Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
PTC-220, LLC, Request for Waiver to Facilitate 
Deployment of Positive Train Control Systems
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket 13-59
File Nos. 0005631265, 0005631266, 
0005631269, 0005631270, 0005631271, 
0005631272, 0005631282, 0005631284, 
0005631286, and 0005631289, and 
0006225216 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 13, 2015 Released:  March 13, 2015
By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address a Request for Waiver filed by PTC-
220, LLC (PTC-220),1 a joint venture of the nation’s seven Class I freight railroads.  PTC-220 has 
acquired substantial spectrum in the 220-222 MHz band (220 MHz Band) for the purpose of enabling the 
deployment of positive train control (PTC) safety systems by its members and other railroads in the 
United States.  PTC-220 requests a waiver of Section 90.729(b) (power and antenna height limits) and 
Section 90.723(f) (coordination requirements) of the Commission’s rules2 to facilitate the deployment of 
PTC systems in the upper one megahertz segment (221-222 MHz) of the 220 MHz Band.  For the reasons 
below, we find that the public interest will be served by grant of the Waiver Request, subject to conditions 
adopted herein to ensure that operations under the waiver do not cause harmful interference to operations 
of other 220 MHz Band licensees.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.  Pursuant to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 
2008 (RSIA), most freight, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads are required to install and operate 
interoperable PTC systems by December 31, 2015.3 Once implemented, PTC systems are intended to 
reduce the risk of rail accidents caused by human error, including train-to-train collisions, derailments 
caused by excessive speed, and unauthorized train movements in work zones.  PTC wireless 
communications networks are intended to enable real-time information sharing between trains, rail 
wayside devices, and control centers, regarding train movement authorities, speed restrictions, train 
consist, position, and speed, and the state of signal and switch devices.
  
1 PTC-220 Request for Waiver, filed February 1, 2013 (Waiver Request).  
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.729(b) and 90.723(f).
3 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, § 104, 122 Stat. 4848, 4857 (2008).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
2
3. PTC-220.  PTC-220 was formed to facilitate the development and deployment of 
interoperable PTC communications systems to benefit both freight and commuter railroads in the United 
States.  To serve this purpose, PTC-220 acquired licenses in the 220 MHz Band, including four 
nationwide licenses,4 six J Block licenses (which together form a de facto nationwide license),5 and six 
Economic Area E Block licenses.6 PTC-220 has leased its 220 MHz spectrum to the Southern California 
Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and other commuter railroads to enable their implementation of PTC 
systems, and plans to lease spectrum to other railroads for PTC implementation.7  
4. Waiver Request.  PTC-220 seeks, through the Waiver Request, to maximize the use of its 
220 MHz spectrum resources for its members and other railroads to implement PTC systems.  
Specifically, PTC-220 seeks a waiver of Section 90.729(b), which generally prohibits licensees from 
operating stations in the 221-222 MHz upper band segment with an effective radiated power (ERP) 
greater than 50 watts and with antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) higher than 7 meters.8  
Second, PTC-220 requests a waiver of Section 90.723(f), which requires coordination of certain Phase II 
220 MHz licensees’ facilities to ensure that frequencies are selected to avoid interference in the 220 MHz 
Band.9 On October 24, 2014, PTC-220 amended the Waiver Request to remove its six 220 MHz J-Block 
licenses,10 which it is assigning to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), and to add a nationwide 
220 MHz license (call sign WPWY753), which it is acquiring from AAR.11
5. Comments and Replies.  The Bureau placed the Waiver Request on Public Notice for 
comment on March 8, 2013.12 There is broad support for the Waiver Request.   The Association of 
American Railroads (AAR), whose members include major freight railroads and Amtrak,13 the Joint 
Council on Transit Wireless Communications (Joint Council), whose participants include commuter 
  
4 These licenses include two Phase I nationwide licenses (WPFR284 and WPFP444), one L Block nationwide 
license (WPOI701), and one M Block nationwide license (WPOJ271).  Licenses in the 220 MHz band resulting 
from applications filed on or before May 24, 1991 are referred to as Phase I licenses.  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.701(b).  
Phase I non-nationwide licensees were granted site-specific authorizations.  Licenses in the 220 MHz band resulting 
from applications filed after May 24, 1991 are referred to as Phase II licenses.
5 These licenses include call signs WPOI702, WPOI703, WPOI704, WPOI705, WPOI706, and WPOI708.
6 These licenses include call signs WPOJ279 (Rochester, MN-IA-WI), WPOJ280 (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-
IA), WPOJ281 (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA), WPOI774 (Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY), WPOI800 (St. 
Louis, MO-IL), and WPVL860 (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ).
7 Waiver Request at 21-22.  
8 47 C.F.R. § 90.729(b).
9 Waiver Request at 9-10, 15-17.  
10 These licenses include call signs WPOI702 (file no. 0005631281), WPOI703 (file no. 0005631278), WPOI704 
(file no. 0005631277), WPOI705 (file no. 0005631275), WPOI706 (file no. 0005631274), and WPOI708 (file no. 
0005631273). 
11 File Nos. 0006225158 (assignment of six J-Block licenses from PTC-220 to AAR), and 0006225216 (assignment 
of nationwide license from AAR to PTC-220).  Letter dated October 24, 2014 from PTC-220, et al. to Marlene 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 13-59 (October 24, 2014 Letter).
