of the country with extended ESMR segments.

24. Interference protection. We agree that the new interstitial channels will benefit licensees in the 800 MHz Mid-Band only if appropriate interference safeguards are adopted. These adjacent channel interference avoidance rules apply to applicants for either 12.5 kilohertz or 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. Adjacent-channel interference analysis is necessary to protect incumbents because the addition of interstitial channels to the 800 MHz Mid-Band will create greater spectral overlap between adjacent channels.

25. Most parties, including LMCC, submit that contour protection is the optimum methodology for avoiding mutual interference between interstitial channels and standard 25 kilohertz-spaced facilities. However, to lessen the burden on applicants, we have specified that contour analysis need not be applied to applications that meet or exceed the distances specified in the Commission's co-channel spacing rules. Those rules furnish adequate interference protection independent of the technology used by the applicant and the incumbent licensee. We agree with LMCC that a matrix is the clearest way of displaying the contour protection values appropriate to different technologies.

26. We also are persuaded by parties' arguments that contour overlap analysis generally has worked well as a method for assessing interference and that licensees are familiar with it. Moreover, because results are easily understandable and easily replicated, we believe that contour overlap analysis will minimize the potential for disputes over whether an applicant is likely to cause interference to an incumbent operator under our revised channel plan. Furthermore, no commenting party has proposed a viable alternative to contour overlap analysis for determining potential adjacent-channel interference.

27. LMCC suggests that we adopt a contour values matrix but not incorporate it into the Commission's rules, which LMCC believes would allow the matrix to be modified without the need for rulemaking. We set forth below the contour matrix values that we adopt, and do not incorporate them into part 90. We note, however, that the Administrative Procedure Act still compels us to adopt any such modifications only after public notice and comment. Should there be a need to modify the values shown below, e.g., to take newly developed technology into account, we will do so with dispatch in an expedited notice and comment proceeding.

28. LMCC proposes using the Commission's F(50,50) curves to assess both coverage and interference contours. Its rationale for deviating from the accepted procedure of using the F(50,50) curves for prediction of coverage and the F(50,10) curves for prediction of interference is not persuasive and is inconsistent with the Commission's rules respecting the calculation of interference to co-channel systems. Thus, the matrix we adopt retains the accepted approach for definition of coverage and interference.

29. We agree with MRA that a contour overlap analysis is unnecessary where four kilohertz, or less, technology is employed if there is no spectral overlap between the applicant's facilities and an incumbent's facilities operating on an adjacent channel, as this is consistent with our practice in other bands. We reject, however, MRA's proposal to use a 60 dBu interference contour for analysis of a four kilohertz narrowband applicant to an adjacent-channel 25 kilohertz TETRA incumbent system and to use a 40 dBu interference contour for analysis of a 25 kilohertz TETRA applicant to an adjacent-channel four kilohertz narrowband incumbent system. MRA has neither explained nor justified its proposed adjustments.

30. The Commission's 800 MHz rules currently require frequency coordinators to consider only co-channel spacing when recommending the most appropriate frequency for an applicant. We modify this requirement because of our addition of interstitial channels to the 800 MHz Mid-Band. Once interstitial channels become available for licensing in each NPSPAC region, frequency coordinators must verify compliance with the contour overlap protections when determining the most appropriate frequency for an applicant in that region. Frequency coordinators must also perform contour analysis to protect licensees outside the NPSPAC region that are sufficiently close to be affected by the new application. Potentially affected incumbents are those operating on an adjacent-channel at distances closer than those specified under the minimum co-channel spacing requirements.

31. LMCC suggested that 800 MHz Mid-Band applicants pass both a forward and a reciprocal contour analysis. We agree, because requiring reciprocal contour analysis will discourage applicants from filing applications that are of limited practical use but which block an incumbent on an adjacent channel from expanding its service contour once the new application is granted. Applicants may, however, file applications that cause contour overlap to an incumbent if each incumbent licensee that receives contour overlap provides its written consent. In its consent letter, the incumbent operator must agree to accept any interference that occurs as a result of the contour overlap, including the contour overlap that occurs as a result of the incumbent's interference contour overlapping the applicant's coverage contour. By allowing incumbents to accept contour overlap, we provide applicants the opportunity to present more granular studies to the incumbent licensee if an applicant believes that interference would not occur in practice despite the contour overlap. Applicants and incumbents have similar flexibility under our existing co-channel spacing rules.

32. Although APCO observes that the contour protection values advanced in this proceeding are untested and recommends that manufacturers of 800 MHz radios validate these values, it does not propose specific tests. Moreover, manufacturers have declined the invitation to validate the values. We find it significant that the values endorsed by LMCC and others arose from a consensus of frequency coordinators well versed in making coverage versus interference assessments. We note that previously, in similar contexts, we have accepted industry-recommended interference protection recommendations that have later been validated in the field. In particular, the Commission has for years used contour overlap analysis to provide interference protection between geographically proximate PLMR systems in various frequency bands licensed under part 90 of the rules. Accordingly, we believe that the contour protection values we adopt below will suffice to satisfy APCO's concerns but will revisit that determination if field experience shows otherwise.

