Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16493

4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401–

7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by

adding an entry under the indicated

heading to read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * *

Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Part 258 .................................... 2050–0122

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–8819 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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/
16494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 soonto-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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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/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. 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 outof-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-ofband 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.
16496 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 outof-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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofband 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 outof-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:

§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 27.53 Emission limits.

(a) The power of any emission outside

the licensee’s frequency band(s) of
16498 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 27.53(a)(1) and

§ 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 outof-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: vehiclemounted 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

§ 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:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 1

[OST Docket No. 1; Amdt. 1–285]

Organization and Delegation of Powers

and Duties; Delegation to the Director,

Transportation Administrative Service

Center

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of

Transportation rescinds the authority of

the Assistant Secretary for

Administration to operate the Working

Capital Fund, as found in 49 CFR

1.59(d). The authority to operate the

Working Capital Fund is hereby

delegated to the Director, Transportation

Administrative Service Center (TASC).

This requires a change to the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR).

EFFECTIVE DATES: This rule is effective

April 7, 1997.