12 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Request for Waiver to Facilitate Deployment of  
Positive Train Control Systems, WT Docket 13-59, DA 13-364, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 2243 (WTB 2013).  
Comments were due on April 8, 2013, and replies were due on April 23, 2013.
13 AAR Comments, filed April 8, 2013.  AAR members include the major Class I railroads of the United States, 
Canada and Mexico, as well as smaller non-Class I and passenger railroads including Amtrak, rail supply 
companies, rail car owners, engineering firms, and signal and communications firms.  See
https://www.aar.org/Pages/AboutUs.aspx, website last visited March 12, 2015. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
3
transit agencies,14 SCRRA,15 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP, the nation’s largest railroad), all support 
the Waiver Request.16
6. Initially, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC), whose subsidiary 
NRTC LLC holds 220 MHz Band licenses,17 and Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI), whose wholly-owned 
affiliate PHI Service Company (PHISC) has obtained spectrum from NRTC LLC,18 expressed concern 
with the Waiver Request.  Subsequently, on October 24, 2014, NRTC, PHISC, and PTC-220 notified the 
Commission that they had executed a coordination agreement, containing specific procedures and 
requirements to address interference concerns related to the Waiver Request.19 NRTC and PHI withdrew 
their respective comments and affirmed their support of PTC-220’s Waiver Request.20
7. Two parties, rural electric cooperatives Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BEC) and 
Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Inc. (DEMCO) jointly oppose the Waiver Request.21  
III. DISCUSSION
8. In the discussion that follows, we first address PTC-220’s request for waiver of Section 
90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits.  We then address its request for waiver of Section 
90.723(f)’s coordination requirements.  Third, we address the comments of BEC and DEMCO.  
A. Conditional Waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s Power and Antenna Height Limits
9. For the reasons that follow, we hereby grant PTC-220 a conditional waiver of Section 
90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits to facilitate the deployment of PTC systems in the 221-222 
MHz band segment.  Our waiver of these limits is conditioned on specific measures to ensure that co- and 
adjacent channel licensees in the 220 MHz Band do not suffer harmful interference.  As detailed below, 
we will require PTC-220 to: (1) provide 30 days prior written notice to certain licensees of its intent to 
site a PTC base station taking advantage of the eased power and antenna height limits; (2) meet a 
predicted 38 dBu field strength at the license area’s border, unless all affected co-channel licensees agree 
  
14 Joint Council Comments, filed April 23, 2013.  The Joint Council is an alliance of professionals and transportation 
organizations created to represent surface land passenger transportation service operators nationwide within the 
United States on matters of wireless voice and data communications.  Id. at 3.
15 SCRRA Comments filed April 8, 2013. SCRRA is a Joint Powers Authority, consisting of five county 
transportation planning agencies: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Orange 
County Transportation Authority, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino Associated 
Governments and the Ventura County Transportation Commission.  Id. at 1. 
16 UP Comments, filed April 8, 2013.
17 NRTC Comments, filed April 8, 2013.  NRTC is a non-profit cooperative association representing the interests of 
more than 1,500 rural utilities and affiliates in 48 states.  Id. at 2.   NRTC LLC holds the following 220 MHz 
licenses: (1) a 5-channel Phase I Nationwide license (WPCU518); (2) a 10-channel Phase II Nationwide license 
(WPOI700); (3) six 7-channel Phase II Regional licenses (WPOL329-334); and (4) a 15-channel Phase II Regional 
license (WPOK780).  NRTC LLC incorporates these licenses into a network of twenty-two 5 kHz channels 
effectively covering the entire United States, including all of rural America.  Id. NRTC filed Reply Comments on 
April 23, 2013. 
18 Letter dated June 6, 2013 from Russell Ehrlich, Manager, PHI to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (PHI June 6, 
2013 Ex Parte Comments).
19 October 24, 2014 Letter at 1-2.
20 Id. at 2.
21 BEC/DEMCO Ex parte Comments, filed May 14, 2013.  BEC provides electric service to three counties in South 
Carolina, covering approximately 80 square miles.  Id. at 3.  DEMCO provides electric service to seven parishes in 
Louisiana.  Id. at 2.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
4
to a higher field strength; and (3) meet bright-line frequency and geographic spacing requirements, to 
further reduce the possibility that PTC operations under the waiver could cause interference to adjacent 
channel licensees.  We emphasize that should interference to other licensees’ operations occur despite 
these safeguards, PTC-220 will be required to promptly remedy such interference at its own expense.