33. Contour Matrix. Interference contour levels are determined using Table 1 or Table 2 below. Table 1 is used to determine the interference contour level of a fixed station operating on a 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth channel while Table 2 is used to determine the interference contour level of a fixed station operating on a 25 kilohertz bandwidth channel. The dBu level of the interference contour is determined by cross-referencing the modulation type of the station operating on the 25 kilohertz bandwidth channel with the modulation type of the station operating on the 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth channel. The interference contour should be plotted using the F(50,10) R-6602 curves.

34. Although no commenters specifically address the costs and benefits of adopting the protected contour approach, the record demonstrates that the costs of the Commission's requirements will be minimal. For example, the cost of frequency coordination may increase because the new interference criteria are more complex to apply than the previous criteria. Currently, frequency coordination fees are in the range of $300 per channel. Even if these fees were to increase substantially to accommodate the new interference criteria, they still would be nominal when viewed against the cost of equipment, which may cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

35. The Commission sought comment on the bandwidth and emission mask limits applicable to the interstitial channels. We adopt a maximum authorized bandwidth of 11.25 kilohertz and apply the limits of emission mask D to transmitters operating on the new interstitial 12.5 kilohertz offset channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band, as proposed. These parameters have worked well to limit interference in other PLMR bands, and commenting parties agree these limits are appropriate for licensees operating on interstitial channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. We update sections 90.209 (bandwidth limitations) and 90.210 (emission masks) of the Commission's rules accordingly.

36. We do not, however, change the technical specifications for transmitters designed to operate solely on the standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. As of the effective date of this Report and Order and Order, recognized Telecommunication Certification Bodies may accept applications for certification of transmitters designed to operate on the interstitial 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. Telecommunication Certification Bodies may certify a transmitter for operation on the interstitial channels only if that transmitter meets the authorized bandwidth and emission mask limits we adopt here as well as other pertinent part 90 technical specifications.

37. Eligibility issues. The Commission sought comment on eligibility criteria for the interstitial channels. As noted above, channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band currently fall into four eligibility pools or categories: General Category, Public Safety, Business/Industrial/Land Transportation (B/ILT), and high-site SMR. Each category is subject to specific eligibility criteria. The Commission requested comment on whether to assign eligibility for each interstitial channel based on the category of the lower-adjacent standard channel. The Commission also sought comment on whether public safety eligible entities should receive preferential or exclusive access to public safety category interstitial channels, particularly in markets where public safety licensees are required by the Spectrum Act to vacate the T-Band. The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) suggests that we provide a “preference for utilities to access the interstitial channels” and the Michigan Public Safety Frequency Advisory Committee (MPSFAC) recommends that we “grant public safety exclusive access” to the interstitial channels for “a period of at least five years.”

38. The Commission has already established standard channel allocations in the 800 MHz Mid-Band for General Category, Public Safety, B/ILT, and high-site SMR. No party has presented a compelling case for abandoning the current allocation of 800 MHz Mid-Band spectrum among the four usage categories. Although UTC and MPSFAC urge preferences that would benefit their constituencies, they have failed to show how the public interest would be advanced by so upsetting the allocation structure of the Mid-Band. By contrast, we agree with commenting parties that support linking eligibility for each interstitial channel to eligibility for the lower-adjacent standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channel. This reserves a set of interstitial channels for each of the four user categories in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. We retain that allocation and assign eligibility for each interstitial channel based on the category of the lower-adjacent standard channel as proposed in the 800 MHz Interstitial NPRM. We update our rules to reflect the addition of Mid-Band interstitial channels to each category or pool. As suggested by SouthernLINC, we also correct the headers to several tables in our rules listing pool channels. These updated headers more accurately reflect the frequency range of the Mid-Band in portions of the United States where there are extended ESMR segments.

39. In sum, we find that the existing reservation of channels as between the General Category, Public Safety, high-site SMR, and B/ILT classifications has proven equitable over time, and no party presents convincing evidence that it should be changed merely because interstitial channels are being introduced into the 800 MHz band.

40. For a three-year period, however, we afford priority access to 800 MHz Mid-Band interstitial channels to T-Band incumbents in the urban areas specified in section 90.303 of the Commission's rules. In this context, priority access means that if a T-Band licensee and another—non-T-Band—applicant timely file for the same frequency, and the frequency conflict cannot be resolved by the Commission-certified frequency coordinator, the frequency coordinator shall recommend the T-Band licensee's application to the Commission. To be eligible for priority, the T-Band incumbent licensee must commit to surrendering an equal amount of T-Band spectrum. Channels from the 470-512 MHz band will be counted on a one-for-one basis for 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth interstitial channels from the 800 MHz Mid-Band. Our action is similar to the Commission giving public safety T-Band incumbents priority access to the former Reserve Channels in the 700 MHz band.

