[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16493-16498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8909]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[GN Docket No. 96-228; FCC 97-112]
The Wireless Communications Service (``WCS'')
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 31, 1997, the Federal Communications Commission
(``Commission'') adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order amending
certain rules pertaining to Wireless Communications Service (``WCS'')
operations in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands. These amendments
are being made in response to certain petitions for reconsideration of
the Report and Order in this proceeding which established rules and
policies for WCS. The effect of this action is to make minor amendments
to the power and out-of-band emission limits imposed on WCS operations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Roland, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0660, or Tom Mooring, Office of
Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order in GN Docket No. 96-228. The complete
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. The
complete Memorandum Opinion and Order is also available on the
Commission's Internet home page (http://www.fcc.gov)
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law
104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (``Appropriations Act'') directed the
Commission to reallocate the use of frequencies at 2305-2320 megahertz
and 2345-2360 megahertz to wireless services that are consistent with
international agreements concerning spectrum allocations, and to assign
the use of such frequencies by competitive bidding pursuant to Section
309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934. In making these bands of
frequencies available for competitive bidding, the Commission was
directed to seek to promote the most efficient use of the spectrum and
to commence the competitive bidding for the assignment of these
frequencies no later than April 15, 1997.
2. On February 19, 1997, the Commission adopted a Report and Order
in this proceeding establishing the Wireless Communications Service
(``WCS''). See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part
27, the Wireless Communications Service (``WCS''), GN Docket No. 96-
228, Report and Order, FCC 97-50, 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997). (``Report
and Order''). Specifically, the Commission allocated the 2305-2320 MHz
and 2345-2360 MHz bands to the fixed, mobile, and radiolocation
services on a primary basis and maintained the primary allocation for
the broadcasting-satellite service (sound) in the 2310-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands. WCS licensees will be permitted to provide any of
these services. The Commission did not adopt any limitations on
transmitter power, except to require that the equipment comply with our
radiofrequency (``RF'') safety program. The Commission also declined to
impose any technical restrictions on WCS licensees aimed at protecting
the multipoint distribution service and the instructional television
fixed service (``MDS/ITFS'') reception because, based on the record
before the Commission at that time, the Commission was not persuaded
that the operation of WCS facilities would irreparably harm the MDS and
ITFS services. The Commission also noted that MDS/ITFS block
downconverters traditionally have employed an inexpensive design that
has minimal frequency selectivity, and observed that the industry
appears to be converting to newer, more robustly designed
downconverters that would not receive WCS signals. The Commission
concluded that it would be improvident to adopt a requirement for WCS
licensees to protect MDS/ITFS operations before having a more complete
understanding of the nature and extent of problems that may actually
arise.
3. Also in the Report and Order, in order to protect satellite
digital audio radio service (``Satellite DARS'' or ``DARS'') operations
in the 2320-2345 MHz band, the Commission adopted stringent out-of-band
emission limits that it believed would, at least in the foreseeable
future, make mobile operations in WCS spectrum technologically
infeasible. Specifically, all emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz band
from fixed WCS transmitters must be attenuated below the transmitter
output power (``p'') by at least 80 + 10 log (p) dB and all emissions
from mobile WCS transmitters must be attenuated below p by at least 110
+ 10 log (p) dB.
4. On March 10, 1997, the Wireless Cable Association International,
Inc. (``WCA'') filed an Emergency Motion for Stay and a Petition for
Expedited Reconsideration of the Report and Order. Concurrent with the
adoption of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission is
denying WCA's Emergency Motion for Stay, ruling that the Appropriations
Act does not afford the Commission the authority to defer the
commencement date of the WCS auction. On March 11, 1997, the PACS
Providers Forum and DigiVox Corporation (``PPF/DigiVox'') jointly filed
a Petition for Expedited Reconsideration of the Report and Order. On
March 13, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau placed the
petitions on public notice and established an expedited pleading cycle.
By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission amends certain
aspects of its rules governing the WCS in response to these two
petitions for reconsideration.
5. Specifically, based on a better understanding of the potential
for WCS operations to interfere with MDS/ITFS reception, the Commission
is specifying limits on WCS operating power and is requiring that, for
a limited time, WCS licensees assume responsibility under certain
circumstances for interference they may cause to MDS/ITFS operations.
The Commission also is requiring WCS licensees to provide advance
notification to nearby MDS/
[[Page 16494]]
ITFS licensees of certain technical parameters and is encouraging
voluntary coordination among affected licensees. Additionally, though
reaffirming the original out-of-band emission limits as generally
appropriate across the broad range of flexible WCS systems and uses,
the Commission is adopting an alternative, less stringent out-of-band
emission limit for portable WCS transmitters in the 2305-2315 MHz band
(the lower portions of Blocks A and B) that meet specific power, duty
cycle and other technical restrictions. The Commission believes that
providing WCS applicants and licensees with this additional design
choice will facilitate certain potentially beneficial uses of WCS
spectrum that may not otherwise be feasible, or would incur unnecessary
higher costs, under the general, more stringent out-of-band emission
limits. The Commission wishes to caution prospective WCS licensees,
however, to consider carefully whether their anticipated uses and
business plans can be successfully implemented under the additional
technical and operational restrictions necessary to qualify for the
less stringent out-of-band emission limit. In particular, wide area,
full mobility systems and services such as those being provided or
anticipated in the cellular and PCS bands are likely to be of
questionable feasibility under either the alternative restrictions or
the general out-of-band emission limits.
WCS Interference to MDS/ITFS
6. MDS and ITFS operate in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz bands.
Nonetheless, MDS/ITFS downconverters have minimal frequency selectivity
and, thus, some models are designed to operate throughout the entire
2.1-2.7 GHz band. In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that
the digital downconverters to which the MDS/ITFS industry are expected
to convert over the next several years are expected to be better
designed and not subject to overloading from WCS signals. Nonetheless,
in order to better understand the interference concerns of the MDS/ITFS
industry, staff from the Commission's Office of Engineering and
Technology obtained block diagrams from Pacific Monolithics, a
manufacturer of MDS/ITFS equipment, for three of their MDS
downconverters. All have similar construction and, according to Hardin
Associates, the firm which prepared an Engineering Statement in support
of the WCA petition, the downconverter construction for all the major
manufacturers is essentially identical. The interference issues raised
by the WCA petition relate to the possibility that WCS signals could
overload the Low Noise Amplifier (``LNA'') input stage of this
equipment. This stage is directly fed by the receive antenna and thus
has little or no isolation. Between the receive antenna and the LNA,
this equipment does not employ any filtering related to the block of
frequencies between 2162 MHz and 2500 MHz. Interference protection from
the WCS service to the MDS downconverter would have to be provided at
this point to prevent signal overload of the LNA. This could be
accomplished by trapping out the WCS signal in the 2305-2360 MHz band
or by moving the RF diplexer from the output of the LNA to the input of
the LNA. The MDS industry is currently designing equipment to protect
against interference caused by high input power from PCS operations in
the 1850-1990 MHz band, and it seems reasonable that the industry could
also design these downconverters to protect against interference from
WCS equipment operating with similar high power levels. The Commission
estimates that such a filter is likely to cost about $5 to $10 per
unit. The Commission believes, however, that filters could not be
economically installed in existing units due to the design and
construction of these downconverters. A MDS/ITFS subscriber receiving
interference would thus have to have the entire unit replaced at a
substantially higher unit cost. The Commission notes that MDS/ITFS
interference issues have been raised in a petition to deny filed
against a number of applications for broadband PCS licensees in the D,
E and F blocks. The Commission wishes to make clear that its resolution
of MDS/ITFS interference issues with respect to WCS is based solely on
the totality of the circumstances presented here.
7. After careful consideration of this issue, the Commission finds
that the public interest would be best served by setting limits on WCS
operating power. The Commission will therefore restrict WCS fixed, land
and radiolocation land stations to 2,000 watts peak EIRP and WCS mobile
and radiolocation mobile stations to 20 watts EIRP. Setting maximum
power limits on WCS operations will provide MDS/ITFS equipment
manufacturers and service providers with the necessary certainty
regarding the potential WCS environment to enable them to design and
purchase more robust receiving installations, including better designed
downconverters. The Commission does not, however, wish to unnecessarily
limit the service offerings that can be provided using WCS spectrum,
and therefore does not adopt the 20 watt EIRP power limit suggested by
WCA. Instead, as more fully discussed below, the Commission will assign
to WCS licensees certain responsibilities to cure actual interference
to existing and soon-to-be-installed MDS/ITFS downconverters. With
respect to the power limits we are setting, the Commission believes it
is unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, any potential WCS operator
would consider employing power levels greater than these limits given
the considerable economic cost of developing high power transmitters
that would comply with the stringent out-of-band emission limits
adopted in this proceeding. The Commission also observes that the
maximum EIRP of a transmitter station in the MDS and ITFS services with
an omnidirectional antenna is limited to 2,000 watts (33 dBW), and that
wireless cable service is a potential use for WCS spectrum. In
addition, the Commission notes that WCA has concluded that 20 watts
EIRP will not cause destructive interference to MDS/ITFS reception.
Thus, WCS mobile stations, to the extent mobile services are or become
technologically feasible, should be able to operate ubiquitously
without substantial risk of interference to MDS/ITFS reception.
8. The Commission agrees with WCA that MDS/ITFS equipment that was
designed to operate in a pre-WCS environment should be afforded some
degree of protection from interference. The introduction of possibly a
large number of transmitters in WCS spectrum will increase the
potential for interference to existing MDS/ITFS receivers that were
designed with different expectations about the extent and nature of use
of nearby bands. Given sufficient notice and time to adjust to
allocation changes in nearby bands, licensees might be expected to
mitigate interference costs by voluntarily introducing better, more
selective receivers in new installations and in the normal replacement
of older receivers. Such a response has not been possible in this
instance, however, because of the accelerated rule making and licensing
procedures that are required for WCS under the Appropriations Act.
Considering these circumstances, and that the WCS auction has not yet
occurred, the Commission believes it is appropriate and equitable to
shift to WCS licensees some of the cost and responsibility for
remedying interference to MDS/ITFS operations.
9. Nonetheless, the Commission also believes that the MDS/ITFS
industry
[[Page 16495]]
should be encouraged to employ equipment in the future which will not
require undue power restrictions on users of nearby spectrum. To
balance these objectives, the Commission is establishing an
interference protection rule for MDS/ITFS receivers, based on aspects
of the existing FM blanketing rule. See 47 CFR 73.318. Specifically,
WCS licensees will bear full financial obligation to remedy
interference to MDS/ITFS block downconverters if all of the following
conditions are met: (1) The complaint of interference is received by
the WCS licensee prior to February 20, 2002; (2) the MDS/ITFS
downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 1998; (3) the WCS
operation transmits at 50 or more watts peak EIRP; (4) the MDS/ITFS
downconverter is located within a WCS transmitter's power flux density
contour of -34 dBW/m\2\; and (5) the MDS/ITFS customer or licensee has
informed the WCS licensee of the interference within one year from the
initial operation of the WCS transmitter or within one year from any
subsequent power increase at the WCS station. If the WCS licensee
cannot otherwise promptly eliminate interference caused to MDS/ITFS
reception, then that licensee would be required to cease operations
from the offending WCS facility. In addition to this blanketing-type
rule, the Commission will require WCS licensees, at least 30 days
before commencing operations from any new WCS transmission site or with
increased power from any existing WCS transmission site, to notify all
MDS/ITFS licensees in or through whose licensed service areas they
intend to operate of the technical parameters of the WCS transmission
facility. The Commission emphasizes, however, that WCS licensees have
no obligation to remedy interference unless all of the conditions are
met. If the WCS licensees and the MDS and ITFS licensees coordinate
voluntarily, the Commission believes that WCS fixed and land stations
can generally be located in a manner to avoid causing interference to
MDS/ITFS receivers. The Commission expects the WCS and MDS/ITFS
licensees to coordinate voluntarily and in good faith to avoid
interference problems and to allow the greatest operational flexibility
in each other's operations.
10. The Commission believes that the above approach appropriately
apportions the burdens and incentives between the WCS and MDS/ITFS
licensees. WCS licensees will have an incentive to coordinate
voluntarily with the MDS/ITFS industry in order to prevent interference
problems from occurring, and the 30-day notification requirement will
afford MDS/ITFS licensees an opportunity to alert their subscribers to
the potential for interference and explain what to do in the event it
occurs. In turn, MDS/ITFS licensees will have an incentive to develop
and use better technology for new receiving installations. The MDS/ITFS
industry will have 18 months from the release date of the Report and
Order in this proceeding to deplete inventories of existing equipment
and to design more robust replacement equipment, and WCS licensees will
be obligated for five years to remedy actual interference. Beyond that
time, it is reasonable to expect the MDS/ITFS industry to bear full
financial responsibility for any necessary equipment replacement costs.
Further, we believe that basing MDS/ITFS protection on a power flux
density contour rather than a restrictive power limitation serves the
public interest. This approach will provide WCS licensees with greater
flexibility to design and implement new wireless services. WCS
licensees operating at power levels higher than 50 watts will have a
larger zone within which they will be obligated to remedy interference
to MDS/ITFS downconverters, but they will be able to make that choice
given the particular characteristics of the market in which they will
operate. From its experience in addressing technically analogous issues
of blanketing interference caused by FM broadcast transmitters, the
Commission believes that the ``technological fixes'' contemplated by
the blanketing-type rule coupled with the 30-day notification
requirement will adequately protect MDS/ITFS operations and yet allow
WCS substantially greater operational flexibility than would be
possible under the power limit approach suggested by the petitioner.
The Commission therefore concludes that the approach it adopts here to
address concerns about WCS signal overloading of MDS/ITFS
downconverters will best serve the overall public interest.
WCS Out-of-Band Emission Limits
11. The Commission has dedicated considerable staff engineering
expertise and resources to evaluate the proposal set forth by PPF/
DigiVox and finds that it is appropriate to adjust the WCS out-of-band
limits for systems that comply with certain parameters. Accordingly,
the Commission will permit WCS systems that operate in accordance with
the specific parameters set forth below to reduce their portable unit
emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz band by a factor not less than 93 + 10
log (p) dB, where p is the transmitter power in watts. While this is
considerably more permissive than the limit for WCS mobile operations
that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, the Commission
believes that the specific operating parameters set forth by PPF/
DigiVox will limit the potential for such a system to interfere with
DARS to a reasonable level generally equivalent to that provided by the
stricter limits for more general WCS operations.
12. In authorizing DARS, it was the Commission's desire to ensure a
high quality radio service. However, a desire for an interference-free
radio service must be balanced with the need to provide reasonable
operating parameters for adjacent services. Accordingly, the
Commission's intention in determining out-of-band emission limits for
WCS into the spectrum used by DARS has been to limit the potential for
interference to a reasonable level--not to provide a pure,
interference-free environment. In determining the out-of-band emission
limits adopted in the Report and Order the Commission had to take into
consideration the wide flexibility that the Commission providing WCS
licensees to provide any services consistent with the Table of
Frequency Allocations. Because the Commission is unable to determine
the specific operating parameters of a WCS service until the service is
actually implemented, the Commission found it appropriate to adopt
limits that take into account any possible system configuration. Such
limits are necessary to ensure the viability of Satellite DARS, which
will operate with very low signal levels at the receive antennas, in a
frequency band adjacent to a terrestrial service that will likely
employ much higher powers and whose transmitters may be in the
immediate vicinity of a DARS receiver. Accordingly, the Commission
affirms its decision generally to require WCS operations to reduce
their emissions in the 2320-2345 MHz band by not less than 80 + 10 log
(p) dB for fixed, land, and radiolocation land station transmissions
and 110 + 10 log (p) dB for mobile and radiolocation mobile station
transmissions, where p is the transmitter power in watts. The
Commission is, however, clarifying that the out-of-band emission limits
specified in the Report and Order for ``fixed operations'' pertain to
transmissions from fixed, land, and radiolocation land stations and
that the emission limits specified for ``mobile operations'' pertain to
transmissions from mobile and radiolocation mobile stations.
[[Page 16496]]
13. The Commission recognizes, however, that it is possible to
provide a reasonable level of protection to DARS by taking into account
a specific WCS system, although it may exceed the out-of-band emission
limits adopted in the Report and Order. A specific system configuration
may have certain attributes that were not taken into account when
developing the general emission limits but which reduce its potential
to interfere with DARS. For instance, a system may have reduced gain in
the direction of Satellite DARS receiver, or the probability of the
transmitters of a certain type of WCS system being close enough to
interfere with Satellite DARS systems may be very low. PPF/DigiVox has
provided a specific set of operating parameters that the Commission can
take into account in its analysis of potential interference to DARS. By
taking these specific parameters into account, the Commission believes
that it is possible for a system to operate with less stringent out-of-
band limits than those originally adopted.
14. The system described by PPF/DigiVox is a low power, low
mobility portable system that will provide voice and data service from
fixed and portable units. No vehicle mounted units would be permitted.
In reaching its decision to reduce the out-of-band limits for WCS
systems that operate in a manner consistent with that described by PPF/
DigiVox, the Commission takes into account both the technical and
operational factors specific to the interaction of this specific system
and a DARS system. One of the greatest difficulties in performing this
type of analysis, however, is the fact that neither system has yet been
deployed. Accordingly, the Commission's analysis must take into
consideration what it believes to be realistic assumptions about system
equipment and operations. While the Commission based its analysis on
the record of the proceeding, it recognizes that there is some
uncertainty inherent in trying to evaluate two systems that have not
yet been deployed and for which equipment designs are not yet final.
The Commission also recognizes that the 2320-2345 MHz frequency band is
the only spectrum specifically available for provision of Satellite
DARS in the United States. Accordingly, if Satellite DARS in this
spectrum is subject to excessive interference, the service will not be
successful and the American public will not benefit from the service.
In contrast, PACS can be provided in other spectrum currently available
for use by services including cellular and PCS. Thus, should the
potential for WCS operations to interfere with DARS prove to be greater
when the systems are implemented than the Commission's analysis
indicates, the Commission would of course revisit this issue and make
appropriate adjustments. Specifically, parties should note that per 47
CFR 27.53(c), when emissions outside of the authorized bandwidth cause
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than that specified in the Rules.
15. PPF/DigiVox questions some of the technical parameters of the
DARS system. One area of contention is the Satellite DARS receiver
noise temperature used in the analysis. Primosphere used a 200 Kelvin
noise temperature in its analysis, which is greater than the 120 Kelvin
noise temperature proposed in its application. PPF/DigiVox contends
that 370 Kelvins is more realistic. Based on the type of antenna
proposed for DARS use and the need for cost effective equipment, the
Commission believes that a receiver noise temperature of 250 Kelvins is
realistic and that is what the Commission's calculations are based
upon.
16. PPF/DigiVox contends that a rise in noise floor from a single
interferer of 2 dB should be allowed, rather than the 0.2 dB rise
considered by Primosphere. Considering the limited power that the
satellite systems will be able to operate with and the potential for a
DARS receiver to be affected by more than one interfering source,
whether it is another WCS transmitter, out-of-band emissions from
another source, or signal blockage, the Commission believes that a 2 dB
allowable rise is too great a contribution from a single source. The
Commission also, however, believes that a 0.2 dB allowable rise is
overly conservative. Accordingly, the Commission has based its
calculations on a 1.0 dB allowable rise, which corresponds to a 25%
rise in receiver noise. These values are consistent with those used in
determining the out-of-band limits adopted in the Report and Order.
17. In determining the potential for interference from its portable
units, PPF/DigiVox takes into account a number of factors. These
include the duty cycle of the WCS handset, the antenna pattern of a
Satellite DARS antenna, isolation due to differences in polarization
between DARS and WCS, and losses due to the proximity of a WCS portable
unit to the head of the user. Users of portable units for the system
described by PPF/DigiVox will generally be to the side and, in many
instances, slightly below the roof of an automobile. The Commission
therefore agrees with PPF/DigiVox that the antenna pattern can be taken
into account in performing an interference analysis. While antenna
patterns can vary greatly, thereby affecting the strength of the
undesired signal into the DARS receiver, the Commission believes that
the values proposed by DigiVox are reasonable. The Commission also
agrees that the isolation realized between the circularly polarized
DARS signal and the linearly polarized WCS operations can be taken into
consideration. The Commission disagrees, however, with the contention
that the out-of-band limits should be reduced by 9 dB due to the duty
cycle of the WCS handset. Because the symbol time used by DARS is
shorter than the WCS burst of 312 microsecond, the DARS data will be
disrupted by the WCS operations. While it may be possible for the DARS
operators to employ error correction techniques that take into account
the limited duty cycle of the WCS operations, any reduction in
interference potential does not correlate directly to the reduction in
power claimed by PPF/DigiVox. The Commission does believe, however,
that DARS operators will be able to use the duty cycle to their
advantage and are therefore requiring WCS operations to employ a 12.5%
duty cycle in order to qualify for the reduced out-of-band emission
limits. Finally, the Commission does not agree that any isolation can
be assumed for energy absorbed by the human head. As Primosphere points
out (pg. 7), the subscriber's head often will not be positioned between
the WCS transmitter and the Satellite DARS receiver and, in some
positions, may add to, rather than subtract from, undesired radiation.
No statistical information was provided as to the probability of head
loss occurring, or of its magnitude at those times. Due to the mobility
of the hand-held units, it is highly unlikely that head loss is always
present.
18. In its analysis, PPF/DigiVox assumes a separation of 12 feet
between the WCS user and the DARS receiver. The Commission has reviewed
the statistical analysis provided in support of this assumption and,
while the Commission does not necessarily agree with all aspects of the
analysis, 12 feet is a reasonable distance to assume in evaluating the
potential interaction of DARS listeners and users of portable WCS
operations as described by PPF/DigiVox. While the Commission believes
that there will be interference to the DARS service from these WCS
operations, the Commission believes
[[Page 16497]]
that actual instances of interference will be sufficiently limited as
to not unduly jeopardize the commercial viability of DARS. Based on
this analysis, the Commission finds it reasonable to allow portable WCS
units that meet the criteria described in paragraph 16 to reduce their
emission into the 2320-2345 MHz band by only 93 + 10 log (p) dB.
19. PPF/DigiVox has also requested that the Commission relax the
out-of-band limits for base stations used in the type of system they
describe. PPF/DigiVox bases its argument on the relative gain of the
WCS antenna with respect to the position of the DARS receiver. As
pointed out by Primosphere, depending on the exact antenna employed by
the WCS station, the greatest potential for interference is not
directly under the antenna as claimed by PPF/DigiVox. Although the path
loss does increase as the DARS receiver moves away from the WCS base
station, the gain of the WCS antenna will also increase. It is not
possible to determine the precise relationship between these two
factors without knowing the gain pattern for the specific antenna to be
employed. In addition, if the Commission made such an adjustment, the
Commission would have to require that any WCS licensee operating under
the reduced emission limits use an antenna meeting those
characteristics. The Commission also notes that in its evaluation, PPF/
DigiVox considered a separation of 24 feet between its base station and
a DARS receiver directly underneath. The system described by PPF/
DigiVox may employ antennas mounted as low as 25 feet. If a DARS
antenna is mounted on the roof of a vehicle it will be closer than 24
feet to the WCS antenna, resulting in reduced path loss. Accordingly,
fixed WCS stations will continue to be required to reduce their
emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz band by 80 + 10 log (p) dB.
20. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission is permitting
WCS Block A and B licensees to employ portable devices (defined for the
purposes of this decision as transmitters designed to be used within 20
centimeters of the body of the user) that transmit in the 2305-2315 MHz
band only to attenuate all emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz band by a
factor of not less than 93 + 10 log (p) dB and to employ base stations
that transmit in the 2350-2360 MHz band only to attenuate all emissions
into the 2320-2345 MHz band by a factor of not less than 80 + 10 log
(p) dB. These less stringent out-of-band emission limits may be used
only if the average portable transmit power is limited to 25 mW, the
peak portable transmit power is limited to 200 mW, the portable devices
employ means to limit the power to the minimum necessary for successful
communications, the portable devices have a duty cycle of 12.5% or
less, and the portable devices use time division multiple access
(``TDMA'') technology. In addition, the Commission prohibits the
installation of vehicle-mounted units, requires that transmitting
antennas employ linear polarization or another polarization that
provides equivalent or better discrimination with respect to a
Satellite DARS antenna, requires that the average base station transmit
output power be limited to 800 mW, and requires that base station
antennas be located at a height of at least 8 meters (26.25 feet) above
ground.
21. Accordingly, it is ordered, that Part 27 of the Commission's
Rules is amended, as set forth below, and that, in accordance with the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-208, 110
Stat. 3009 (1996), these Rules shall be effective immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to
Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) and the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).
Furthermore, it is ordered, that the petitions for reconsideration
are granted, to the extent described above and denied in all other
respects.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 27
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 27 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 27--WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, and 332.
2. Section 27.4 is amended by adding the definitions for Base
Station, Portable Device, Radiolocation Land Station, Radiolocation
Mobile Station, Time Division Multiple Access, and Time Division
Multiplexing in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 27.4 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
Base station. A land station in the land mobile service.
* * * * *
Portable device. Transmitters designed to be used within 20
centimeters of the body of the user.
* * * * *
Radiolocation land station. A station in the radiolocation service
not intended to be used while in motion.
Radiolocation mobile station. A station in the radiolocation
service intended to be used while in motion or during halts at
unspecified points.
* * * * *
Time division multiple access (TDMA). A multiple access technique
whereby users share a transmission medium by being assigned and using
(one-at-a-time) for a limited number of time division multiplexed
channels; implies that several transmitters use one channel for sending
several bit streams.
Time division multiplexing (TDM). A multiplexing technique whereby
two or more channels are derived from a transmission medium by dividing
access to the medium into sequential intervals. Each channel has access
to the entire bandwidth of the medium during its interval. This implies
that one transmitter uses one channel to send several bit streams of
information.
* * * * *
3. Section 27.50 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits.
(a) Fixed, land, and radiolocation land stations transmitting in
the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are limited to 2000 watts
peak equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP).
(b) Mobile and radiolocation mobile stations transmitting in the
2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are limited to 20 watts EIRP peak
power.
(c) Peak transmit power shall be measured over any interval of
continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of
rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
emission bandwidth, etc., so as to obtain a true peak measurement for
the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel.
4. Section 27.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
(a) The power of any emission outside the licensee's frequency
band(s) of
[[Page 16498]]
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (p) within
the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by the following
amounts:
(1) For fixed, land, and radiolocation land stations: By a factor
not less than 80 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and
2345 MHz;
(2) For mobile and radiolocation mobile stations: By a factor not
less than 110 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345
MHz;
(3) For fixed, land, mobile, radiolocation land and radiolocation
mobile stations: By a factor not less than 70 + 10 log (p) dB on all
frequencies below 2300 MHz and on all frequencies above 2370 MHz; and
not less than 43 + 10 log (p) dB on all frequencies between 2300 and
2320 MHz and on all frequencies between 2345 and 2370 MHz that are
outside the licensed bands of operation;
(4) Compliance with these provisions is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz
or less, but at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter, provided the measured energy
is integrated over a 1 MHz bandwidth;
(5) In complying with the requirements in Sec. 27.53(a)(1) and
Sec. 27.53(a)(2), WCS equipment that uses opposite sense circular
polarization from that used by Satellite DARS systems in the 2320-2345
MHz band shall be permitted an allowance of 10 dB;
(6) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the edges, both upper and
lower, of the licensee's bands of operation as the design permits;
(7) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or
average values, provided they are expressed in the same parameters as
the transmitter power;
(8) Waiver requests of any of the out-of-band emission limits in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section shall be entertained
only if interference protection equivalent to that afforded by the
limits is shown;
(9) In the 2305-2315 MHz band, if portable devices comply with all
of the following requirements, then paragraph (a)(2) of this section
shall not apply to portable devices, which instead shall attenuate all
emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz band by a factor of not less than 93 +
10 log (p) dB:
(i) The portable device has a duty cycle of 12.5% or less, with at
most a 312.5 microsecond pulse every 2.5 milliseconds;
(ii) The portable device must employ time division multiple access
(TDMA) technology;
(iii) The nominal peak transmit output power of the portable device
is no more than 200 milliwatts (25 milliwatts average power);
(iv) The portable device operates with the minimum power necessary
for successful communications;
(v) The nominal average base station transmit output power is no
more than 800 milliwatts when the base station antennas is located at a
height of at least 8 meters (26.25 feet) above the ground;
(vi) Only fixed and portable devices and services may be provided:
vehicle-mounted units are not permitted; and
(vii) Transmitting antennas shall employ linear polarization or
another polarization that provides equivalent of better discrimination
with respect to a DARS antenna;
(10) The out-of-band emissions limits in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(9) of this section may be modified by the private contractual
agreement of all affected licensees, who shall maintain a copy of the
agreement in their station files and disclose it to prospective
assignees or transferees and, upon request, to the Commission.
(b) For WCS Satellite DARS operations: The limits set forth in
Sec. 25.202(f) of this chapter shall apply, except that Satellite DARS
operations shall be limited to a maximum power flux density of -197
dBW/m2/4 kHz in the 2370-2390 MHz band at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
(c) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
5. Section 27.58 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 27.58 Interference to MDS/ITFS receivers.
(a) WCS licensees shall bear full financial obligation to remedy
interference to MDS/ITFS block downconverters if all of the following
conditions are met:
(1) The complaint is received by the WCS licensee prior to February
20, 2002;
(2) The MDS/ITFS downconverter was installed prior to August 20,
1998;
(3) The WCS fixed or land station transmits at 50 or more watts
peak EIRP;
(4) The MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a WCS
transmitter's free space power flux density contour of -34 dBW/m2;
and
(5) The MDS/ITFS customer or licensee has informed the WCS licensee
of the interference within one year from the initial operation of the
WCS transmitter or within one year from any subsequent power increase
at the WCS station.
(b) Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the
complainant.
(c) Two or more WCS licensees collocating their antennas on the
same tower shall assume shared responsibility for remedying
interference complaints within the area determined by paragraph (a)(4)
of this section unless an offending station can be readily determined
and then that station shall assume full financial responsibility.
(d) If the WCS licensee cannot otherwise eliminate interference
caused to MDS/ITFS reception, then that licensee must cease operations
from the offending WCS facility.
(e) At least 30 days prior to commencing operations from any new
WCS transmission site or with increased power from any existing WCS
transmission site, a WCS licensee shall notify all MDS/ITFS licensees
in or through whose licensed service areas they intend to operate of
the technical parameters of the WCS transmission facility. WCS and MDS/
ITFS licensees are expected to coordinate voluntarily and in good faith
to avoid interference problems and to allow the greatest operational
flexibility in each other's operations.
[FR Doc. 97-8909 Filed 4-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