10. The Commission planned the 220 MHz Band as a frequency division duplex (FDD) band, 
with the lower one megahertz designated as the base transmit band and the upper one megahertz 
designated as the mobile transmit band.  Section 90.715(a) of the Commission’s rules accordingly 
generally limits base station operations to 220-221 MHz and mobile operations to 221-222 MHz.22
11. In 2009, the Commission granted PTC-220 a waiver of Section 90.715(a)’s base/mobile 
limits to enable deployment of time division duplex (TDD) PTC systems that utilize both band segments 
for base and mobile operations.23 Although the PTC-220 2009 Waiver Order permits PTC-220 to operate 
base stations in the 221-222 MHz band segment, the segment’s more restrictive power and antenna height 
rules limit its utility for base station operations.  Stations in the 221-222 MHz band segment are limited to 
50 watts ERP and 7 meters HAAT under Section 90.729(b),24 while stations in the 220-221 MHz band 
segment are permitted to use 500 watts ERP with a HAAT of up to 150 meters.25
12. PTC-220 states that under Section 90.729(b)’s current limits, base station transmissions 
in the upper band segment would have a much smaller coverage footprint than those with higher power 
and antenna height in the lower band segment.26 PTC-220 states that waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s 
power and height limits would enable it to increase network capacity and allow more railroads to benefit 
from PTC-220’s spectrum resources, including commuter and short line railroads, and especially in 
congested markets, where obtaining spectrum is often challenging.27 PTC-220 further states that 
operation at the proposed power and height levels would not cause harmful interference to co-channel or 
adjacent channel operations.28
13. Legal Standard. The Commission may grant a request for a waiver when:  (i) the 
underlying purpose of the rules(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant 
case, and a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) in view of the unique or 
unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly 
burdensome, or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.29 The 
Commission also may waive a rule, in whole or in part, on its own motion or on petition if good cause 
therefor is shown.30
  
22 47 C.F.R. § 90.715(a) (“[f]requencies shall be assigned in pairs with base station frequencies taken from the 220-
221 MHz band with corresponding mobile and control station frequencies being 1 MHz higher and taken from the 
221-222 MHz band”).
23 Request of PTC-220, LLC for Waivers of Certain 220 MHz Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC 
Rcd 8537, 8544-45 ¶18 (2009) (PTC-220 2009 Waiver Order).
24 47 C.F.R. § 90.729(b).  Transmissions from antennas higher than 7 meters HAAT are permitted if the ERP is 
reduced below 50 watts ERP by 20 log10(h/7) dB, where h is the HAAT in meters.
25 47 C.F.R. § 90.729(a).  When a station in the lower band exceeds 150 meters HAAT, it must reduce its ERP 
correspondingly.
26 Waiver Request at 7.
27 Id. at 9.  
28 Id. at 12.
29 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).
30 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
5
14. We adopt specific conditions below to ensure that operations under waiver of Section 
90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits do not cause harmful inference to other licensees.  Subject to 
such conditions, we find under the first prong of the Commission’s Section 1.925 waiver standard that the 
underlying purpose of Section 90.729(b)—to address the possibility of interference to co- and adjacent 
channel operations31—would not be served by strict application of the rule to PTC base station operations 
in the 221-222 MHz band segment.
15. We also find that waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits would 
serve the public interest of all Americans in rail safety, including the safety of life and property,32 by 
facilitating PTC deployments in urban and other areas.33 We note that PTC-220’s Radio Frequency (RF) 
network analyses indicate that all of its 220 MHz channels—including upper band segment channels 
operating with comparable power and height limits as lower band segment channels—are required to 
provide adequate PTC network capacity for both freight and commuter railroads in major urban areas.34  
PTC-220 states that grant of the waiver will enable final RF planning for major markets including 
Chicago (the nation’s busiest rail market), the Northeast Corridor, New York/Newark, the Los Angeles 
Basin, Kansas City, Minneapolis/St Paul, Dallas/Fort Worth, and San Francisco Bay.35
16. We also find that the public interest in promoting innovative and efficient spectrum use36
will be served by waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits, by enabling more 
intensive use of PTC-220’s unique spectrum resources to deploy advanced rail safety systems.  Our 
finding is supported by SCRRA, which states that waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna 
height limits would “increase the number of channels useable for PTC in the Los Angeles basin, and for 
similar reasons, in spectrum congested areas nationwide.”37 AAR states that waiver of Section 
90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits “would allow the railroad industry to leverage the existing 
160 MHz communication infrastructure it has in place and will minimize the risk that PTC-220 will need 
to obtain more spectrum to deploy PTC.”38 PTC-220 explains that the rail industry chose to acquire 220 
MHz band spectrum to implement PTC because of its similar propagation characteristics to 160 MHz 
band spectrum, which is widely used by railroads and covers nearly 100 percent of U.S. rail track.39 PTC-
220 states that its members plan to use existing towers wherever feasible, and that grant of the waiver will 
enable them to deploy transmitters in the 221-222 MHz band segment on many of the several thousand 
  
31 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private 
Land Mobile Radio Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, PR Docket 89-552, 13 FCC Rcd 
14569, 14607 ¶82 (1998) (220 MHz MO&O) (“permitting 500 watt ERP fixed station transmissions on the mobile 
channels in the 220 MHz band could cause interference to adjacent channel operations”).
32 The Commission was formed “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire 
and radio communication . . . .”  47 U.S.C. § 151. 
33 Letter dated January 15, 2015, from Michele C. Farquhar, counsel to PTC-220, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 
FCC at 1 (PTC-220 January 15, 2015 Letter).
34 Id. at 5.
35 Id.
36 Congress, through the Communications Act, requires the Commission to implement spectrum policies that 
promote competition, innovation, and the efficient use of spectrum to best serve the public interest, convenience and 
necessity.  See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).  
37 SCRRA Comments at 4. 
38 AAR Comments at 2.  
39 See Letter dated March 3, 2015 from Michele C. Farquhar, counsel to PTC-220, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 
FCC at 2 (PTC-220 March 3, 2015 Letter).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
6
towers where 160 MHz transmitters are now deployed.40 Such deployments will reduce the number of 
new towers that will need to be constructed to implement PTC safety systems, and serve the public 
interest by limiting the potential environmental and other impacts that could be associated with new tower 
construction.  
17. We agree with PTC-220 that Congress’ PTC mandate and the PTC implementation 
deadline of December 31, 2015, constitute unique and unusual factual circumstances supporting a waiver 
under the second prong of the Commission’s Section 1.925 waiver standard, which allows for a waiver 
where unique or unusual factual circumstances are present (as here) and application of the rule would be 
inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable 
alternative.41 Here, strict application of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits would be 
contrary to the public interest in the safety of life and property, and in efficient spectrum use.  
Accordingly, we hereby waive Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits, and will permit PTC 
base station operations in the 221-222 MHz band segment to use up to 500 watts ERP with a HAAT of up 
to 150 meters, subject to the conditions enumerated below.42  
18. Co-Channel Interference, Nationwide Licenses.  PTC-220 states that an increase in the 
power and antenna height limits for its nationwide licenses will cause no co-channel user interference 
because there are no co-channel users (other than railroads using the spectrum for PTC).43 We agree and 
find that waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits should cause no co-channel 
interference on any of PTC-220’s nationwide licenses or on the nationwide license it intends to acquire 
from the AAR.44
19. Co-Channel Interference, Economic Area Licenses.  In 2009, when the Commission 
granted PTC-220 a waiver to permit base station operations in the 221-222 MHz band segment for its 
then three (now six) Economic Area E Block licenses,45 it noted that the potential for interference to co-
channel licensees in adjacent markets should generally be limited to areas along established rail lines.46  
To mitigate the potential for co-channel interference, the Commission required PTC-220 to provide 
adjacent market E-Block licensees at least 30 days prior notice before commencing operations.47 The 
Commission also required PTC-220 to promptly cure any interference that may occur to other licensees at 
its own expense.48 We believe that the 30-day prior notice requirement coupled with our adoption of a 38 
dBu field strength limit below will help ensure that co-channel licensees suffer no harmful interference 
from PTC base station operations in the 221-222 MHz band segment pursuant to waiver of Section 
90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits.
20. Field Strength Limit Condition.  Section 90.771(a) of the Commission’s rules prohibits a 
  
40 Id.
41 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(ii). 
42 47 C.F.R. § 90.729(a).  When a station in the lower band exceeds 150 meters HAAT, it must reduce its ERP 
correspondingly.
43 Waiver Request at 12.   
44 Id.
45 The three licenses included call signs WPOI774 (Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY), WPOI800 (St. Louis, MO-IL), and 
WPVL860 (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ).   PTC-220 subsequently acquired three more E-Block 
licenses and the Commission extended the 2009 waiver relief to these licenses:  WPOJ279 (Rochester, MN-IA-WI), 
WPOJ280 (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA), WPOJ281 (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA). 
46 PTC-220 2009 Waiver Order at 8545 ¶19.
47 Id.
48 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
7
licensee’s transmissions from base station frequencies (220-221 MHz) in the 220 MHz band from 
exceeding a predicted 38 dBu field strength at the license area’s border, unless all affected co-channel 
licensees agree to a higher field strength.49 The Commission adopted this field strength limit to protect 
co-channel licensees from harmful interference.50 As a condition of today’s waiver relief, we will require 
PTC-220 to meet a 38 dBu field strength limit at the license area’s border of its six E Block licenses for 
operations under the waiver in the 221-222 MHz band segment.51 This condition will help protect 
adjacent market co-channel users from harmful interference that might otherwise arise from PTC base 
station operations at increased power or height under the waiver.  We emphasize that should a co-channel 
licensee suffer harmful interference despite PTC-220’s compliance with a 38dBu field strength limit, 
PTC-220 must promptly resolve such interference.  
21. Adjacent Channel Interference.   We agree with PTC-220 that the steep emission mask 
that the Commission adopted for the narrow 5 kHz channels in the 220 MHz band will mitigate the risk of 
interference to adjacent channel licensees.52 PTC-220 states that under Section 90.210(f) of the 
Commission’s rules—which requires transmissions in the 220 MHz band to comply with emission mask 
F53—PTC transmitter emissions must be below -25 dBm at the center of an adjacent 5 kHz channel (that 
is, 2.5 kHz removed from the edge of a 25 kHz channel that PTC-220’s members and other railroads will 
use to implement PTC).54 PTC-220 further notes that radios under development will have emission levels 
closer to -35 dBm at the center of an adjacent 5 kHz channel, making the risk of interference even 
remoter.55
1. Geographic and Spectral Separation Conditions
22. We adopt frequency and geographic spacing requirements to reduce the possibility that 
PTC base station operations under the waiver could cause interference to adjacent channel licensees.  
PTC-220 suggests that we adopt frequency and geographic spacing requirements similar to those that the 
Commission adopted to protect certain base or fixed station receivers in Sub-band A (221.0025-221.1975 
MHz) from spectrally proximate base station transmitters in Sub-band B (220.8025-220.9975 MHz) of 
the 220 MHz band.56 The Commission adopted these protections, which are enumerated in Section 
90.723(d) of the Commission’s rules,57 because there is no guard band between the base and mobile 
segments of the 220 MHz Band.   
23. Section 90.723(d) establishes geographic separation requirements of up to six kilometers, 
  
49 47 C.F.R. § 90.771(a).
50 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules To Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the 
Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11030-
31 ¶182 (1997).
51 The predicted 38 dBu field strength is calculated using the F(50,50) field strength chart for Channels 7–13 in 
Section 73.699 of the Commission’s rules (Fig. 10), with a 9 dB correction factor for antenna height differential.  
See 47 C.F.R.  § 90.771(a).  
52 Waiver Request at 13.
53 47 C.F.R. § 90.210(f).
54 Waiver Request at 13.  Amtrak and the commuter rails serving the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are implementing a 
PTC technology using 12.5 kHz channels.  Outside the NEC, Amtrak and commuter rails generally are 
implementing a PTC technology using 25 kHz channels.  The freight rails are implementing a 25 kHz PTC 
technology nationwide.  
55 Waiver Request at 13.
56 Id. at 14.
57 47 C.F.R. § 90.723(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
8
which vary depending on radiated power, to mitigate potential interference.58 The rule requires a 
minimum separation of 0.3 kilometers between Phase I base stations transmitting on Sub-band B channels 
and base stations receiving on Sub-band A channels if the transmitting channel is within 200 kHz of the 
receive channel.59 The rule establishes a graduated power scale (from 5 to 200 watts ERP) based on 
separation distance.60 For stations within 0.3 to 0.5 kilometers of each other, a base station transmitting 
on Sub-band B is limited to 5 watts ERP.  As station separation increases, permitted power increases.  If 
stations are within 2 to 4 kilometers of each other, a base station transmitting on Sub-band B may operate 
at up to 50 watts ERP.  If the stations are within 5 to 6 kilometers of each other, a base station 
transmitting on Sub-band B may operate at up to 200 watts ERP.  
24. Because there will be no guard band between PTC transmitters and other licensees’ 
receivers in the upper 221-222 MHz band segment, we believe that requiring PTC-220 to comply with 
analogous safeguards will mitigate the possibility that PTC base station operations under the waiver could 
cause interference to adjacent channel licensees.  We also note that due to their close spectral adjacency 
(within 25 kHz) to the mobile band segment, “[b]ase station and fixed station transmissions on base 
station transmit Channels 196–200 are limited to 2 watts ERP and a maximum antenna HAAT of 6.1 
meters (20 ft)” under Section 90.729(c) of the Commission’s rules.61
25. Based on the record before us and consistent with Sections 90.723(d) and 90.729(c), we 
will require PTC-220 to comply with the following geographic and spectral separation requirements, and 
related power limits:
· PTC-220 must obtain the concurrence of a licensee to site a PTC transmitter within 25 kHz 
and between 0.3 and 6 kilometers of a non-nationwide Phase I receiver, and must comply 
with the geographic separation/graduated ERP limits of Section 90.723(d).
· PTC-220 must comply with the geographic separation/graduated ERP limits of Section 
90.723(d) to site a PTC transmitter within 25-200 kHz and between 0.3 and 6 kilometers of a 
non-nationwide Phase I receiver.
· PTC-220 must obtain the concurrence of a licensee to site a PTC transmitter within 25 kHz 
and between 0.3 and 6 kilometers of an existing nationwide Phase I or Phase II receiver, and 
must comply with the geographic separation/graduated ERP limits of Section 90.723(d).  
· PTC-220 must comply with the geographic separation/graduated ERP limits of Section 
90.723(d) to site a PTC transmitter within 25-200 kHz and between 0.3 and 6 kilometers of 
an existing nationwide Phase I or Phase II receiver.
26. The protections we adopt above are similar to the protections that the Commission 
adopted to protect Sub Band A licensees under rule 90.723(d), and are intended to provide the necessary 
separation between base station receivers in the 221-222 MHz band segment and the base station 
transmitters that PTC-220 proposes to operate in the same band segment.
27. As noted above, we are requiring PTC-220 to obtain the concurrence of a licensee to site 
a PTC transmitter within 25 kHz and between 0.3 and 6 kilometers of a receiver.  We believe that 
  
58 Id.  
59 Id.  
60 Id.
61 47 C.F.R. § 90.729(c).  The rule allows “[l]icensees authorized on these channels [to] operate at power levels 
above 2 watts ERP or with a maximum antenna HAAT greater than 6.1 meters (20 ft)” provided (1) “[t]hey obtain 
the concurrence of all Phase I and Phase II licensees with base stations or fixed stations receiving on base station 
receive Channels 1–40 and located within 6 km of their base station or fixed station” and (2) [t]heir base station or 
fixed station is not located in the United States/Mexico or United States/Canada border areas.”  Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
9
additional measures are appropriate to mitigate the potential for interference to receivers within 25 kHz 
and between 6 and 10 kilometers of a proposed PTC transmitter.  The signal from PTC-220’s adjacent 
channel operations under the waiver could increase the noise floor and thereby decrease the signal to 
noise (S/N) ratio at licensees’ receivers beyond 6 kilometers, potentially impacting receiver performance.  
We will require PTC-220 to limit any increase in the noise floor to ensure the performance of existing 
nationwide Phase I and Phase II receivers within 25 kHz and between 6 and 10 kilometers of a proposed 
PTC transmitter as follows:
· PTC-220 must provide a licensee an engineering study showing that degradation of the noise 
floor from the proposed PTC transmitter at a potential victim site will be 2dB or less.62
· If the degradation in the noise floor is greater than 2dB, PTC-220 may not operate the 
proposed PTC transmitter unless it receives concurrence from the affected licensee.