41. Although the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council claims that interstitial channels will not provide “significant opportunities for relocation of T-Band operations in most T-Band areas” because applicants seeking to license interstitial channels must maintain geographic separation from incumbents operating on the standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels,” we agree with APCO that, even if the number of new interstitial channels in spectrum-congested markets will be “relatively small,” a limited preference can “provide partial relief for public safety licensees required to relinquish their T-Band spectrum.”

42. Finally, we find speculative Enterprise Wireless Alliance's (EWA's) warning of a “land rush” by what it considers “unqualified, entirely speculative applicants,” and reject its suggestion that the Commission “convene an industry meeting to address this matter” before any interstitial channels are made available. Bureau staff routinely reviews applications to verify qualifications. Should EWA or other parties identify specific instances of unqualified applicants, we will not hesitate to investigate, and, if warranted, deny their applications.

43. Licensing Additional 800 MHz Channels. In this section, we take actions to clear the way for licensing of 800 MHz channels in additional NPSPAC regions. First, we address a petition filed by LMCC that proposes filing priority for incumbent licensees to apply for 800 MHz Expansion Band (EB) and Guard Band (GB) frequencies before the frequencies are made available to new applicants. As explained below, we deny the request. This action permits the release of EB/GB channels in regions where licensing was deferred pending resolution of the petition. We also announce the completion of rebanding in additional NPSPAC regions, which will allow us to commence licensing those 800 MHz channels.

44. 800 MHz band incumbent priority. As part of 800 MHz rebanding, the Commission created the Expansion (815-816/860-861 MHz) and Guard (816-817/861-862 MHz) Bands as “buffers” to provide spectral separation between low-site commercial licensees operating cellular architecture systems above 817/862 MHz and high-site licensees operating below 815/860 MHz. Of the 40 EB channels, 28 are designated for SMR stations, and the remainder are designated for B/ILT Pool eligibles. The 40 GB channels are in the General Pool and thus are available for Public Safety, B/ILT, and SMR operations.

45. In 2014, LMCC petitioned the Commission to provide a six-month window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees in a market to acquire EB/GB channels to expand existing systems before accepting applications from new entrants. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt LMCC's suggestion in part: It proposed to provide a window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees in a market to acquire or expand coverage on the 12 EB B/ILT channels before accepting applications from new entrants. The Commission expected that these incumbent licensees were unlikely to acquire spectrum for other than operational purposes and would put additional channels into service promptly to meet existing needs. The Commission declined, however, to propose to afford incumbent priority for the 28 EB SMR channels.

46. EWA argues that SMR incumbents need channels to expand existing systems to meet customer demand, but most commenters agree with the Commission that SMR incumbents and new licensees have the same economic incentives to use the spectrum in a timely manner, so they should be treated similarly and 800 MHz SMR incumbents should not be afforded priority for EB SMR channels. We conclude that the success or failure of commercial services should be determined in the marketplace without affording certain competitors an undue regulatory advantage. Therefore, we decline to afford incumbent priority for EB SMR channels. In addition, we agree with the majority of commenters that filing priority also is not justified for 800 MHz incumbents seeking GB channels, because it will hamper or even bar new competitors and services in areas of high spectrum demand.

47. In addition, we decline to adopt the proposal to afford priority to 800 MHz incumbents for EB B/ILT channels. Commenters opposing the proposal argue that incumbent priority is not supported by any distinction between PLMR and commercial licensees (because all businesses compete for customers, and therefore all have an economic incentive to use spectrum effectively and efficiently), and that a preference for incumbents would contravene the Commission's general policy of assigning spectrum through mechanisms that do not favor some applicants over others. Even some commenters that support the proposal recognize that there is no more public interest in favoring incumbent B/ILT systems and services than in favoring incumbent SMR systems and services. We therefore conclude that we should treat incumbent priority for B/ILT and SMR systems equally and not provide for priority in either case. Because the 12 EB B/ILT channels constitute only 15% of the EB/GB channels and are already scarce in some areas, we agree with PLMR frequency coordinators that priority access for just this small portion of the spectrum would not provide sufficient relief for B/ILT incumbents to merit further complicating the already-complex 800 MHz licensing regime.

48. Finally, we are not persuaded by EWA's suggestion that we impose additional conditions on EB/GB licensees to deter warehousing and encourage spectral efficiency. To the extent that EWA's proposal applies to licensees that obtain EB/GB channels outside the six-month window proposed in the PLMR Access NPRM, EWA's proposal is beyond the scope of this proceeding, as is its suggestion that we amend section 90.617(g) of the rules to eliminate public safety applicants' priority for Sprint-vacated channels in the Interleaved Band. Moreover, as to future EB/GB applications, the Commission will enforce its construction deadline rules in the same manner as it enforces them in other parts of the spectrum.

49. Completion of 800 MHz band reconfiguration in certain NPSPAC regions. The Bureaus declare a NPSPAC region complete with 800 MHz band reconfiguration after (a) all licensees in the region have retuned their facilities to new frequencies assigned by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator, (b) all licensees in that region have ceased operating on their former frequencies, and (c) the incumbents' licenses have been modified to authorize operation on their new operating channels. Upon the completion of rebanding, the Bureaus (a) alert relevant stakeholders of the expiration of the interim interference criteria and full implementation of the interference abatement rules in sections 22.970(a) and 90.672(a) of our rules, and (b) announce when they will begin to accept applications for EB and GB channels and for any remaining channels in the interleaved segment of the band vacated by Sprint. The Transition Administrator has certified that band reconfiguration is complete and all licensees are now operating on their post-rebanding channels in 44 NPSPAC regions, the most recent being Regions 9 (Florida), 33 (Ohio), and 43 (Washington State). Therefore, the temporary waiver of the interference criteria in those regions has expired, and the minimum threshold levels specified in sections 22.970(a) and 90.672(a) are now in effect in those 44 regions.

50. We direct the Bureaus to announce by public notice the dates and procedures for submitting applications for EB/GB and vacated interleaved channels in those regions where rebanding is complete, and for EB/GB channels in those regions where EB/GB licensing was deferred pending the resolution of the LMCC request for incumbent priority.

51. Trackside Signal Boosters. As proposed in the PLMR Access NPRM, we modify our rules to permit railroads to use fixed trackside single-channel Class A signal boosters under certain conditions to increase rail safety by facilitating communication between the front and rear of trains. A signal booster is a device at a fixed location that automatically receives, amplifies, and retransmits, on a one-way or two-way basis, the signals received from base, fixed, mobile, and portable stations, with no change in frequency or authorized bandwidth. Section 90.219(d)(3) of our rules limits each retransmitted channel to five watts effective radiated power (ERP) to reduce the potential for interference to other users. Fixed use of frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band generally is permitted on a secondary basis to land mobile operations, but section 90.261(f) of the Commission's rules excludes certain frequencies in order to reserve them for other specialized uses, including railroad frequencies at 452/457.925 MHz to 452/457.96875 MHz.

52. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) to permit railroads to use fixed trackside single-channel Class A signal boosters with up to 30 watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.90625 to 452/457.9625 MHz in areas where coverage is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. It sought comment on whether it also should permit such operations on the channel pairs at the edge of the frequencies coordinated by the Association of American Railroads—452/457.9000 MHz and 452/457.96875 MHz.

53. Most commenters support the proposal. In addition, the Association of American Railroads submits that permitting such operations on frequencies 452/457.9000 MHz and 452/457.96875 MHz would increase the reliability of railroad safety and communications systems without causing interference to other users. The National Association of Manufacturers and MRFAC, Inc. (NAM/MRFAC), however, oppose use of higher power railroad signal boosters on these two channels, which overlap channels available to other users, due to concerns about interference in railroad yards or terminal areas near manufacturing plants. We conclude that NAM/MRFAC's concerns are misplaced. The proposed rule permits high-power trackside signal boosters only in areas where communication between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. This is an exception to the general limits on signal booster power, and does not authorize such operations in most areas, such as typical urban or industrial settings.

54. We conclude that permitting higher power railroad signal boosters will serve the public interest. On balance, the safety benefits of permitting the proposed signal boosters on the 452/457 MHz frequencies coordinated by Association of American Railroads outweigh the concerns that have been raised. Authorizing these operations may increase rail safety by helping facilitate communications between the front and rear end of trains. We accordingly amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) to permit railroad licensees to use single-channel Class A signal boosters with up to 30 watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.9000 MHz to 452/457.96875 MHz, but only in areas where communication between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and not in typical urban or industrial areas.

55. Conditional Licensing Authority. Pursuant to section 90.159(b) of the Commission's rules, most applicants proposing to operate a new or modified PLMR station on frequencies below 470 MHz that require frequency coordination may begin operating the proposed station 10 days after the application is filed and may continue to operate it for up to 180 days while the application is pending. This conditional authority is not available for applicants in the PLMR frequency bands above 470 MHz, where spectrum is available on an exclusive basis. When the Commission adopted this rule in 1989, it stated that it was restricting conditional authority to bands where frequencies are shared in order to be conservative, but that it might consider extending the concept to bands above 470 MHz based on its experience with the shared bands. To expedite deployment of communications facilities and reduce administrative burdens, we amend our rules to expand conditional authority to 700 MHz Public Safety narrowband and 800 MHz band PLMR applicants.

56. In its petition asking the Commission to expand conditional authority to T-Band, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz band PLMR applicants, LMCC argued that experience had demonstrated that expansion of conditional authority is now appropriate. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission agreed with LMCC and others that expanding conditional authority would enable more applicants to meet pressing communications requirements without seeking special temporary authority (STA) and would provide greater flexibility and earlier deployment of spectrum without compromising quality of service. Consequently, the Commission proposed to expand conditional authority to 800 and 900 MHz PLMR applicants and sought comment on whether to expand it to applicants for 700 MHz Public Safety narrowband frequencies. In response to comments from MRA, the Commission also asked whether any limitations or additional conditions should be imposed on conditional authority.

57. We agree with the commenters that expanding conditional authority is in the public interest and that we should no longer restrict conditional authority to bands below 470 MHz. We find that such authority will expedite deployment of communications facilities and reduce administrative burdens on licensees and the Commission, without increasing the risk of harmful interference. Accordingly, we amend section 90.159 to expand conditional authority to 800 MHz band (including the 800 MHz NPSPAC band) PLMR applicants, and we amend section 1.931 to provide an appropriate cross-reference. We also agree with the commenters that conditional authority would not create any different interference risk for 700 MHz Public Safety narrowband frequencies, so there is no reason to exclude those applicants from the benefits of conditional licensing. We amend the rules regarding 700 MHz Public Safety narrowband frequencies and 800 MHz band frequencies accordingly.

58. We do not expand conditional licensing to the T-Band band. Acceptance of applications for new or expanded T-Band operations has been suspended in order to maintain a stable spectral landscape while the Commission determines how to proceed with respect to that spectrum, which Congress has designated for reallocation and reassignment. Commenters addressing the question assert that conditional authority should be expanded to T-Band applicants notwithstanding the current application freeze. We conclude, however, that there is no reason to make any changes to the T-Band licensing rules as long as the freeze is in effect. For similar reasons, we decline to expand conditional licensing to the 900 MHz band at this time, in light of the licensing freeze recently adopted as the Commission explores whether any rule changes may be appropriate to improve spectrum efficiency or expand flexibility in the 900 MHz band in order to better serve PLMR users' current and future communications needs.

59. We deny LMCC's request that we modify the PLMR Access NPRM proposal to allow site-based SMR applicants to operate while an application is pending. Section 90.159 does not provide conditional authority for commercial mobile radio service applicants, and the PLMR Access NPRM did not propose to remove that limitation. When the Commission adopted that section, it specifically excluded SMR applicants because, unlike private mobile radio service applications, SMR applications require 30 days pre-grant public notice.

60. We also reject MRA's argument that conditional licensing should be limited to unopposed applications and that operations under conditional authority should be secondary to incumbent licensee operations. Other commenters, opposing MRA's suggestions, note that the frequency coordination process provides a safeguard against incompatible operations. As the Commission noted in the PLMR Access NPRM, our rules already permit modification or cancellation of conditional authority at any time without hearing if the need arises. We conclude, based on the record before us, that MRA's suggested changes to the conditional licensing rules are unnecessary and that individual incidents of interference can be addressed under our existing licensing and enforcement procedures.

61. We also decline the suggestion of the State of Florida to extend conditional authority beyond 180 days if the application remains pending. LMCC opposes Florida's proposal and encourages the Commission to enforce the 180-day limitation strictly. The Commission concluded in 1989 that 180 days is a reasonable period for conditional authorization because it corresponds with the Communications Act's 180-day limit on temporary authority. Expanding conditional licensing beyond 180 days would raise legal and policy issues that depart from Commission precedent and are not addressed in the current record. An applicant whose application is pending longer than 180 days must request and, if warranted, be granted special temporary authority if it wishes to continue operating.

62. Termination of the Freeze on Inter-Category Sharing in the 800 MHz Band. We also terminate the freeze on inter-category sharing put into effect in 1995 by WTB. Because of the changing use of the spectrum, the fundamental rationale behind the freeze no longer applies. In addition, elimination of the freeze will relieve burdens on applicants, which currently must request waivers, and the Commission, which must process them.

63. Ordinarily, an applicant is licensed on a frequency in the pool (General Category, Public Safety, B/ILT, or high-site SMR) for which it meets the eligibility criteria. However, the Commission's rules permit “inter-category sharing” in certain circumstances. An applicant eligible for licensing in the 800 MHz Public Safety Pool or B/ILT Pool may be licensed on channels outside of its pool if (a) a Commission-certified frequency coordinator certifies that no channels are available in the pool for which the applicant is eligible, and (b) the desired out-of-pool channel is available as certified by the out-of-pool channel coordinator. Formerly, the rules also permitted entities eligible for the SMR Pool or General Category Pool to obtain out-of-pool channels through inter-category sharing.

64. Because of a freeze on SMR applications on certain channels, by 1995, SMR applicants had obtained numerous inter-category sharing authorizations primarily for channels in the B/ILT Pool. This led B/ILT entities to file inter-category sharing requests for public safety channels. Concerned that this might lead to a shortage of public safety channels, WTB issued its “freeze order” suspending acceptance of applications proposing inter-category sharing in the 800 MHz band.

65. Over time, public safety began to use the 800 MHz band more intensely. This led to a shortage of public safety channels in some areas. Public safety agencies, unable to identify vacant public safety channels, began seeking waivers of the inter-category freeze to obtain channels in other pools. Appropriate waiver requests were routinely approved.

66. Discussion. We find the freeze on inter-category sharing is no longer necessary. The channel environment in the 800 MHz band has evolved over the last 20 years. The primary demand for channels is from public safety entities, many of which are constructing complex, multi-channel, statewide or county-wide systems. Public safety applicants' requests for waiver of the inter-category sharing freeze have without exception been granted, provided they satisfied the requirements of the inter-category sharing rule.

67. We envision no untoward effects from lifting the freeze. Applicants still must meet the prerequisites for inter-category sharing, and parties are still free to oppose a given inter-category sharing application. In the unlikely event that our action here results in difficulties similar to those that led to the institution of the 1995 freeze, we direct the Bureaus to reinstitute the freeze as necessary.

68. Termination of the freeze on inter-category sharing is procedural and therefore not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

69. Central Station Alarm Channels. Section 90.35 of the Commission's rules lists the frequencies that are available for assignment to I/B Pool stations and sets forth eligibility requirements and frequency-specific use limitations. Certain frequencies are reserved for the use of central station commercial protection services to maintain communications paths between alarm systems at customer premises and central station alarm monitoring centers. Except for five “primary” frequency pairs, these frequencies are limited to two watts output power. In the PLMR Access NPRM, the Commission noted that these channels were set aside for central station use 50 years ago, and it observed that this spectrum appeared to be underused. The Commission surmised that the need for these channels had diminished due to advances in other services and technologies that can be used to complete the communications path to the alarm service central office, such as cellular telephone, satellite communication services, and the internet. The Commission proposed to modify section 90.35(c) to make frequencies that currently are limited to central station alarm operations available for other uses, including ways to provide expanded PLMR access, the costs and benefits of such approaches, and how interference to incumbents might be prevented. We agree with the majority of commenters addressing the issue that central station channels should be made available for other uses.

70. Only The Monitoring Association (formerly the Central Station Alarm Association) argues generally that the use restriction on these channels should be retained. It asserts that the restriction should not be removed at this time because an increasing percentage of alarm systems will use wireless devices to relay signals to the central station, and millions of existing users are expected to transition to central station channels in response to the sunset of 2G cellular service and decommissioning of telephone land lines. We believe that access to additional frequencies to help relieve congestion affecting PLMR users can be provided while still meeting the needs of the alarm industry.

71. The reservation of these channels for central station commercial protection services reflected the Commission's approach to PLMR spectrum at the time, when what is now the I/B Pool was divided into multiple industry-specific services. The Commission subsequently consolidated the separate services into the I/B Pool to encourage more efficient use of the spectrum and to reduce administrative burdens. It recognized, however, that “some types of radio users employ radio not just for day-to-day business needs but also to respond to emergencies that could be extremely dangerous to the general public.” Rather than leave that spectrum designated for those industries' exclusive use, the Commission required entities applying for frequencies formerly allocated solely to the Railroad, Power, Petroleum, or Automobile Emergency Radio Services to obtain coordination or concurrence from the certified frequency coordinator for that service. That coordinator could deny coordination or concurrence where an application “would have a demonstrable, material, adverse effect on safety.” We find that this approach has worked well to expand access to PLMR spectrum while protecting safety-related communications. We further find that such a requirement would address The Monitoring Association's concerns that unrestricted sharing with other I/B Pool eligibles will result in interference to central station alarm systems.

72. Consequently, we amend sections 90.35(c), 90.175(b), and 90.267(f) of the Commission's rules to require entities other than central station commercial protection services to obtain the concurrence of the central station alarm channel frequency coordinator before they are permitted to use these channels. We conclude that this approach serves the public interest because it will make unused central station frequencies available for other PLMR operations while protecting central station operations.

73. Finally, The Monitoring Association and LMCC suggest that the Commission modify section 90.35(c)(64) of the Commission's rules to ease limitations on central station use of primary channels for data signaling, which The Monitoring Association argues will make the channels more useful for alarm services. We agree that the purpose of the rule permitting data signaling—to allow central station licensees to improve their systems' operating efficiency and to facilitate immediate communication with police and fire departments in emergencies—is no longer served by the current technical restrictions, which are 40 years old. We amend section 90.35(c) to ease limitations on central station use of primary channels for data signaling.

74. Editorial Corrections and Updates. In addition to the substantive proposals discussed above, the PLMR Access NPRM proposed to make certain corrections to section 90.35. The Commission received no comments regarding these proposals. As proposed, we restore two airports (Kahului and Ke-Ahole) to the list of airports at or near which certain frequencies are reserved for commercial air transportation services. These two airports were inadvertently deleted when the list was last updated. We also correct the coordinates for one airport (Boeing/King County International) that were listed incorrectly. In addition, we correct the entries in the I/B Pool table for frequencies from 153.0425 MHz to 153.4025 MHz for which the notation indicating that the concurrence of the Petroleum Coordinator is required was inadvertently deleted.

75. Procedural Matters. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.—As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the NPRMs. The Commission sought, but did not receive, written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small entities regarding the proposals addressed in the NPRMs, including comments on the IRFAs. The Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments in response to the proposed rule changes in these proceedings.

76. In the Report and Order and Order, we introduce new, full power, interstitial 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels to the 809-817/854-862 MHz band (800 MHz Mid-Band), subject to certain protections designed to minimize the possibility of interference between licensees operating on adjacent channels. We also amend section 90.35 of our rules to make available for PLMR use particular frequencies located between the Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool and either General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) or Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) spectrum, to allow wider use of some frequencies currently designated for central station alarm operations, and to make updates and corrections; amends section 90.159 of our rules to extend conditional licensing authority to applicants for site-based licenses in specific bands above 470 MHz; and amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) of our rules to accommodate certain railroad operations. In addition, we announce the completion of 800 MHz band reconfiguration in certain National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions, and terminate the freeze on inter-category sharing that was put into effect in 1995.

77. The following types of small entities may be affected by the rules adopted herein: Small businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions; private land mobile radio licensees; frequency coordinators; and radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing.

78. PLMR entities seeking licenses are required to obtain coordination from certain frequency coordinators as specified in section 90.175 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 90.175.

79. To date, frequency coordinators only needed to consider co-channel mileage separation requirements when coordinating applications for the 800 MHz band. We are amending our rules, however, to require frequency coordinators to perform a contour overlap analysis when coordinating applications for the 800 MHz Mid-Band in order to minimize the potential for adjacent-channel interference. For frequency bands below 512 MHz, frequency coordinators are required to analyze adjacent channel interference. Thus, we anticipate the burden and cost levels would be comparable to the existing contour overlap analysis in the below 512 MHz band, which OMB approved. In that case, the Commission estimated it would it would take a frequency coordinator one hour to perform a contour overlap analysis and provide a concurrence letter to an applicant at an in-house rate of $40 per hour. The Commission estimated that frequency coordinators would receive 2,500 requests for contour analysis per year for a total annual cost burden of $100,000.

80. In addition, we adopt rules in the Report and Order which allow equipment manufacturers to manufacture transmitters capable of operating on the new interstitial 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels provided their equipment satisfies certain bandwidth and emission mask limitations. Equipment manufacturers will be required to obtain a new equipment authorization or modify an existing equipment authorization when designing equipment intended to operate on the new offset channels. The Commission estimates that 22,250 FCC Form 731 applications are filed annually at an in-house cost to the equipment manufacturer of $500 per application resulting in a total annual cost burden of $11,125,000. We do not propose any substantive or material changes to the wording of this existing information collection. Instead, if equipment manufacturers chose to develop equipment capable of operating on the new 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels, then the number of respondents subject to the existing information collections could increase.

81. The Report and Order also requires entities not engaged in central station alarm operations that seek licenses for frequencies formerly reserved exclusively for central station alarm operations to obtain the concurrence of the Commission-certified frequency coordinator for those frequencies. It is estimated that no more than 1 hour of effort would be required to request and receive such concurrence. The number of such applicants or licensees that may be required to request such concurrence depends on future events and this is difficult of estimation. However, 200 such applicants or licensees may be affected.

82. In order to minimize the economic impact resulting from the rules we adopt today on small entities and other licensees in the 800 Mid-Band, we leave in place our existing licensing scheme and technical requirements for entities who seek to continue operating in the 800 MHz Mid-Band using 25 kilohertz bandwidth equipment. Thus, eligible entities will be permitted to continue applying to license facilities on standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band without needing to make changes to the 25 kilohertz bandwidth equipment they use today. Only entities who chose to operate on the newly established 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band will be required to employ equipment that conforms to the technical parameters we adopt in this Report and Order including bandwidth limitations and emission mask requirements.

83. Finally, in the Report and Order, we require all applicants, whether employing 25 kilohertz or 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth equipment, to comply with a contour overlap analysis when seeking to license channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. The contour overlap analysis is needed to minimize the potential for interference between licensees operating on adjacent channels. Nonetheless, we provide regulatory flexibility for this requirement by allowing applicants who cause contour overlap to obtain letters of consent from incumbent operators. By allowing applicants to obtain consent for contour overlap, we provide PLMR applicants with the opportunity to present more granular studies to incumbents if an applicant believes that interference would not be an issue in practice despite the contour overlap or for an incumbent operator to accept interference to portions of its service area where such interference would present no detriment to its operations.

84. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.—The requirements in revised section 90.175(e) and new section 90.621(d)(4) constitute new information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, and the requirements in revised section 90.175(b) constitutes a modified information collection. They will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought, but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We describe impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes more businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

85. Congressional Review Act—The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

86. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201(b), 303, 308, 316, 324, 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 303, 308, 316, 324, 332, 337, this Report and Order and Order is hereby adopted.

87. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's rules as set forth in Appendix B are adopted, effective thirty days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Sections 90.175(b) and (e) and section 90.621(d)(4) contain new or modified information collection requirements that require review by the OMB under the PRA. The Commission directs the Bureaus to announce the effective date of those information collections in a document published in the Federal Register after the Commission receives OMB approval, and directs the Bureaus to cause sections 90.175(k) and 90.621(d)(5) to be revised accordingly.

88. It is further ordered pursuant to sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155(c) that the suspension of the acceptance of applications for inter-category sharing of frequencies allocated to the 800 MHz Public Safety and Business/Industrial Land Transportations Pools imposed April 5, 1995, is hereby terminated.

89. It is further ordered that, if no petitions for reconsideration or applications for review are timely filed, the above-captioned proceedings shall be terminated and the dockets closed.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

• Administrative practice and procedure
• Civil rights
• Claims
• Communications common carriers
• Drug abuse
• Environmental impact statements
• Equal access to justice
• Equal employment opportunity
• Federal buildings and facilities
• Government employees
• Income taxes
• Indemnity payments
• Individuals with disabilities
• Investigations
• Lawyers
• Metric system
• Penalties
• Radio
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Telecommunications
• Television
• Wages

47 CFR Part 90

• Administrative practice and procedure
• Business and industry
• Civil defense
• Common carriers
• Communications equipment
• Emergency medical services
• Individuals with disabilities
• Radio
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Final Rules

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 90 as follows:

PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; Sec. 102(c), Div. P, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084; 28 U.S.C. 2462, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

3. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), 1401-1473.

4. Section 90.35 is amended by:

a. In paragraph (b)(3)—

i. Revising the entries for “153.035” through “153.410”;

ii. Removing two entries for “450 to 470” through “451.01875” and adding in their place four entries for “450 to 470” through “451.01875”;

iii. Removing two entries for “454.000” through “456.01875” and adding in their place four entries for “454.000” through “456.01875”;

iv. Removing two entries for “462.53125” through “462.750” and adding in their place four entries for “462.53125” through “462.750”; and

v. Removing two entries for “467.53125” through “467.74375” and adding in their place four entries for “467.53125” through “467.74375”.

b. Adding paragraph (c)(2);

c. Revising paragraphs (c)(61)(iv), (c)(63), and (c)(64) introductory text;

d. Removing paragraphs (c)(64)(i) through (vi), (ix), and (xi);

e. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(64)(vii), (viii), and (x) as (c)(64)(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; and

f. Revising paragraph (c)(66).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

5. Section 90.159 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), and (c) to read as follows:

6. Section 90.175 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (e) and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

7. Section 90.209 is amended by:

a. In the table in paragraph (b)(5)—

i. Removing the entry “809-824/854-869”;

ii. Adding entries for “809-817/854-862” and “817-824/862-869” in numerical order; and

iii. Revising footnote 6; and

b. Adding paragraph (b)(8).

The additions and revision read as follows:

8. Section 90.210 is amended in the table by revising the entry for “809-824/854-869” and footnote 5 to the table to read as follows:

9. Section 90.219 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

10. Section 90.261 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory text to read as follows:

11. Section 90.267 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(2) and (3) to read as follows:

12. Section 90.613 is amended by adding footnote 1 to the first table and revising the Channel No. entries for “231” to “550” in the table to read as follows:

13. Section 90.615 is amended by revising the introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

14. Section 90.617 is amended by revising Table 1 in paragraph (a) introductory text, Table 1A in paragraph (a)(2) and Table 1B in paragraph (a)(3); Table 2 in paragraph (b) introductory text, Table 2A in paragraph (b)(1) and Table 2B in paragraph (b)(2); Table 4B in paragraph (d) introductory text, Table 4C in paragraph (d)(1) and Table 4D in paragraph (d)(2); and adding paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as follows:

15. Section 90.619 is revised by amending Table C6 in paragraph (c)(6) introductory text, Table C7 in paragraph (c)(7), Table C8 in paragraph (c)(8) and Table C9 in paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:

16. Section 90.621 is revised by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: