[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/m<SUP>2/4 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/m<SUP>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.
    (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