· If a licensee believes it would suffer interference, despite PTC-220 meeting the 2dB 
requirement, PTC-220 must coordinate further. 
28. For new nationwide Phase I and Phase II receivers, we expect PTC-220 and affected 220 
MHz Band licensees to coordinate their operations.
2. Prior Notification Condition
29. We must ensure that 220 MHz Band licensees have sufficient time to consider PTC-220’s 
proposed waiver-enabled transmitter operations.  Accordingly, before operating a waiver-enabled 
transmitter or operating an existing waiver-enabled transmitter with increased height or power, PTC-220 
must notify all 220 MHz Band licensees within 200 kHz and 20 kilometers of a proposed transmitter.  
The notice must:
· specify the proposed transmitter’s operating parameters, including site location, frequencies, 
antenna height, and power;
· include a point of contact, its address, email address, and phone number, to address any 
concerns regarding potential interference: and 
· be concurrently transmitted by mail and email to the licensee, to the licensee contact and, if 
different, to the licensee’s FCC Registration Number (FRN) contact.
30. PTC-220 may begin operating a waiver-enabled transmitter 30 days after the date it 
transmits the required notice, unless a recipient seeks further information to address concerns regarding 
potential interference.  We agree with PTC-220 that to address time-sensitive situations, it should be 
allowed to begin operating a transmitter before 30 days have passed, provided it obtains the affirmative 
concurrence of all notice recipients that they consent to operation of a transmitter before 30 days have 
passed.63
31. Metrolink PTC Deployment.  PTC-220 asks that we allow it to use a one-time, 15-day 
notification period to deploy four waiver-enabled transmitters in the Los Angeles area.64 PTC-220 states 
that these four transmitters are necessary to enable Metrolink65 to deploy PTC in interoperable revenue 
  
62 Waiver Request at 15. 
63 Letter dated March 9, 2015 from Michele C. Farquhar, counsel to PTC-220, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary FCC 
at 2 (PTC-220 March 9, 2015 Letter).
64 Id. at 1.
65 Metrolink is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and serves Los Angeles, 
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and North San Diego counties.  See
http://www.metrolinktrains.com/agency/page/title/member_agencies, website last visited March 12, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
10
service (with passengers onboard a train).66 It states that personnel from Metrolink, the North County 
Transit District (NCTD),67 and two freight railroads have coordinated their schedules and are prepared to 
implement interoperable PTC the week of March 23, 2015.68
32. In light of the unique and limited circumstances of Metrolink’s PTC revenue-service 
implementation, we will allow PTC-220 to provide 15 days’ prior notice of the proposed deployment.69  
PTC-220 must comply with the notification requirements adopted above, and also transmit the required 
notice by certified mail, return receipt or by overnight delivery.  PTC-220 may begin operating a waiver-
enabled transmitter upon affirmative concurrence of all notice recipients that they consent to operation of 
a transmitter before 15 days have passed.  If PTC-220 is unable to obtain concurrence, it may begin 
operating a transmitter 15 days after receiving oral or written confirmation (for example, a signature on a 
return receipt) that the notice was received, unless a recipient seeks further information to address 
concerns regarding potential interference.   
33. Special Temporary Authority Procedure.  PTC-220 states that there may be 
circumstances where a railroad urgently needs to deploy a waiver-enabled transmitter to address a specific 
safety or network reliability concern.70 We agree that exigent circumstances could arise where the public 
interest in rail safety would be served by immediate deployment of a waiver-enabled transmitter.  In 
extraordinary circumstances (for example, where PTC service has been interrupted and prompt restoration 
requires deployment of a waiver-enabled transmitter), PTC-220 may request special temporary authority 
(STA) to begin waiver-enabled operations without 30 days prior notice.71 We remind PTC-220 that 
requests for special temporary authority must include “complete details about the proposed operations and 
the circumstances that fully justify and necessitate the grant of STA.”72 We expect that when requesting 
STA to deploy a waiver-enabled transmitter, PTC-220 will provide confirmation that it is concurrently 
transmitting the STA request to all 220 MHz Band licensees within 200 kHz and 20 kilometers of a 
proposed transmitter.  Staff will promptly consider requests for STA. 
B. Conditional Waiver of Section 90.723(f)’s Coordination Requirement
34. PTC-220 requests a waiver of Section 90.723(f) of the Commission’s rules,73 which 
requires Phase II licensees with base or fixed stations transmitting on frequencies in Sub-band B 
(220.8025-220.9975 MHz) of the 220-221 MHz band segment and Phase II licensees with base or fixed 
stations receiving on Sub-band A (221.0025-221.1975 MHz) of the 221-222 MHz band segment to 
coordinate the location of stations to avoid interference where the transmitting and receiving frequencies 
are 200 kHz or less apart.74 The Commission adopted this general coordination requirement “to ensure 
  
66 See PTC-220 March 3, 2015 at 1-2.
67 NCTD provides commuter rail service in San Diego County.  See http://www.gonctd.com/, website last visited 
March 12, 2015.
68 PTC-220 March 9, 2015 at 1.
69 Id. at 1.
70 PTC-220 March 3, 2015 Letter at 1. 
71 PTC-220 March 9, 2015 Letter at 2.
72 47 C.F.R. § 1.931(a).  STA requests should be received by the Commission at least 10 days prior to the date of the 
proposed operation; requests received less than 10 days prior to the date of proposed operation may be given 
expedited consideration if compelling reasons are given.  Id.
73 Waiver Request at 9-10, 15-17.  
74 47 C.F.R. § 90.723(f).  The rule provides in full “Phase II licensees with base or fixed stations transmitting on 
220–221 MHz frequencies assigned from Sub-band B and Phase II licensees with base or fixed stations receiving on 
Sub-band A 221–222 MHz frequencies, if such transmitting and receiving frequencies are 200 kHz or less removed 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
11
that appropriate geographic separations are maintained” among licensees deploying in sub-bands A and 
B.75
35. PTC-220 states that a waiver of Section 90.723(f)’s coordination requirement is 
necessary to avoid the extended deployment delays that could occur if PTC-220 is required to enter into 
coordination discussions with potentially hundreds of Phase II licensees across the country.76 PTC-220 
also states that it has experienced difficulties locating and engaging representatives of incumbent licenses 
with decision-making authority in the coordination process.77
36. Above, we require PTC-220 to adhere to specific geographic and spectral spacing 
requirements as a condition of deploying waiver-enabled transmitters in the 221-222 MHz band segment.   
We agree with PTC-220 that our adoption of these spacing requirements should generally obviate the 
need for PTC-220 to coordinate the location of base stations pursuant to Section 90.723(f).78 We also 
agree with the Joint Council that PTC-220’s request would not undermine Section 90.723(f)’s underlying 
purpose to protect licensees from co- and adjacent channel interference.79 Nevertheless, we must preserve 
the rights of potentially affected licensees and will require PTC-220 to provide at least 30 days prior 
written notice of a planned waiver-enabled PTC transmitter to Phase II licensees, within 200 kHz and 20 
kilometers of a proposed PTC transmitter, that would otherwise be covered by Section 90.723(f)’s 
coordination requirements.  The notice must be delivered by the means and include the information 
specified above.80
37. Compliance with Section 90.173(b).  Section 90.723(f) requires licenses to cooperate to 
resolve any instances of interference pursuant to Section 90.173(b) of the Commission’s rules.  We find it 
in the public interest to apply Section 90.723(f)’s requirement to comply with Section 90.173(b).  We 
remind PTC-220 that under Section 90.173(b), it must “cooperate in the selection and use of frequencies 
in order to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities.”81 The rule 
provides “[l]icensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and 
resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements.”82 Where licensees are unable to 
cooperatively resolve interference concerns, “the Commission may impose restrictions including 
specifying the transmitter power, antenna height, or area or hours of operation of the stations 
concerned.”83
38. Interference Remediation Condition.  We note that consistent with the requirements of 
Section 90.173(b), PTC-220 has committed to take measures necessary to prevent or correct interference 
to co- and adjacent channel receivers that might arise from PTC operations in the 221-222 MHz band 
  
(...continued from previous page)
from one another, will be required to coordinate the location of their base stations or fixed stations to avoid 
interference and to cooperate to resolve any instances of interference in accordance with the provisions of § 
90.173(b).”  Id.  
75 220 MHz MO&O, 13 FCC Rcd at 14617 ¶100.
76 Waiver Request at 9.
77 Id. 
78 Id. at 15-16.
79 Joint Council Comments at 4.
80 See supra discussion at para. 29.    
81 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(b).
82 Id.  
83 Id.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
12
segment under the waiver.84 In this regard, PTC-220 notes that its member railroads have “decades of 
experience designing, deploying, and maintaining large scale radio networks,” and that [t]hey routinely 
design systems to avoid and eliminate interference” should it occur.85 We acknowledge this expertise and 
will require PTC-220 to promptly remedy, at its own expense, any interference to other licensees’ 
operations should it occur.
39. Subject to the prior notification and interference remediation conditions we adopt above 
and compliance with Section 90.173(b) of the Commission’s rules, we find that the purpose of Section 
90.723(f)—to ensure appropriate geographic spacing of certain Phase II facilities to mitigate the potential 
for interference—will not be served by its strict application to the instant case.  We further find that a 
grant of the requested waiver will serve the public interest in the timely deployment of PTC rail safety 
systems.  We therefore grant the requested waiver as conditioned above.
C. Coordination Procedures
40. Although we are granting a conditional waiver of Section 90.723(f)’s coordination 
requirements, PTC-220 states that coordination may be required where another licensee seeks to deploy a 
new station to receive in the 221-222 MHz band segment near an existing or planned PTC-220 transmitter 
operating under waiver of Section 90.729(b)’s power and antenna height limits.86 PTC-220 notes that the 
Commission’s Part 90 rules do not include detailed coordination procedures to ensure that affected parties 
cooperate and timely engage in coordination.87  
41. We find that the public interest in efficient spectrum use and timely deployments in the 
220 MHz Band would be served by our providing general guidance regarding possible coordination 
discussions.  Foremost, the coordination process should enable other licensees to deploy in the 220 MHz 
band under the Commission’s existing rules without suffering harmful interference, while affording PTC-
220 a reasonable period to modify its network, where necessary, to avoid a sudden disruption of PTC 
operations.  Where a licensee seeks to site a new receive station in the 221-222 MHz band segment near a 
waiver-enabled PTC-220 transmitter, PTC-220 must engage in the collaborative process contemplated by 
Section 90.173.  We expect that in the spirit of Section 90.173(b), PTC-220 would expeditiously work 
with licensees, and would if necessary adjust the operating parameters of a PTC base station.  If a licensee 
finds its coordination discussions with PTC-220 are unsatisfactory, it may seek Commission assistance to 
facilitate such discussions pursuant to Section 90.173(b).
D. BEC and DEMCO Comments
42. Two parties—BEC and DEMCO, electric cooperatives that serve rural areas of South 
Carolina and Louisiana, respectively—oppose PTC-220’s Waiver Request.  While BEC and DEMCO 
assert that grant of the Waiver Request could undermine interference protection rules designed to protect 
incumbent 220 MHz Band users,88 they fail to explain how grant of the requested relief would impact 
their 220 MHz Band operations.89 We also disagree with BEC and DEMCO’s blanket assertion that 
  
84 Waiver Request at 17. 
85 Id.
86 Id. at 16-17.
87 Letter dated October 17, 2014, from Michele C. Farquhar, counsel to PTC-220, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 
FCC at 1.
88 BEC/DEMCO Ex parte Comments at 4-5.
89 BEC and DEMCO also oppose granting relief by waiver and argue that we should proceed by rulemaking instead.  
Id. at 4.  The Commission has broad discretion in deciding whether to address PTC-220’s specific request for relief 
by the waiver process.  SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 232 (1947). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
13
deployment of waiver-enabled PTC transmitters will harm existing 220 MHz Band stations or limit future 
expansion by incumbent licensees.90  
43. We have adopted specific conditions to ensure that co- and adjacent channel licensees do 
not suffer interference.  And no action we take today limits the ability of licensees to deploy in the 220 
MHz Band under the Commission’s existing rules.  In addition to providing 30 days prior written notice 
to licensees of its intent to site a waiver-enabled transmitter, PTC-220 must meet a predicted 38 dBu field 
strength at a license area’s border, and adhere to bright-line frequency and geographic spacing 
requirements.  We reiterate that should interference occur despite these and other safeguards adopted 
above, PTC-220 must promptly remedy such interference at its own expense.
44. BEC states that the frequency coordination required by Section 90.723(f) of the 
Commission’s rules “means BEC will have protection and advanced warning of nearby users on the 220 
MHz channels.”91 As noted above, we are requiring PTC-220 to provide a 30-day advance written 
notification of planned operations to licensees, which would otherwise be covered by the coordination 
requirements of Section 90.723(f).92 PTC-220 moreover has committed to contact BEC and DEMCO at 
least 30 days in advance of any operations under the waiver within their service territories, whether or not 
covered by Section 90.723(f).93 We find that requiring PTC-220 to meet such a commitment will ensure 
that BEC and DEMCO have ample notice of any proposed PTC deployments in their areas of operation.       
IV. CONCLUSION
45. For the reasons stated above, we find good cause to grant PTC-220 a conditional waiver 
of Section 90.723(f) (coordination requirements) and Section 90.729(b) (power and antenna height limits) 
of the Commission’s rules94 to facilitate the deployment of PTC base stations in the upper one megahertz 
segment of the 220 MHz Band.  We emphasize that the relief granted herein is inseparably tied to 
Congress’ directive that certain freight, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads implement PTC 
safety systems and the substantial public interest benefits that will accrue from a nationwide interoperable 
rail safety network.  Accordingly, to help ensure that we achieve the public safety objectives that PTC-
220 cites as justification for the waivers, we limit the relief to PTC systems.  Should PTC-220, its 
members, other railroads, or non-railroad third parties use PTC-220’s MHz spectrum for non-PTC related 
purposes, they may not avail themselves of today’s waiver relief for such purposes.
46. Further, we remind PTC-220 that in deploying any waiver-enabled facility, it must 
comply with any applicable international treaty or agreement.       
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
47. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4 (j), 5(c), and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), and 303(r) , and 
sections 0.331, 1.3, 1.925 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.3,  and 1.925, that the Request 
for Waiver filed by PTC-220, LLC on February 1, 2013 (FCC File Nos. 0005631265, 0005631266, 
0005631269, 0005631270, 0005631271, 0005631272, 0005631282, 0005631284, 0005631286,  
0005631289, and  0006225216) and amended by letter dated October 24, 2014, filed in WT Docket 13-
59, IS HEREBY GRANTED to the extent provided and subject to the conditions enumerated above.
48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.935 of the Commission’s rules, 47 
  
90 BEC/DEMCO Ex parte Comments at 5.
91 Id. at 3.
92 See supra discussion at paras. 29-30.
93 PTC-220 January 15, 2015 Letter at 4.
94 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.723(f) and 90.729(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-332
14
C.F.R. § 1.935, that the request of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative to withdraw its 
comments and reply comments, filed April 8 and 24, 2013, respectively, IS GRANTED.
49. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.935 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.935, that the request of Pepco Holdings Inc. to withdraw its letter, filed June 6, 2013, 
IS GRANTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Roger S. Noel
Chief, Mobility Division 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau