29248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0307 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0307 Safety Zone; North Coast 

Harbor, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. 

(a) Location. All navigable waters of 

North Coast Harbor into the East Basin 

Channel. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 10 

a.m. on August 20, 2022. 

(c) Definitions. ‘‘Official Patrol 

Vessel’’ means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Sector Buffalo (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the regulations in this 

section. ‘‘Participant’’ means all persons 

and vessels attending the event. 

(d) Regulations. (1) The Coast Guard 

may patrol the event area under the 

direction of a designated Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander. The Patrol 

Commander may be contacted on 

Channel 16 VHF–FM (156.8 MHz) by 

the call sign ‘‘PATCOM.’’ 

(2) All persons and vessels not 

registered with the sponsor as 

participants or official patrol vessels are 

considered spectators. The ‘‘official 

patrol vessels’’ consist of any Coast 

Guard, state or local law enforcement 

and sponsor provided vessels 

designated or assigned by the Captain of 

the Port Sector Buffalo, to patrol the 

event. 

(3) Spectator vessels desiring to 

transit the regulated area may do so only 

with prior approval of the Patrol 

Commander and when so directed by 

that officer and will be operated at a no 

wake speed in a manner which will not 

endanger participants in the event or 

any other craft. 

(4) No spectator shall anchor, block, 

loiter, or impede the through transit of 

official patrol vessels in the area 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

during the effective dates and times 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, unless cleared for entry by or 

through an official patrol vessel. 

(5) The Patrol Commander may forbid 

and control the movement of all vessels 

in the regulated area specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. When 

hailed or signaled by an official patrol 

vessel, a vessel shall come to an 

immediate stop and comply with the 

directions given. Failure to do so may 

result in expulsion from the area, 

citation for failure to comply, or both. 

(6) Any spectator vessel may anchor 

outside the regulated areas specified in 

this section, but may not anchor in, 

block, or loiter in a navigable channel. 

(7) The Patrol Commander may 

terminate the event or the operation of 

any vessel at any time it is deemed 

necessary for the protection of life or 

property. 

(8) The Patrol Commander will 

terminate enforcement of the special 

regulations at the conclusion of the 

event. 

Dated: May 2, 2022. 

L.M. Littlejohn, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10172 Filed 5–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 

73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, and 

101 

[ET Docket No. 22–137; FCC 22–29 FRS 

85531] 

Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum 

Through Improved Receiver 

Interference Immunity Performance 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

comments from all stakeholders in 

connection with the development of an 

up-to-date record on the role of 

receivers in spectrum management and 

how the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission or FCC) 

might best promote improvements in 

receiver interference immunity 

performance that would serve the public 

interest. The Commission seeks to build 

upon the progress, including 

technological advances, in recent years 

that has enabled better receiver 

interference immunity performance, and 

the Commission seeks comment on 

where those efforts and advances have 

been most successful. The Commission 

also seeks to learn lessons from recent 

Commission proceedings in which 

receiver performance concerns have 

been prominent, to better inform the 

Commission as it considers how to 

ensure valuable and innovative services 

are able to thrive across the frequency 

range. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 27, 2022, and reply comments are 

due on or before July 27, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Murray of the Office of Engineering and 

Technology, at paul.murray@fcc.gov or 

(202) 418–0688, or Michael Ha of the 

Office of Engineering and Technology, 

at michael.ha@fcc.gov or (202) 418– 

2099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of a document in, ET Docket 

No. 22–137, FCC 22–29, released April 

21, 2022 (Notice of Inquiry). The full 

text of the document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 45 L Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20554. The full text 

may also be downloaded at: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launchesproceeding-promoting-receiverperformance-0. People with Disabilities: 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis 

In this document, the Commission 

takes a fresh look at the role of receiver 

performance in its spectrum 

management responsibilities, with the 

goal of facilitating new opportunities for 

use of its nation’s spectrum resources. 

Forward-facing spectrum management 

necessitates that the Commission 

continuously promote more efficient 

spectrum use to enable the introduction 

of valuable new wireless services that 

benefit the American people. As 

spectrum use across the radio 

frequencies (RF) becomes more 

intensive, and services are packed more 

closely together, Commission spectrum 

management policies must consider 

potential efficiencies across all aspects 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29249 

of wireless systems, not just transmitters 

but receivers as well. While the 

Commission has typically focused its 

rules on the transmitter side of radio 

systems, as several recent Commission 

proceedings have underscored, receivers 

and receiver interference immunity 

performance play an increasingly 

critical role in enabling more efficient 

spectrum use. 

The Commission seeks through this 

document to develop an up-to-date 

record on the role of receivers in 

spectrum management and how it might 

best promote improvements in receiver 

interference immunity performance that 

would serve the public interest. The 

Commission seeks to build upon the 

progress, including technological 

advances, in recent years that has 

enabled better receiver interference 

immunity performance, and the 

Commission seeks comment on where 

those efforts and advances have been 

most successful. The Commission also 

seeks to learn lessons from recent 

Commission proceedings in which 

receiver performance concerns have 

been prominent, to better inform the 

Commission as it considers how to 

ensure valuable and innovative services 

are able to thrive across the frequency 

range. To further assist the 

Commission’s efforts, it also seeks to 

consider anew the efforts, reports, 

studies, and recommendations, 

including several of the Commission’s 

Technological Advisory Council (TAC) 

White Papers, that have been proffered 

in recent years regarding the kinds of 

actions that the Commission should 

consider. 

In sum, the Commission begins the 

process of developing potential 

pathways for improvements in receiver 

performance, where and as appropriate, 

that will aid in making spectrum 

management more effective and provide 

more benefits to the American public. 

As the Commission discusses below, it 

recognizes that a variety of approaches 

may be appropriate, whether through 

industry-led voluntary measures, 

Commission policy and guidance, or 

rule requirements where other 

approaches would be insufficient. In 

this important first step the Commission 

seeks to compile a comprehensive 

record on the various issues that the 

Commission should consider, inviting 

broad comment from all stakeholders as 

the Commission considers these issues. 

The Commission looks forward to 

reviewing the record that develops from 

this Inquiry to inform us regarding 

possible next steps that the Commission 

may take in the future to promote 

efficient spectrum management in the 

public interest. 

Background 

In 2003, the Commission adopted a 

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to begin 

‘‘consideration of incorporating receiver 

interference immunity performance 

specifications into its spectrum policy 

on a broader basis’’ (68 FR 23677 (May 

5, 2003)) (NOI on Receiver Performance 

Specifications). The Commission noted 

that incorporating receiver performance 

specifications could promote more 

efficient spectrum use and create 

opportunities for new and additional 

use of radio communications services by 

the American public. The Commission 

indicated that consideration of receiver 

interference performance specifications 

could be in the form of incentives, 

guidelines, or regulatory requirements 

(or a combination of these) in particular 

frequency bands, services or across 

bands and services. 

The 2003 NOI sought information, 

comment, and research concerning the 

immunity performance and interference 

tolerance of existing receivers, the 

possibilities for improving the level of 

receiver immunity in the various radio 

services, and potential impacts of 

receiver standards on innovation and 

the marketplace. In particular, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

following issues—receiver performance 

parameters (e.g., selectivity, sensitivity, 

dynamic range, automatic RF gain 

control, shielding, modulation method, 

and signal processing); the current RF 

environment and receiver interference 

immunity performance; various 

approaches that the Commission should 

consider for incorporating receiver 

interference immunity performance 

guidelines into spectrum policy 

(including voluntary industry standards, 

guidelines promulgated by the 

Commission, and mandatory standards); 

receiver performance in various radio 

services; the potential impact of receiver 

performance specification on innovation 

and the marketplace; and the treatment 

of existing receivers and the transition 

pathways to improved receivers. 

Several commenters responding to the 

2003 NOI supported the Commission’s 

further exploring interference immunity 

performance standards and agreed that 

improved receiver performance can help 

improve spectrum efficiency and ensure 

greater access to spectrum for all users; 

they differed, however, regarding the 

appropriate approach(es) and how to 

implement them with respect to 

particular bands. In 2007, the 

Commission terminated the proceeding 

‘‘without prejudice to its substantive 

merits.’’ The Commission stated that, 

with the passage of time, the record had 

become outdated and that, to the extent 

that receiver interference immunity 

performance specifications are 

desirable, they could be addressed in 

proceedings that are frequency band or 

service specific. 

Commission Rules on Receiver 

Performance Requirements 

As a general matter, the Commission’s 

regulation of transmitters has at least 

implicitly provided for an RF 

environment that affects receiver 

performance insofar as the technical 

characteristics of receivers are expected 

to process those transmissions to 

successfully establish communications. 

The overall objective of that regulation 

has been to provide, through limits on 

power levels, in-band and out-of-band 

emission limits, operational 

requirements regarding antennas, etc., 

an RF environment that facilitates those 

communications as much as possible. In 

some limited circumstances, the 

Commission has more directly 

addressed regulated receiver 

performance, both through performance 

standards and performance incentives, 

only in limited circumstances, such as 

in the examples that follow. 

800 MHz Band Public Safety Rebanding. In the 800 MHz public safety 

re-banding proceeding, minimum 

receiver performance was a major 

consideration when establishing 

whether a licensee operating in the band 

could claim entitlement to protection 

against ‘‘unacceptable interference.’’ 

Specifically, the Commission 

established a bright-line test for 

determining if a licensee is fully eligible 

to claim protection against 

‘‘unacceptable interference’’ based on, 

among other factors, the characteristics 

of the receiver being employed by the 

licensee seeking protection. 

900 MHz Band. The Commission 

adopted for the 900 MHz band 

interference criteria similar to those 

established for the 800 MHz band. Like 

in the 800 MHz band, the Commission 

established a definition of 

‘‘unacceptable interference’’ to 900 MHz 

narrowband licensees from 900 MHz 

broadband licensees and established 

technical parameters including a 

receiver intermodulation rejection ratio, 

adjacent channel rejection ratio, and 

reference sensitivity. 

Digital Television. Improved receiver 

performance was a major consideration 

as the Commission prepared for the 

digital television (DTV) transition. Prior 

to that transition, the Commission 

adopted a series of decisions intended 

to help address issues regarding the 

conversion of analog TV to digital TV, 

a transition that was finalized in 2009. 

In planning for the DTV transition, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29250 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Commission had anticipated the need 

for certain minimal receiver 

specifications. Several interested parties 

had recognized that voluntary transition 

might not be sufficient, and the 

Commission agreed, mandating receiver 

specifications for TV broadcast receivers 

in 2002 that would go into effect after 

a specified phase-in period to ensure a 

smooth transition. 

Part 96 Citizens Broadband Radio 

Service. The Commission adopted rules 

in the 3.55–3.7 GHz Band governing 

reception limits for Citizens Broadband 

Radio Service users and incumbents 

that established ‘‘acceptable levels’’ of 

in-band and adjacent band interference 

for operations. These limits apply to 

Priority Access Licensees, incumbent 

Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth 

stations in the 3.6–3.7 GHz band, and 

adjacent band FSS earth stations used 

for telemetry, tracking, and control. The 

Commission also established received 

signal strength limits for Citizens 

Broadband Service Devices (CBSDs) and 

required Spectrum Access System 

administrators to manage transmissions 

to ensure that aggregate signal strength 

remains below a fixed threshold 

between geographically adjacent service 

areas held by different licensees. 

Part 27 Broadband Radio Service/ 

Educational Broadband Service. The 

Commission established rules that 

specify the minimum signal level below 

which Broadband Radio Service/ 

Educational Broadband Service base 

station receivers in the 2496–2690 MHz 

band do not receive interference 

protection from co-channel base station 

transmitters not exceeding the height 

benchmark. 

Part 27 3.7 GHz Service. When 

authorizing the 3.7–3.98 GHz Band for 

flexible use, the Commission adopted 

rules to protect incumbent FSS earth 

stations from out of band emissions and 

blocking interference; these rules that 

require that transmitters are separated 

from FSS earth station receivers by 20 

megahertz and meet both in-band and 

out-of-band power-flux density (PFD) 

limits as measured at each incumbent 

FSS earth station antenna and 

established specific protection criteria 

for earth stations used for telemetry, 

tracking, and control. The Commission 

also adopted rules that required 

passband filters to be installed on 

incumbent FSS earth station antennas 

and established a transition process to, 

in part, ensure that such filters are 

acquired and installed at each antenna. 

Part 80 Maritime Service. The 

Commission adopted several technical 

requirements, such as sensitivity and/or 

stability requirements, for certain 

receivers in the Maritime Services. It 

also has incorporated by reference 

standards for Global Maritime Distress 

and Safety System operations which 

include receiver operational and 

performance requirements. 

Part 87 Aviation Service. To 

maintain the accuracy of critical 

location information for applications 

such as aircraft precision landings, part 

87 Aviation Service rules specify 

performance requirements for 

differential global positioning system 

(GPS) receivers (in the presence of 

undesired VHF–FM broadcast signals) 

relied upon for aviation safety purposes. 

Part 95 Personal Radio Services. To 

ensure that life-saving Personal Locating 

Beacons and Maritime Survivor 

Locating Beacons operate properly and 

do not further endanger those in distress 

and/or rescue personnel, these devices 

must meet technical standards 

incorporated by reference in the rules 

which include receiver operational and 

performance standards. 

Recent Proceedings 

In several recent Commission 

proceedings, the receiver interference 

immunity performance associated with 

incumbent services operating in spectral 

proximity to new users or services has 

been a major consideration. In these 

cases, the ability of incumbent service 

receivers to reject signals outside their 

intended band has been directly 

relevant to the timing and scope of the 

introduction of new services. 

For example, in both the Ligado and 

the 3.7 GHz Band proceedings, the 

Commission adopted operating 

conditions and rules to enable the 

introduction of new operations into 

frequency bands with various 

incumbent users operating under 

different service allocations in the same 

band, adjacent band, or other spectrally 

proximate frequency bands. Although 

the factual circumstances of these two 

proceedings differ, both illustrate the 

challenges that systems face to co-exist 

and successfully operate when the 

spectral environment changes especially 

when incumbent systems may have 

been designed based on different 

assumptions about the RF environment 

in adjacent bands or other nearby 

frequency bands. These proceedings 

demonstrate that having accurate and 

timely information about receiver 

characteristics can be helpful in the 

Commission’s analysis of potential 

harmful interference concerns and also 

highlight several other spectrum 

management issues that can arise with 

respect to receiver interference 

immunity performance, including 

receiver interference susceptibility, 

receiver selectivity, the impact of 

technological advancements (including 

filtering), and legacy devices. 

Technological Advisory Council (TAC) 

White Papers and Workshops 

In recent years, the Commission’s 

Technological Advisory Council (TAC) 

also has been engaged in examining 

various technical issues concerning 

receiver performance in several of the 

White Papers that the TAC has issued. 

In addition, the TAC has made several 

recommendations for the Commission’s 

consideration on potential ways to 

promote the development and 

deployment of receivers that are more 

resilient to interference and could 

enable more efficient use of the Nation’s 

spectrum resources. 

White Paper on Spectrum Efficiency 

Metrics. In 2011, the Commission’s TAC 

issued a White Paper on ‘‘spectrum 

efficiency metrics,’’ which it viewed as 

an important factor in the Commission’s 

spectrum management decisions. The 

TAC took an ‘‘integrated systems 

approach’’ in its evaluation of spectrum 

efficiency metrics, and noted that every 

component of a radio based 

communications system involved with 

either the transmission and/or reception 

of a signal has to be considered as part 

of efficiency. The TAC recognized a 

close relationship between spectrum 

efficiency and receiver standards/ 

guidelines or performance. 

White Papers on Interference Limits 

Policy and Harm Claim Thresholds. In 

2013, the TAC issued a White Paper on 

Interference Limits Policy in which it 

explored potential policy—an 

‘‘interference limits policy,’’ including 

harm claim thresholds—that it believed 

could promote more transparent 

consideration of receivers in spectrum 

management and promote better 

receiver performance. The TAC believed 

that the Commission could increase 

service density, reduce regulatory risk, 

and encourage investment with 

adoption of rules that make clear in 

which situations receivers and 

transmitters each will have the 

responsibility for mitigating any 

harmful interference, and doing so upfront rather than after lengthy postdispute proceedings. This approach 

would state explicitly when receivers 

may claim harmful interference as a 

necessary complement to existing 

transmitter regulation that could 

facilitate more intensive frequency use 

by providing more clarity about the 

baseline regulatory and radio 

interference context going forward. In 

2014, the TAC followed with issuing its 

White Paper on Harm Claim 

Thresholds, which provided additional 

discussion on an interference limits 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29251 

policy focusing on harm claim threshold 

approaches. 

White Paper on Risk-informed 

Interference Assessment. In 2015, the 

TAC issued its White Paper on Riskinformed Interference Assessment. The 

TAC recommended that the 

Commission adopt risk-informed 

interference assessment and statistical 

service rules more widely to help 

improve its spectrum management 

decision-making. As risk-informed 

interference assessment would consider 

likelihood/consequence combinations 

for potential interference hazard 

scenarios involving transmitters and 

receivers; this tool could serve to 

complement a more static ‘‘worst case’’ 

analysis that considers the single 

scenario with the most severe 

consequence regardless of its likelihood. 

White Paper on Basic Principles for 

Assessing Compatibility of New 

Spectrum Allocations. In 2015, the TAC 

released another White Paper on Basic 

Principles for assessing compatibility of 

new spectrum allocations. It believed 

that a set of basic principles could be 

helpful for all involved parties to 

consider and could serve to establish 

clearer expectations of incumbent 

services as well as new services entering 

the spectrum. Several of the basic 

principles directly related to 

expectations regarding both transmitters 

and receivers. As contemplated, these 

principles sought to promote ‘‘good 

neighbor policies’’ among spectrum 

users that more effectively enable users 

to ‘‘get along.’’ 

Commission workshops. In 2012, as 

part of the Commission’s efforts to 

develop more effective spectrum 

management approaches that promote 

greater spectrum efficiency, the 

Commission’s Office of Engineering and 

Technology, in conjunction with the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

and the Office of Strategic Planning, 

hosted a workshop on ‘‘Spectrum 

Efficiency and Receiver Performance.’’ 

In the workshop, the Offices and 

Bureaus pointed out that receiver 

performance has historically arisen in 

the context of conflicts between legacy 

stakeholders and new entrants, where 

deployments of new technologies and 

services threatens to adversely impact 

an incumbent or place restrictions on 

the new entrant. In 2014, the 

Commission’s Office of Engineering and 

Technology (OET), in conjunction with 

the International Bureau (IB), Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 

(PSHSB), and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), 

hosted another workshop, this one on 

‘‘GPS Protection and Receiver 

Performance. 

Other Relevant Studies, Analyses, and 

Memoranda 

NTIA Report on Receiver Standards. 

In 2003, the same year that the 

Commission issued its NOI on Receiver 

Performance Specifications, the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) 

issued a report on ‘‘Receiver Spectrum 

Standards’’ as part of its effort to explore 

promoting more interference-robust 

receivers. NTIA suggested several 

reasons why interference and efficiency 

problems were becoming more 

important. These included the dramatic 

increase in spectrum use, the 

introduction of new services and 

systems without standards needed for 

electromagnetic compatibility, design 

tradeoffs that favored inexpensive radio 

equipment rather than good 

performance, reduction in available 

guard bands, equipment manufacturers’ 

lack of knowledge of characteristics of 

equipment operating in the same or 

adjacent bands, and increased receiver 

front-end bandwidth of receivers. 

CSMAC Report on Fostering Spectrum 

Sharing and Improving Spectrum 

Efficiency. In 2010, the Commerce 

Spectrum Management Advisory 

Committee (CSMAC) issued a report 

that among other things underscored the 

importance of receivers as tools in 

achieving greater spectrum efficiency. 

CSMAC recommended developing 

incentives for promoting better receivers 

and transmitters, promoting awareness 

of interference characteristics of 

receivers and transmitters, improving 

filter performance, promoting certainty 

and appropriate consideration of legacy 

devices, and taking technological 

advances into account regarding legacy 

equipment. 

Kwerel and Williams Paper on 

‘‘Forward Looking Interference 

Regulation.’’ In 2011, Evan Kwerel and 

John Williams published a paper 

proposing that the Commission should 

provide better incentives to build more 

interference-robust systems in future 

allocations by moving away from a 

general interference protection model in 

spectrum management that often 

provides incumbent users protection 

against any interference resulting from 

subsequent rule changes. The paper 

asserted that the adjacent band 

interference protection for incumbents 

should not be static and recommended 

that incumbents be incentivized to 

‘‘self-protect’’ their wireless operations 

(including their receivers) against 

interference from adjacent bands (e.g., 

assuming that the adjacent band would 

be used for flexible use). The paper also 

noted certain market failures (e.g., lack 

of clarity regarding rights, holdout 

problems, transaction costs) that 

prevented efficient resolution of 

interference problems between 

incumbent users and new licensees 

through negotiation. 

Silicon Flatirons Reports—on 

Efficient Interference Management and 

on Receivers. In 2012 and 2013, the 

Silicon Flatirons Center issued two 

reports on spectrum management and 

receiver performance drawn from its 

roundtable conferences comprised of 

government, industry, and policy 

experts. The 2012 report on ‘‘Efficient 

Interference Management: Regulation, 

Receivers, and Right Enforcement’’ 

noted that receiver performance 

dramatically affects the coexistence of 

adjacent services, and further noted that 

while transmitters are required to 

control out-of-band and spurious 

emissions to minimize interference, 

receivers are not generally required to 

minimize interference from such 

emissions. The report identified several 

recurring problems that should be 

addressed (e.g., incumbents not 

accounting for a changing RF 

environment, ‘‘poor knowledge 

transfer’’ among all of the affected 

parties regarding receiver interference 

problems that could enable potential 

resolution), and stated that it would be 

helpful if regulators could better 

anticipate the needs at band edges and 

provide proper notice to affected parties 

on the need for better receivers and that 

phase-in of any receiver regulation 

would be important. The second Silicon 

Flatirons report, ‘‘Receivers, 

Interference, and Regulatory Options,’’ 

also identified several problems that 

have made it difficult to improve 

receiver performance, including: 

Externalities (since the party who would 

bear the cost of improving receivers is 

not the party who benefits); 

‘‘asymmetric information’’ (between 

incumbent users and adjacent band 

users seeking to mitigate interference 

but lacking information needed to 

effectively reduce interference); general 

lack of information for some of the 

parties affected; the need to understand 

costs and benefits (which could help 

enable creation of an incentive structure 

to improve receiver performance); and 

the need for more clarity about the RF 

environment. That report recommended 

improving transparency among 

operators and consumers creating more 

incentives to build more robust 

receivers (e.g., through issuance of a 

policy statement). Several on the panel 

also supported use of multi-stakeholder 

groups to develop appropriate technical 

solutions. Finally, the report 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29252 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

recommended appropriate notice to 

stakeholders of any proposed changes 

and development of a transition plan. 

PCAST Report on Spectrum Sharing. 

In 2012, the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) issued a report that dedicated 

significant discussion to the important 

role of receivers and receiver 

performance for spectrum management 

and promoting more efficient use of 

spectrum. In particular, given that 

receiver characteristics can be a 

significant factor in limiting operations 

in adjacent spectrum bands, the report 

underscored the importance of knowing 

receiver characteristics for spectrum 

management among operations in 

adjacent bands. PCAST also made 

several observations and 

recommendations regarding receivers. It 

believed that different types of receivers 

may require different approaches to 

receiver management. It also supported 

consideration of the harm claims 

threshold approach for receiver 

interference limits. 

GAO Report on Receiver Performance. 

In 2013, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) issued its report, observed 

that while the Commission and NTIA 

have historically focused on 

transmitters, receivers also can play an 

important role in better spectrum 

management. GAO identified challenges 

related to improving receiver 

performance, including the lack of 

coordination across industries when 

developing voluntary standards, the 

lack of incentives for manufacturers or 

spectrum users to incur costs associated 

with using more robust receivers, and 

the difficulty of accommodating a 

changing spectrum environment. GAO 

also identified various options for 

consideration, including developing 

voluntary industry standards, creating a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ in which compliance with 

industry standards would be a prerequisite to claim harmful interference; 

mandatory standards, interference 

limits, and gathering additional 

information on spectrum use and the 

characteristics of systems (which it 

thought on the one hand could enable 

more informed decision-making while 

on the other raise concerns about 

disclosure of proprietary or classified 

information). 

Presidential Memorandum on 

Wireless Innovation. In 2013, President 

Obama issued a Presidential 

memorandum on ‘‘Wireless 

Innovation,’’ which included a section 

on receiver performance that 

encouraged the Commission, in 

consultation with NTIA, where 

appropriate, the industry, and other 

stakeholders, to develop to the fullest 

extent of its legal authority a program of 

performance criteria, ratings, and other 

measures, including standards, to 

encourage the design, manufacture, and 

sale of radio receivers such that 

emission levels resulting from 

reasonable use of adjacent spectrum will 

not endanger the functioning of the 

receiver or seriously degrade, obstruct, 

or repeatedly interrupt the operations of 

the receiver. 

International developments. Finally, 

the Commission note that international 

regulators and intergovernmental 

organizations also have discussed the 

importance of ensuring that receivers 

are appropriately designed in order to 

promote more efficient use of spectrum. 

For example, the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU) ‘‘Radio 

Regulations’’ include several provisions 

that concern ‘‘technical characteristics 

of stations’’ associated with transmitter 

and receiver equipment and 

performance with respect to each other 

and in the context of promoting more 

efficient and effective use of spectrum, 

including Radio Regulations (RR) Nos. 

3.3, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13. In 2014, 

the European Union (EU) issued Radio 

Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU, 

which recognized the important role of 

transmitter and receiver radio 

equipment in spectrum management. 

Among the Radio Equipment Directive 

‘‘Essential Requirements’’ is that radio 

equipment should be constructed so as 

to ensure ‘‘an adequate level of 

electromagnetic compatibility’’ and in a 

manner that ‘‘both effectively uses and 

supports the efficient use of radio 

spectrum in order to avoid harmful 

interference.’’ Additionally, the United 

Kingdom Ofcom’s 2021 spectrum 

management strategy statement states 

that it is essential to encourage 

spectrum users to be more resilient to 

interference, and that operators should 

not generally expect Ofcom to take 

action on interference if it is a result of 

the poor performance of receivers or 

wider systems. 

Discussion 

The Commission begins by discussing 

the critical role that receiver 

performance plays with regard to 

spectrum management and enabling 

more efficient use of spectrum. The 

Commission then inquires about a wide 

range of approaches that the 

Commission might consider to promote 

more efficient use of spectrum that will 

enable greater access to the Nation’s 

spectrum resources for new services that 

will benefit Americans. 

The Critical Role of Receiver 

Performance in Spectrum Management 

The Commission issues this 

document with the goal of considering 

various approaches that will enable us 

to reorient its spectrum management 

lens—from focusing primarily on the 

transmitter side of wireless networks to 

focusing on both the transmitter and 

receiver sides of wireless systems. Both 

are vital to the innovative and efficient 

use of spectrum. While the Commission 

has long relied on rules establishing 

particular transmitter requirements to 

promote spectrum efficiency and more 

intensive use, receiver performance also 

can significantly affect the 

Commission’s ability to introduce new 

services in the same or nearby 

frequencies. In particular, receivers 

without sufficient interference 

immunity performance can diminish 

opportunities for innovative spectrum 

uses that drive economic growth, 

competition, security, and innovation. 

They can put constraints on what is 

possible in the evolving wireless world. 

Considering additional ways to 

promote more efficient use of spectrum 

by focusing on the role of both 

transmitters and receivers is even more 

important today than it was when the 

Commission initiated its earlier NOI on 

receiver performance in 2003. 

Continuous growth of and high demand 

for spectrum-based services makes this 

examination of receiver performance 

critical to more effective Commission 

spectrum management going forward. 

Greenfield spectrum—open and cleared 

for use—is hard to find in the current 

spectral environment. To make 

spectrum available for new and 

expanded services, existing spectrum 

users are packed into a more congested 

environment, as transmitters and 

receivers increasingly are situated in 

closer spectral and geographic 

proximity. In this congested 

environment, it is challenging to meet 

the demands for spectrum availability 

by simply relying on spectrum 

management tools used in the past. As 

the RF environment continues to 

change, receiver performance 

necessarily assumes greater importance 

in enabling more efficient spectrum use 

and effective spectrum management. 

In this document, the Commission 

inquires about the role of receivers as 

part of its broader exploration of policy 

tools that can harness new technologies 

and promote expanded and efficient 

spectrum use. The Commission seeks to 

develop a record on receiver 

performance across the RF spectrum, 

and on how the Commission might 

consider options that can promote more 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29253 

efficient spectrum use, where and as 

appropriate, that can best serve the 

public interest. The Commission invites 

broad comment on the various 

approaches and questions posed in this 

document. The Commission encourages 

commenters to focus on risk-based 

assessments and science-driven policy. 

As discussed below, the Commission 

recognizes that a variety of approaches 

may be appropriate, including industryled voluntary measures, clearer 

Commission policy and guidance, and, 

where other approaches may be 

insufficient, requiring specified levels of 

performance. Different approaches may 

be appropriate depending on the 

particular circumstances, including the 

types of services involved, and the 

Commission invites comment to help 

guide the Commission’s considerations. 

The Commission anticipates that 

commenters will discuss a range of 

options for possible industry and 

government actions, including those 

described below, as well as how best to 

implement any new policies in a 

manner that establishes clearer 

interference-related rights and 

responsibilities among spectrum users 

that can promote more efficient 

spectrum use while also driving 

innovation and serving the public 

interest. 

Considerations for Promoting Receiver 

Interference Immunity Performance 

As set forth below, the Commission 

inquires about a number of different 

considerations as the Commission 

evaluates approaches for promoting 

improved receiver interference 

immunity performance. The 

Commission invites comment on each of 

these approaches while also recognizing 

that some approaches may be more 

effective than others for addressing 

receiver performance concerns in 

particular situations, and that some mix 

of approaches may best serve the public 

interest. 

Receiver Performance Parameters 

Inquiring about receiver performance 

parameters, or how they, along with 

transmitter parameters define the RF 

environment, is essential to 

understanding what actions, if any, the 

Commission should consider taking. In 

the 2003 NOI on Receiver Performance 

Specifications, the Commission 

similarly sought comment on what 

receiver performance parameters the 

Commission should consider. As the 

NOI on Receiver Performance 

Specifications recognized, a radio 

receiver’s immunity to interference is 

dependent on a number of factors in its 

technical design and, in addition, the 

characteristics of the signals it receives; 

these factors may be closely related and 

interdependent, and a receiver’s 

performance in one factor may often 

affect its performance in others. The 

NOI then identified several 

parameters—including selectivity, 

sensitivity, dynamic range, automatic 

RF gain control, shielding, modulation 

method, and signal processing—and 

requested comment and information on 

these or any other factors and how they 

are related that should be considered. 

Subsequent efforts identified 

additional receiver parameters and 

engaged in further discussion on how 

such parameters could or should be 

considered by the Commission as it 

evaluates steps that it might take to 

promote receiver performance. These 

include, for instance, discussion in TAC 

White Papers, including the White 

Paper on Interference Limits Policy, the 

White Paper on Harm Claim 

Thresholds, and the White Paper on 

Risk-informed Interference Assessment, 

as well as the PCAST Report. CSMAC 

also emphasized the importance of 

developing more information on 

receiver filter performance, including 

working with the filter technology 

community on improving filter 

performance. 

Discussion. In this document, the 

Commission seeks information on 

receiver performance parameters that 

the Commission should consider, 

including those identified in the 

Commission’s earlier NOI or others that 

commenters consider relevant, as the 

Commission continues to examine 

whether the Commission should 

consider ways to promote receiver 

performance where appropriate. In 

particular, the Commission seeks to 

update and refresh the information 

presented in any earlier Commission 

proceeding or studies identified above, 

as well as any other relevant 

information (studies, analyses, reports, 

etc.) or past experience that could be 

useful as the Commission considers 

receiver parameters and receiver 

performance matters. 

As the Commission previously noted, 

interference immunity is dependent on 

several factors in the receiver’s technical 

design as well as the characteristics of 

the signal it receives. In considering 

approaches to advance receiver 

performance in ways that take receiver 

performance parameters into greater 

consideration, what specific parameters 

(e.g., selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic 

range, automatic RF gain control, 

shielding, modulation method, signal 

processing) should be considered? The 

Commission asks that commenters 

identify the various parameters 

(including but not limited to those listed 

here) as well as their typical ranges, that 

the Commission should consider. 

The Commission invites comment on 

whether there are specific receiver 

performance parameters that are more 

critical for allowing introduction of new 

services in the adjacent or neighboring 

bands without causing unacceptable 

interference. Are there any special 

hardware designs, software 

methodologies, or new technologies 

available that would significantly 

enhance receiver immunity 

performance? Are there techniques that 

can be used to improve these receiver 

performance parameters? How are 

various parameters interrelated? Are 

there factors that could or should be 

considered as a group and not 

independently due to their cross 

interactions or relationships with other 

factors? For example, to what extent 

does a receiver’s selectivity and 

sensitivity affect its dynamic range? 

What are the various trade-offs that 

must be considered when optimizing 

these parameters when designing a 

receiver? Can receiver interference 

immunity parameters be ranked or rated 

in accordance with their level of 

importance to performance? If the 

Commission were to take action, what 

performance levels should be associated 

with each parameter? Should 

requirements differ by service? If so, 

how should they differ for various 

services? Should performance levels be 

required to change over time (i.e., 

require increased interference tolerance 

on a specified timescale or based on 

some triggering event)? Commenters 

advocating such an approach should 

provide details as to which parameters 

should change and over what timeframe 

or what the triggering events should be. 

What procedures or criteria should be 

used to determine how to trade off the 

level of receiver performance with the 

practical issues of cost and 

implementation? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

any recent technical advancements in 

receiver design that the Commission 

should consider. What is the state of the 

art currently and what advances are 

anticipated? Are there advancements 

that have made receivers more resilient 

or susceptible to interference? If so, the 

Commission requests comments on 

changes in design that improved or 

degraded interference immunity. What 

specific receiver parameters were 

affected? Are there organizations or 

industries that are particularly helpful 

in developing such technical 

advancements? What current or planned 

research projects, either industry or 

academia based, are focused on receiver 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29254 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

improvements? How can these 

organizations and projects help inform 

the Commission as it seeks to identify 

receiver parameters which, if changed, 

would lead to the greatest improvement 

in receiver performance? Is there any 

ongoing research related to how receiver 

design could affect or influence 

regulatory and policy issues and various 

approaches that the Commission could 

consider during rulemaking 

proceedings? Would it be appropriate or 

feasible for industry stakeholders to 

maintain a library of specifications, best 

practices, and trends of receiver 

interference immunity performance 

levels? 

The Commission requests comment 

on how receiver performance factors are 

related to frequency and operating 

power, and are these factors are 

influenced by the nature of the RF 

environment (e.g., how does anticipate 

in-band and out-of-band power affect 

receiver performance and influence 

design choices)? To what extent, and in 

what way, are certain factors that affect 

interference immunity relatively more 

important than others across different 

types of receivers used in different radio 

services or across devices that receive 

signals transmitted using different 

methods of modulation? 

In identifying the various receiver 

parameters on which the Commission or 

industry should focus, the Commission 

notes that there must be standard 

techniques to evaluate receivers to 

ensure that they meet any voluntary or 

required regulatory (including 

mandatory) benchmarks. The 

Commission further notes that unlike 

transmitter characteristics, many 

receiver parameters are inherently 

difficult to measure. The Commission 

seeks information on how receiver 

performance parameters can be 

measured, validated, and rated. Is there 

a subset of receiver performance 

parameters that can be easily measured 

and that also provide a reasonable 

characterization of receiver 

performance? Are there any industry 

standards for these types of 

measurements, created by 

standardization bodies such as the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), Institute of Electrical and 

Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3rd 

Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), 

or European Telecommunications 

Standards Institute (ETSI) that could be 

helpful as the Commission considers 

various approaches for promoting 

receiver performance? 

The RF Environment 

Understanding the RF environment in 

which radio services operate, both today 

and as anticipated in the future, 

provides important context for the 

Commission’s considerations regarding 

how best to understand options that 

could promote better receiver 

interference immunity performance as 

part of improved spectrum management. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

RF environment and how it should be 

factored into consideration. 

In the 2003 NOI, the Commission 

noted that ‘‘existing receivers are, for 

the most part, built to provide 

interference immunity as determined 

necessary by their designer/ 

manufacturer to provide satisfactory 

service’’ which has ‘‘resulted a wide 

range of immunity performance across 

products used within the same services 

and across services.’’ Accordingly, the 

Commission sought comment and 

information on the interference 

immunity characteristics of receivers 

used in various radio services and how 

receivers performed in those services; as 

part of its inquiry, it requested 

information about how many units were 

at that time in service and about the 

expected service life of the receivers in 

various services. It also inquired about 

different receiver specifications that 

should be considered depending on the 

environment in which a receiver 

operates, or whether instead there 

should be a ‘‘generic’’ environment in 

which all receivers should be expected 

to perform adequately. 

Several studies and recommendations 

have emphasized the importance of the 

Commission and spectrum users to have 

knowledge of the characteristics of both 

transmitters and receivers in order to 

promote more efficient spectrum 

management. The TAC White Paper on 

Basic Principles for Assessing 

Compatibility of New Spectrum 

Allocations, for instance, included a 

principle that radio services would be 

‘‘expected to disclose the relevant 

standards, guidelines, and operating 

characteristics of their systems if they 

expect protection from harmful 

interference. Another report identified 

the need for more clarity about the RF 

environment, which could help inform 

operators about the type of systems they 

need to deploy; it also pointed out that 

not knowing system characteristics 

created a problem of ‘‘asymmetric 

information’’ insofar as the interference 

protection enjoyed by a receiving 

system in one band affects the ability of 

an adjacent service provider to operate, 

but that service provider usually does 

not have all the information needed to 

make choices that will reduce 

interference). That report also called for 

improving transparency for operators, 

including the sharing of more 

information on the characteristics of 

their neighbors’ adjacent operations, 

establishing a device performance 

registry, and otherwise incentivizing 

operators to divulge helpful 

information. 

The CSMAC and PCAST reports also 

discussed the importance of having 

more information on receiver 

characteristics. CSMAC believed that 

new services acquiring or accessing 

spectrum should be made aware of the 

interference characteristics of receiving 

and transmitting equipment operating 

on frequencies that will be shared or 

used in adjacent bands. PCAST noted 

that, given that receiver characteristics 

can be a significant factor in limiting 

operations in adjacent spectrum bands, 

the report underscored the importance 

of knowing receiver characteristics for 

spectrum management among 

operations in adjacent bands. Further, 

GAO recognized that one option for 

helping improve spectrum management 

and decision-making would be for the 

Commission to gather more information 

on spectrum use and the characteristics 

of the systems, including receivers, 

although GAO thought that this would 

raise concerns about disclosure of 

proprietary or classified information. 

Finally, recent Commission 

proceedings have underscored the 

importance of having better information 

on receiver characteristics as the 

Commission exercises its spectrum 

management responsibilities. This 

information could enable the 

Commission to provide greater access to 

spectrum for new services, promote 

more efficient use of spectrum, and find 

ways to better understand the nature 

and extent of potential interference 

concerns that may arise with respect to 

the introduction of new services. It also 

could enable consideration of pathways 

to address legacy receivers that may 

raise particular concerns (e.g., 

identifying, modifying, repairing, 

replacing through transitions). 

The Commission requests comment 

on the current RF environment in which 

various services operate. What is the 

impact of that environment on the 

ability for adjacent and nearby 

operations? Have interference concerns 

been addressed effectively or 

ineffectively with regard to adjacent 

band services (e.g., use of guard bands, 

technical rules, etc.), or are there other 

relevant considerations regarding the 

current RF environment that can inform 

its consideration in the proceeding? 

As the Commission noted in the 2003 

NOI, the receiver interference 

environment and demands placed on 

receiver performance have often been 

dependent on the specific type of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29255 

service provided on neighboring 

frequency bands. In that NOI, it sought 

comment on various operational 

environments and characteristics of the 

different types of services at that time 

(nearly 20 years ago)—including 

satellite, public safety, mobile, fixed, 

and broadcast services—as they affected 

minimum receiver performance needs. 

It also noted that the types of operations 

and services occupying neighboring 

frequency bands often are a significant 

factor in the environment in which a 

receiver operates, and the Commission 

sought information on receiver 

performance issues of specific types of 

service and operations relating to both 

the in-band and out-of-band 

environments. 

The Commission again seeks 

comment on the current RF 

environment with respect to particular 

services—including various mobile 

services (terrestrial, aeronautical, 

satellite, maritime), fixed services 

(point-to-point microwave, point-tomultipoint, satellite), public safety 

services, broadcast services (fixed and 

mobile), and other services such as 

radionavigation, radiolocation, and 

sensing services used for scientific 

applications. The Commission is 

particularly interested in obtaining 

information on whether the RF 

environment and receiver interference 

immunity performance may have 

changed because of technological 

advancements, evolved spectrum 

management challenges, or changing 

spectrum use requirements in seeking to 

promote more efficient use of spectrum 

and greater access to spectrum for the 

introduction of new services. In asking 

about particular services, the 

Commission also invites comment on 

the extent to which considerations 

about receiver immunity performance 

parameters should be grouped based on 

these different service groupings, or 

whether instead some other analytical 

approach should be considered. Should 

there be different approaches to the 

Commission’s consideration of receiver 

performance based on the particular 

services associated with the receiver, 

how the receiver might be integrated 

into other systems, and/or which 

services operate in adjacent or nearby 

bands? 

In seeking comment below, the 

Commission notes that significant effort 

over the last few years has been devoted 

to providing more broadband services to 

the American public. In making 

allocation decisions and crafting service 

rules to accommodate this evolving 

landscape, spectrum use has intensified 

and the Commission has increasingly 

explored ways to provide for these 

valuable services by creating 

adjacencies that, in the past, would 

never have been contemplated. As an 

example, in the 3.7 GHz Report and 

Order (85 FR 22804 (April 23, 2020)), 

the Commission repurposed fixed 

satellite downlink spectrum for 

terrestrial mobile broadband services 

resulting in separation of relatively high 

power terrestrial services from sensitive 

satellite earth stations by only a 20- 

megahertz guard band. This decision 

necessitated a thorough examination of 

the new RF environment and adoption 

of appropriate rules to ensure the 

satellite services could coexist with the 

new terrestrial operations. 

In satellite services, receivers must be 

very sensitive to successfully receive the 

low level signals emanating from very 

distant satellites. As such, these 

receivers can be adversely affected by 

communications systems operating in 

adjacent or nearby bands. They may also 

experience interference from low level 

ambient noise sources that are below the 

minimum sensitivity level of typical 

receivers used in other radio services 

where the desired signal is significantly 

stronger. Whether satellite receivers 

could experience harmful interference 

effects from systems operating outside 

of the satellite bands depends on a 

variety of factors related to the types of 

operations in neighboring bands (e.g., 

fixed versus mobile) and the technical 

operating parameters of those services 

(e.g., power levels, out-of-band 

emissions (OOBE) limits, etc.), as well 

as the actual receiver interference 

immunity performance. The 

Commission invites comment on RF 

environment considerations with 

respect to satellite bands and adjacent or 

nearby band operations. What are the 

most important parameters to consider 

for services in adjacent bands to ensure 

compatibility with satellite services? 

The Commission seeks how best to 

characterize the adjacent band RF 

environment in reasonable performance 

metrics for satellite receivers. Is it 

anticipated that satellite receivers could 

improve their interference immunity? 

Over what time frame? How should the 

Commission characterize the RF 

environment for satellite services and 

the various trade-offs that are associated 

with providing full flexibility for 

services to operate in adjacent or nearby 

bands often with relatively higher 

power? What differences should be 

accounted for when considering fixed vs 

mobile and/or geosynchronous versus 

non-geosynchronous satellite 

operations? With today’s demands for 

spectrum access to support new and 

innovative technologies, it is becoming 

increasingly necessary for the 

Commission to group unlike services 

adjacent to each other. To what extent, 

with today’s technologies, is it 

necessary for the Commission to group 

like services adjacent to each other? As 

the Commission seeks to make more 

spectrum available for introduction of 

new services, including terrestrial 

services, what concerns and approaches 

should the Commission consider with 

respect to promoting improved receiver 

interference immunity to better 

accommodate the existing and 

anticipated future RF environment 

created by adjacent or nearby band 

operations? 

Public safety operations often have 

stringent operational requirements to 

assure users such as police, fire and 

emergency medical service providers 

whose missions often involve safety of 

life, that their RF-based systems will 

function reliably in all circumstances. 

Given these requirements, what should 

the Commission take into account when 

making allocation or service rule 

decisions for bands adjacent to and 

nearby frequency bands used for public 

safety? How should these requirements 

be considered given the receiver 

immunity characteristics of today’s 

public safety radios? How is such 

receiver immunity anticipated to change 

in the future and how would that affect 

the Commission’s flexibility to make 

spectrum allocation and service rule 

decisions in adjacent and nearby bands 

as the RF environment changes? The 

Commission invites comment on how 

public safety services operate in today’s 

RF environment, including how 

receivers operate effectively without 

experiencing harmful interference from 

adjacent or nearby band services. Are 

there special considerations regarding 

the RF environment in which public 

safety services operate that the 

Commission should take into account as 

it considers approaches to promote 

receiver performance for these services? 

The Commission seeks similar 

information as it pertains to various 

mobile services, fixed services, 

broadcast services, and other services. 

Each service category presents different 

use cases with different dependencies 

on the RF environment. Mobile services 

include commercial mobile cellular 

networks that are characterized by a 

high degree of station and user density 

as well as movement of end-user 

devices in the vicinity of sectorized base 

stations with both fixed and steerable 

high gain antennas, public land mobile 

radio systems with comparatively lower 

density base stations and user devices 

but higher elevation base station 

antennas, and myriad other services 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29256 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

with distinct configurations and 

parameters. Fixed services are often 

characterized by highly directional (e.g., 

point-to-point microwave) transmit and 

receive antennas, engineered to meet 

very high link reliability requirements. 

Broadcast services are often 

characterized by very tall antennas 

radiating high-powered signals to user 

terminals, either mobile or in fixed 

locations over large distances. 

Transmitters and receivers that serve 

location (position), navigation, timing, 

and space-based sensing services also 

may have particular RF performance 

characteristics. While receivers used in 

all of these services perform similar 

functions (e.g., filtering, amplification, 

frequency conversion, etc.), the varied 

RF environment and applications for 

each service affect receiver design. How 

does the RF environment from adjacent 

and nearby bands affect the ability of 

users in each of these services to 

operate? What are the characteristics of 

current receivers that enable this 

coexistence and what is anticipated for 

future improvements? How does the 

current RF environment affect these 

services and how would more intensive 

spectrum use in the future change this 

RF environment? What steps can the 

Commission take to allocate services or 

assign users within and amongst these 

services with less spectral separation? 

What can users in these services do to 

adapt to the changing RF environment? 

Are there aspects of any of these 

services that may necessitate particular 

approaches to receiver performance, and 

if so what steps can be taken to ensure 

that receivers in any such service are 

sufficiently immune to interference 

from adjacent and nearby operations as 

the RF environment continues to 

change? Finally, the Commission asks if 

it should consider international 

implications for services that may have 

large international components, such as 

international flights or cargo shipping? 

Are there specific issues the 

Commission needs to consider regarding 

receivers that need to operate in a 

multitude of countries and territories? 

Commenters should address any 

international regulations (e.g., for 

aviation safety) that should be taken 

into account. 

Finally, the Commission invites 

comment on any other services that 

commenters believe have particular 

concerns not addressed above, and on 

which particular considerations should 

be given by the Commission with 

respect to RF environment. 

Information on Transmitters and 

Receivers 

The Commission inquires below 

about what information is currently 

available regarding existing incumbent 

wireless systems—with respect to 

transmitter characteristics, receiver 

characteristics, and an ‘‘integrated 

systems analysis’’ approach and receiver 

interference immunity performance 

concerns. In addition, the Commission 

requests comment below on the 

changing RF environment, including 

what kinds of changes are anticipated 

that the Commission might better 

prepare for, and how the Commission 

might establish its approaches that can 

effectively help ensure that receiver 

interference immunity performance 

concerns are addressed as the 

Commission takes future actions 

affecting the current RF environment to 

enable greater access to spectrum for 

new services and more efficient 

spectrum use. 

Specific Information on Transmitter 

Characteristics 

The Commission notes that, under the 

its long-standing approach to providing 

for the introduction of new services, the 

Commission and relevant stakeholders 

generally already have much significant 

information already available to them 

about transmitter characteristics based 

on the Commission’s existing regulatory 

framework in which transmitters in 

particular services are required to meet 

various technical parameters (e.g., 

power limits, antenna height, OOBE, 

etc.). This information is available for 

the transmitter operations whether 

authorized pursuant to rules associated 

with the licenses or authorized on an 

unlicensed basis (under part 15 rules). 

These rules often have been the primary 

means by which the Commission 

protects adjacent and nearby band 

operations, including incumbent 

receiver operations, from harmful 

interference. 

As the Commission discusses in this 

document, efficient spectrum 

management seeks to optimize the 

ability of different types of services to 

operate in different allocations under 

specified rules in a manner that does 

not cause harmful interference to others’ 

operations. As the Commission 

considers approaches to promoting 

receiver interference immunity 

performance, both transmitter and 

receiver characteristics are important for 

its consideration. This information is 

useful on a range of spectrum 

management issues, including adjacent 

band interference concerns, interference 

limits policies such as harm claim 

thresholds, quantitative risk-based 

assessment of interference, legacy 

devices, and cost-benefits, among 

others. 

Discussion. The Commission invites 

comment on transmitter characteristics, 

as well whether more information 

would be useful as it pertains to the 

inquiry into receiver immunity 

performance. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the availability of information on 

transmitter characteristics in various 

frequency bands and the different 

services allocated to those bands. The 

Commission notes, of course, that its 

rules already provide limits for 

transmitters (e.g., maximum power, 

OOBE limits, etc.), but the Commission 

seeks information on how typical 

operating values, both median and 

maximum levels, might differ from 

those regulatory limits. In cases where 

transmitters may typically operate 

below the regulatory limits, what factors 

influence those operating parameters? 

The Commission seeks this information 

for conducted and radiated power as 

well as for OOBE. How does the choice 

of antenna affect operational levels? 

The Commission also inquires about 

additional transmitter characteristics 

that might be helpful to the Commission 

as it considers spectrum management 

options to improve receiver 

performance. How can the Commission 

implement an integrated systems 

approach that could promote spectrum 

policy that balances the burdens on 

transmitters and receivers and promotes 

improved receiver interference 

immunity performance where 

appropriate? In this context, the 

Commission notes that transmitters and 

receivers in different radio services (e.g., 

fixed, mobile, satellite, broadcast, radio 

astronomy, etc.) have differing 

requirements. Should different metrics 

be used when evaluating systems in 

different services? What factors should 

the Commission take into account? In 

some instances, the Commission has 

used tools such as requiring PFD or field 

strength limits at various geographic 

boundaries or specific locations. Should 

the Commission use these techniques 

more often to provide additional 

protection to receivers? Likewise, are 

there requirements that can be placed 

on receivers if PFD, field strength limits, 

or other limits are placed on 

transmitters that would improve their 

immunity to harmful interference? What 

is the right balance for requiring either 

or both transmitters and receivers to 

comply with certain standards? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29257 

Specific Information on Receiver 

Characteristics 

The Commission requests up-to-date 

information on what is currently known 

about receiver characteristics with 

respect to different services and 

operations across the radio spectrum 

bands. As noted in the TAC White Paper 

on Interference Limits Policy and TAC 

White Paper on Risk-informed 

Interference Assessment, relevant 

knowledge of both transmitter and 

receiver characteristics would be crucial 

for implementation of those approaches. 

Similarly, the White Paper on Basic 

Principles for Assessing Compatibility of 

New Spectrum Allocations 

recommended that services under 

Commission jurisdiction that seek 

protection from harmful interference 

should be expected to disclose the 

relevant standards, guidelines, and 

operating characteristics of their 

systems. While the Commission notes 

that several commenting parties 

supported gathering additional 

information on receiver characteristics, 

others opposed this based on 

proprietary and other concerns. 

In addition, some reports have 

emphasized the importance of clarity 

about the RF environment and how the 

lack of information (often in the form of 

asymmetric information) available to 

relevant stakeholders, particularly with 

regard to receiving systems, can impede 

the ability of parties seeking to 

introduce new services to make 

appropriate choices to reduce potential 

interference, and have recommended 

improving transparency for operators by 

requiring the sharing of more 

information on technical characteristics 

that affect adjacent band operations. 

GAO also identified a lack of sharing 

among different industries when 

developing receiver specifications, and 

noted that one option for the 

Commission would be to gather 

additional information on the 

characteristics of the different systems, 

including receiver characteristics. 

CSMAC also believed that new entrants 

accessing spectrum should be made 

aware of the interference characteristics 

of receiving and transmitting 

equipment, and noted that filter 

performance of both receivers and 

transmitters were important 

considerations. Both GAO and CSMAC 

suggested consideration of establishing 

a repository or clearinghouse of 

information. Several reports, including 

GAO’s, also have noted that, were the 

Commission to consider requiring that 

more information on receiver 

characteristics be made available, such 

a requirement raises concerns about 

confidential, proprietary, or classified 

information. 

Discussion. The Commission invites 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider requiring that more 

information about receiver 

characteristics be made available. Are 

there certain circumstances in which 

having additional information available 

to the Commission and relevant 

stakeholders would be helpful to 

introducing new services in adjacent or 

nearby bands? Could this information 

help serve the Commission’s goal of 

providing for more efficient use of 

spectrum so that there is greater access 

to spectrum for new services? The 

Commission asks that commenters help 

the Commission as it considers whether 

to require additional information on 

receiver characteristics. If commenters 

support the availability of more 

information, the Commission invites 

commenters to indicate the types of 

information on receiver interference 

immunity performance would be most 

helpful in serving its goals of promoting 

more efficient use of spectrum and how 

best to manage the information. 

The Commission requests that 

commenters discuss particular contexts 

in which having more information on 

receiver characteristics would be 

helpful, provided of course that any 

proprietary or classified concerns can be 

effectively addressed. As discussed 

elsewhere in this document, having 

sufficient relevant information regarding 

both transmitters and receivers is seen 

as a critical ingredient to promoting 

more efficient use of spectrum and 

providing a more effective pathway for 

addressing issues related to legacy 

receivers. With regard to voluntary 

approaches in which potential adjacent 

band use is under consideration, 

information on receiver characteristics 

could be helpful to all relevant 

stakeholders in order to address 

interference concerns. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether there are services or bands in 

which commenters believe that 

additional information on receiver 

characteristics is not necessary, such as 

bands where necessary incentives are 

already in place for promoting receiver 

performance? On the other hand, what 

services or bands have insufficient 

available information on receiver 

characteristics, especially where the 

incentives are not sufficient with regard 

to promoting receiver performance? The 

Commission asks that commenter 

provide their thoughts about what 

factors the Commission might consider 

if it were to consider requiring the 

availability of more information on 

receiver characteristics. 

Also, as noted, if the Commission 

were to consider requiring that more 

information be provided regarding 

receiver characteristics, how should the 

Commission address concerns around 

proprietary information, or other 

concerns? As for propriety concerns, 

would, for instance, the Commission’s 

existing procedures for addressing 

parties’ proprietary concerns in 

proceedings be an appropriate model? 

The Commission invites commenters to 

assist the Commission as it considers 

any potential requirements regarding 

information on receiver characteristics 

and the need to protect information that 

should not be publicly disclosed. 

Integrated Systems Analysis 

Understanding whole systems—both 

transmitters and receivers and their 

interaction under current rules and 

requirements can be an important 

consideration as the Commission seeks 

comment on the current RF 

environment. Two TAC White Papers 

proposed that the Commission focus 

more on an ‘‘integrated systems’’ 

approach as part of its spectrum 

management activities. An integrated 

systems approach takes into account 

every component of a radio based 

communication system involved with 

either the transmission and/or reception 

of a signal. The White Paper on 

Spectrum Efficiency Metrics discusses 

the potential role of an ‘‘integrated 

systems’’ approach in more effectively 

evaluating spectrum efficiency metrics. 

The White Paper on Risk-informed 

Interference Assessment recommends 

that the Commission should seek to 

include in its assessment of harmful 

interference a quantitative risk analysis, 

one which considers the various 

likelihood/consequence combinations 

for multiple different potential 

interference hazard scenarios among 

transmitters and receivers, which would 

complement the Commission’s 

evaluation of other assessments as it 

determines how best to serve the public 

interest. Both of these approaches 

require that relevant information on 

potentially affected radio systems be 

available—including characteristics of 

both transmitters and receivers. 

As the Commission has noted above, 

several reports have called for more 

transparency with respect to relevant 

information on both transmitters and 

receivers. Some also have called for 

developing a repository of information 

on transmitters and receivers. 

Discussion. The Commission invites 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider developing more of an 

integrated systems approach to 

spectrum management. What kinds of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29258 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

information regarding transmitters and 

receivers would be relevant and 

helpful? Is there some way that more 

information on transmitters and 

receivers should be made more 

transparent and more readily available 

for the Commission or relevant 

stakeholders? To what extent would 

some form of repository be appropriate 

and helpful? If so, how would 

commenters suggest that any proprietary 

concerns be addressed. 

Managing the Changing RF 

Environment 

As the Commission has discussed, the 

RF environment continues to change in 

face of the need for greater access to 

spectrum for new uses. Given this, it is 

critical to address considerations 

affecting potential adjacent and nearby 

band interference concerns in an 

appropriate and timely fashion. It is 

important that as the Commission 

anticipates these changes the relevant 

stakeholders (e.g., incumbents adjacent 

or nearby to bands that may be 

reallocated) are notified so that 

appropriate steps can be taken to 

address those stakeholders potentially 

affected. If improved receiver 

interference immunity performance 

would be appropriate, several also have 

recommended that the Commission 

provide for an appropriate transition or 

phase-in approach. GAO noted the lack 

of predictability about the changing 

future spectrum environment made it 

more difficult to accommodate 

repurposed uses of spectrum, and that it 

could take significant time and effort to 

upgrade and replace receivers where 

necessary. 

Discussion. The Commission seeks 

comment on how the Commission can 

promote smoother and more effective 

transitions among potentially affected 

users as the RF environment continues 

to change to accommodate greater 

access to spectrum that serve the public 

interest. What steps should be taken to 

provide for greater predictability or 

transparency for potentially affected 

stakeholders, including those whose 

receivers may potentially be affected? 

How much advance notice from the 

Commission might be appropriate to 

provide to potentially affected 

stakeholders as the RF environment 

continues to change? In what ways 

should such advance notice be 

provided? What steps should the 

Commission consider to identify and 

inform potentially affected incumbent 

operators? To the extent that 

commenters believe that any particular 

past experiences regarding particular 

steps that either were taken, or could or 

should have been helpful if taken, the 

Commission asks that commenters offer 

their thoughts and recommendations for 

the Commission’s consideration as it 

seeks to develop policies and take 

actions that promote better transitions 

in the future. 

Also, considering that the RF 

environment can be anticipated to 

continue to change, the Commission 

seeks comment to whether and how the 

Commission could best clarify 

expectations for the performance of all 

radio equipment—both transmitters and 

receivers—in a changing RF 

environment. The Commission also 

invites comment on the importance of 

promoting more spectrally efficient 

devices that are designed to anticipate 

or assume that potential new uses of 

spectrum might occur in adjacent or 

nearby spectrum. 

The Commission notes that it also 

raises some of these issues in a separate 

section below on potential Commission 

policy and guidance. In that section, the 

Commission requests comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider providing additional policy or 

guidance specifically as to expectations 

that would apply to transmitters and 

receivers in adjacent band operations, 

including regarding expectations 

relating to receiver interference 

immunity performance. 

Approaches for Promoting Improved 

Receiver Interference Immunity 

Performance 

As the Commission seeks comment on 

various approaches to consider as it 

moves forward, it is important to 

provide an overall framework for 

considering how the Commission might 

incorporate receiver performance 

considerations into its spectrum 

management decision-making. The 

Commission inquires about whether and 

how to factor receiver interference 

immunity performance into spectrum 

policy in the form of incentives, 

guidelines, or regulatory requirements. 

These could include industry-led 

voluntary approaches, such as industrydeveloped guidelines and standards. 

They also could include additional 

Commission guidance, whether in terms 

of clarifying Commission policy, issuing 

a policy statement, or considering ways 

to advance approaches such as an 

interference limits policy, and/or a harm 

claim threshold approach where that 

might be helpful. The Commission also 

notes that in particular circumstances it 

might want to consider adopting 

specific rule requirements if other 

approaches would not be sufficient. 

The Commission invites interested 

parties to provide their up-to-date 

views, observations, and 

recommendations on these different 

types of approaches that it discuss 

below. The Commission envisions that 

these approaches could include 

industry-led voluntary guidelines and 

efforts, additional Commission policy or 

guidelines, and specific mandatory 

requirements, and can be part of the 

solution in promoting improved 

receiver performance where that may be 

appropriate. The Commission seeks 

general comment here as to how these 

different approaches can work together 

to help optimize the promotion of 

receiver performance and other system 

design measures that would reduce 

susceptibility to interference and best 

serve the public interest. The 

Commission invites comments on how 

it might find an appropriate balance or 

mix of these different approaches. 

Industry-Led Voluntary Approaches 

In this section, the Commission 

requests that commenters provide up-todate information on various industryled voluntary approaches, including 

standards and guidelines, that currently 

promote receiver performance. The 

Commission requests comment on 

where voluntary approaches are 

effective, where they could be more 

effective, and what the Commission 

could consider in order to enhance the 

effectiveness of voluntary approaches. 

The Commission notes that in the 

2003 NOI on Receiver Performance 

Specifications the Commission 

expressed a general preference for 

relying primarily on voluntary 

approaches and guidelines that are 

supported and managed by industry, in 

conjunction with user groups as 

appropriate, believing this approach is 

most flexible and responsive to changes 

in technology, consumer desires, and 

economic conditions. The Commission 

believes that spectrum users such as 

commercial spectrum licensees often 

have the requisite incentives to reach 

voluntary agreements that provide for 

additional spectrum use. At the same 

time, however, it recognized that a 

purely voluntary approach may produce 

an incumbency problem if owners of 

non-conforming receivers limit efficient 

use of spectrum. The Commission 

inquired specifically about various 

voluntary approaches at that time, and 

many commenters in that proceeding 

generally supported a voluntary 

approach to improving receivers (such 

as through development of industry 

standards and guidelines). Since that 

time, many have continued to assert that 

voluntary approaches are the most 

efficient and effective means of 

promoting receiver performance and 

promote more efficient use of spectrum. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29259 

The Commission continues to believe 

that the development and 

implementation of various voluntary 

approaches, taken together throughout 

the wireless sector, in many situations 

can provide the best and most effective 

means of promoting interference 

immunity in the most efficient and 

effective way. The Commission seeks 

detailed comment on the various ways 

in which voluntary standards and 

guidelines have, and will continue to, 

serve its goal of promoting 

improvements in receiver performance 

that will enable greater access to 

spectrum. To what extent are voluntary 

approaches sufficient to ensure that 

minimum receiver interference 

immunity performance can be achieved 

in some or all bands? 

As the Commission considers 

voluntary standards and guidelines, the 

Commission also notes that several 

studies and commenters have pointed 

out challenges that may be associated 

with the development of voluntary 

approaches in certain situations, either 

because the necessary incentives may 

not be present or the necessary 

information may not be available. While 

describing several voluntary efforts have 

helped improve receiver interference 

immunity performance, GAO also noted 

that in many situations there were 

challenges that affect the development 

of voluntary standards, including the 

lack of coordination across industries 

when developing voluntary standards 

(e.g., while standards may be developed 

by a single industry, these standards 

may not be coordinated with 

representatives of others that could be 

affected, such as adjacent band users). 

GAO also noted that there could be a 

lack of incentives for manufacturers and 

spectrum users to incur costs associated 

with using more robust receivers (noting 

that there may be few incentives for 

users in one band to incur costs to 

improving receivers for operations if the 

adjacent band users gain the benefits); it 

concluded that, even though there can 

be sufficient incentives for addressing 

receiver performance within the same 

service, such incentives often do not 

exist for different services or adjacent 

band services. 

Several reports and commenters have 

suggested that voluntary approaches 

could benefit from the use of multistakeholder groups in helping develop 

appropriate voluntary standards. 

Several also noted, however, that 

oftentimes not all of the relevant 

stakeholders (e.g., those potentially 

affected by the development of 

voluntary standards, including those 

with interests associated with adjacent 

band use), participated in the 

development of voluntary standards. 

GAO also noted that a compendium of 

current industry standards or guidance 

may not always be available, and could 

help facilitate knowledge on any 

standards or guidelines. Finally, GAO 

pointed out that, while voluntary 

standards and guidelines could help 

promote receiver performance, the 

extent to which they are in fact used is 

generally unknown. 

Discussion. In this document, the 

Commission invites comment from 

interested parties to provide up-to-date 

information on the various voluntary 

approaches, including industry-led 

approaches, that currently serve to 

promote better receiver performance 

and generally more interferenceresistant system designs. The 

Commission inquires about their views 

on the role of voluntary standards and 

guidelines to promote improved 

receiver performance by providing 

greater resilience to harmful 

interference, promote more efficient use 

of spectrum, and enable innovative new 

services to be introduced. The 

Commission also inquires about the 

steps it might take to promote 

development and use of voluntary 

standards and guidelines. 

The Commission invites comment on 

whether voluntary standards and 

guidelines that have previously existed 

or currently exist serve as an effective 

means of promoting receiver 

performance. What are these standards 

and guidelines, and how effective have 

they been in promoting receiver 

performance? Which industries helped 

to establish them, and which 

stakeholders were involved in their 

development? Are these standards or 

guidelines publicly available? The 

Commission invites broad comment on 

where these approaches work well and 

help promote receiver performance in 

today’s RF environment and could help 

promote improvements in a changing 

RF environment. The Commission asks 

commenters to comment on the extent 

to which the necessary incentives are in 

place to develop effective voluntary 

approaches. 

The Commission requests comment 

on whether there could be 

improvements in the ways that 

voluntary approaches can be developed 

and used. To what extent have such 

efforts included relevant stakeholders? 

If additional stakeholders could help 

improve such voluntary efforts, how 

might they be involved in future efforts. 

The Commission also requests 

comment on situations or cases in 

which current voluntary approaches 

may not be sufficient with respect to 

promote improved receivers in certain 

situations and contexts (e.g., addressing 

adjacent band compatibility issues). The 

Commission asks that commenters 

identify and discuss situations in which 

voluntary approaches may not promote 

improvements in receiver performance 

where that would help promote more 

efficient use of spectrum. Are there 

ways to ensure that there are 

appropriate incentives for promoting 

effective voluntary approaches? 

The Commission invites comment as 

to the appropriate role for multistakeholder groups in this process. Are 

there particular situations in which 

commenters believe a multi-stakeholder 

group involvement would be 

appropriate? If so, which stakeholders 

should be involved, and how? 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

document, the Commission is seeking 

comment about both transmitter and 

receiver characteristics as it considers 

approaches to improving receiver 

performance. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether more transparent 

or available information on transmitters 

and receivers could help promote more 

effective voluntary approaches. 

Finally, the Commission requests 

comment on whether and how it could 

help promote effective voluntary 

approaches. 

Commission Policy and Guidance 

In this section, the Commission 

inquire about the kinds of policy and 

guidance that could be helpful as the it 

considers whether and how to 

incorporate receiver performance more 

directly into spectrum management 

decisions. The Commission recognizes 

that such policy and guidance could 

take many forms, and some mix of 

approaches may be appropriate; the 

Commission invites commenters to help 

as it considers these various approaches. 

Many contend that the Commission’s 

general spectrum management policy on 

the role of receiver interference 

immunity performance should be 

clarified. Some have suggested that the 

Commission’s approach to date on 

receiver performance is not been 

sufficiently conducive to promoting 

more efficient spectrum use or 

promoting greater access to the 

spectrum resources for new services and 

uses. For instance, in the White Paper 

on Interference Limits Policy the TAC 

Working Group suggested that 

expectations of receiver performance 

have almost always been implicit and 

often based solely on the ability of the 

receiver to perform its desired function 

in the existing spectral environment, 

which has led to conflicts due to a 

change in the RF environment and/or a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29260 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

differing understanding of requisite 

receiver performance. Authors in one 

paper recommended that, in order to 

provide better incentives to build more 

interference-robust systems in future 

allocations and put more spectrum to its 

highest and best use, the Commission 

should move away from any general 

interference protection model in 

spectrum management that, when 

considering permitting new services in 

adjacent bands, often provides 

incumbent users (those licensed first) 

protection against any interference 

resulting from subsequent rule changes. 

They stated that adjacent band 

interference protection for incumbents 

should not be static, and that 

incumbents should be incentivized to 

improve their systems’ interference 

resilience in the most cost-effective way, 

including the use of receivers that are 

more interference-immune to 

interference exposure from adjacent 

bands. 

One report observed that certain 

assumptions that many spectrum users 

make are not conducive to promoting 

more efficient use of spectrum— 

including that operators of wireless 

systems tend to rely on their neighbors 

being quiet, often do not account for 

changes in the RF environment, and 

often do not realize that receivers are a 

part of the problem (and instead assume 

that the neighboring transmitters are the 

problem). That report also concluded 

that there is ‘‘poor knowledge transfer’’ 

among all affected parties regarding the 

interference problems related to receiver 

performance and potential resolution, 

and suggested that regulators could 

provide more helpful notice to operators 

regarding the need for better receivers. 

Another report recommended improved 

transparency for operators (e.g., sharing 

more information on the characteristics 

of their neighbors’ adjacent operations, 

establishing a device performance 

registry, incentivizing operators to 

divulge the required information); they 

also stated that more incentives should 

be provided for promoting more robust 

receivers, possibly including issuance of 

a Commission Policy Statement (e.g., to 

the effect that receivers would no longer 

be protected if they do not include 

appropriate receiver selectivity). 

GAO also noted in its report that 

current practices and policies related to 

receiver performance may in effect 

constrain repurposing of spectrum, and 

that the lack of predictability about 

future spectrum management also could 

be a hindrance to a more effective 

spectrum policy. CSMAC stated that 

spectrum managers should consider 

incentives, rules, and policies to 

improve the capability of receiving 

devices to reject adjacent channel 

interference. The Commission also notes 

that the Presidential Memorandum on 

Wireless Innovation encouraged the 

development of measures concerning 

receivers that would promote design 

and deployment of receivers that are 

protected from harmful interference 

from adjacent band operations in cases 

where there is ‘‘reasonable use’’ of 

adjacent band spectrum. Several have 

emphasized that as the Commission 

considers developing new policies or 

guidance, it also considers whether 

some transition or phase-in period 

would be appropriate. 

Below the Commission considers 

several possible approaches and invite 

comment. These include (1) providing 

clearer Commission policy guidance on 

the role of receivers and expectations 

about their performance; (2) gathering 

relevant information on receiver 

characteristics; (3) issuing a policy 

statement; and (4) promoting an 

interference limit policy such as harm 

claim threshold approaches where that 

might be appropriate. The Commission 

also inquires about whether it should 

consider any of these approaches, a 

transition or phase-in of some kind 

might be appropriate. 

General Policy Guidance 

The Commission first seeks comment 

on whether it should consider 

establishing clearer guidance on 

Commission policies relating to 

receivers and receiver performance in 

spectrum management going forward. 

The Commission inquires whether such 

policy guidance could serve to establish 

clearer expectations for all spectrum 

users as to receiver performance, 

including in the future as the 

Commission seeks to enable greater 

access to spectrum for new users and 

promote more efficient use of spectrum 

by receivers. The Commission also 

inquires whether and how a clearer 

policy could help incentivize a more 

forward-looking approach to the role of 

improved receiver performance in a 

changing RF environment. 

The Commission offers possible 

approaches below and seeks comment. 

The Commission also invites 

commenters to identify other 

approaches regarding Commission 

policy that it should consider. 

Establishing clearer expectations 

about the extent to which incumbent 

receivers will receive interference 

protection as new services are 

introduced. As noted above, some have 

suggested that in order to promote 

greater access to spectrum and promote 

more efficient use of spectrum, the 

Commission should establish clearer 

policies on the extent to which 

incumbent receivers will be protected in 

the future regardless of spectrum 

efficiency concerns. In particular, some 

state that the Commission should be 

more transparent that incumbent 

receiver operators should not simply 

assume that the introduction of 

transmitters in adjacent or nearby bands 

is the entire focus for addressing 

interference compatibility issues or that 

receiver performance will not be 

considered in the Commission’s 

spectrum management decisions. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether it should establish a clearer or 

explicit policy regarding the extent to 

which incumbent receivers will receive 

interference protection as the RF 

environment continues to change and 

new services are introduced into 

adjacent or nearby bands. The 

Commission also requests that, to the 

extent commenters believe such policy 

clarification would be beneficial, they 

suggest the types of clarifications that 

the Commission should consider. To 

what extent would such a policy-based 

expectation require clarification of 

incumbent users’ spectrum rights and 

responsibilities? 

The Commission also invites 

comment on how such a policy 

clarification might be implemented with 

regard to incumbent users. When might 

such a policy make sense? How might 

such a policy be implemented with 

respect to adjacent band operations, 

including when both services have 

primary allocations? As to 

implementation of such an approach, 

what kinds of factors and timeframes 

should be considered? For instance, 

should the amount of time an adjacent 

band incumbent has been operating be 

a factor in considering what action the 

Commission should take? Should the 

expected life (e.g., average useful life) of 

receivers in the affected band be 

considered to reduce the potential for 

stranded investments? 

Clarifying the importance of assigned 

frequency bands and allocations with 

respect to receiver performance. Several 

have suggested or recommended that 

one component of better spectrum 

management would include 

Commission clarification of the 

respective responsibilities associated 

with both transmitters and receivers in 

spectrum allocations and assignments, 

and that this could include being more 

explicit regarding whether receiver 

interference immunity performance 

should be tied to the allocation or 

assignment under which the receivers 

are authorized. In the 2003 NOI on 

Receiver Performance Specifications, for 

instance, the Commission specifically 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29261 

inquired about how receiver 

performance should be related to the 

management of spectrum and uses in 

adjacent bands, including whether the 

definition of assigned frequency bands 

and areas already provided ‘‘substantial 

definition to the interference 

environment in which licensees must 

design their systems.’’ 

The Commission also notes that the 

TAC’s White Paper on Basic Principles 

for Assessing Compatibility of New 

Spectrum Allocations proposed that the 

Commission consider establishing 

‘‘Basic Principles’’ regarding both 

transmitters and receivers with respect 

to spectrum allocations, and specifically 

proposed as one principle that 

‘‘[r]eceivers are responsible for 

mitigating interference outside their 

assigned channels’’ (while it also 

proposed that ‘‘[t]ransmitters are 

responsible for minimizing the amount 

of their transmitted energy that appears 

outside their assigned frequencies and 

licensed areas’’). Further, the 

Commission notes that ITU Radio 

Regulations, for instance, recognize the 

importance of expectations regarding 

receiver performance, and provide that 

receivers should provide adequate 

performance such that they do not suffer 

from interference from transmitters 

operating at a reasonable distance. Also, 

as the Commission has discussed above, 

recent proceedings have highlighted the 

relationship of receiver performance visa`-vis assigned frequency bands and 

allocations, as well as expectations on 

receiver performance regarding 

interference from adjacent or nearby 

operators. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

inquires whether the Commission’s 

spectrum management policy should 

clarify that, as a general matter of the 

spectrum regulatory policy, receiver 

manufacturers and operators are 

expected to take into account their 

allocation and assignment, or take into 

consideration designing and using 

receivers that include interference 

immunity parameters that would ensure 

coexistence with transmitters operating 

with reasonable spectral separation from 

the band in which the receivers are 

authorized to operate. To the extent that 

commenters believe that policy 

guidance is appropriate, the 

Commission asks that they propose 

specifics about the guidance they think 

appropriate, explain why, and, 

depending upon the guidance they 

suggest, indicate the extent to which a 

transition period may be appropriate. 

Development of performance criteria 

or ratings. The Commission also invites 

comment on whether it should consider 

developing particular receiver 

performance criteria, or some form of 

ratings, that would serve to encourage 

the design, manufacturer, and 

deployment of receivers that promote 

receiver interference immunity and 

adequately protect the receivers from 

interference from current and future 

uses of adjacent band spectrum. If the 

Commission were to consider 

developing performance criteria or 

ratings, how would these be developed? 

With regard to performance criteria, 

what specific metric(s) should the 

Commission consider? For instance, 

should the criteria be tied to a certain 

level of performance at the edge of the 

allocation? The Commission asks that 

commenters suggest specific criteria and 

explain their rationale for such criteria. 

Similarly, the Commission invites 

comment on whether some form of 

ratings should be considered. If so, what 

would comprise the ratings, how many 

levels of ratings would be appropriate, 

and how would the ratings be 

determined? Can ratings effectively be 

designed that would aide operators and 

consumers in using more interference 

immune receivers? Could particular 

receiver performance criteria or ratings 

be developed that could be incorporated 

into voluntary standards or Commission 

requirements? How might performance 

criteria or ratings best be implemented? 

Informing relevant stakeholders of 

any Commission forthcoming policy 

guidance. If the Commission were to 

provide additional policy guidance, the 

Commission recognizes that it would be 

important that potentially affected 

stakeholders are apprised of the 

guidance. The Commission asks for 

comment on how the means by which 

it and others could most effectively 

identify and communicate such policy 

guidance. 

Transitions. If the Commission were 

to consider providing additional policy 

guidance, the Commission invites 

comment on the considerations that 

would be associated with policy 

implementation. Depending on the 

policy guidance, are there particular 

transition concerns that the Commission 

should take as to receivers that may 

need to be repaired, modified, or 

replaced? Would such considerations 

depend on the particulars involved as to 

specific situations and bands? The 

Commission asks that commenters help 

it take into account the various factors 

that should be considered. 

Other policy guidance. The 

Commission invites commenters to offer 

other ideas or measures for Commission 

consideration regarding further 

guidance. Commenters should explain 

their suggestions and provide detailed 

discussion of why such policy guidance 

would be appropriate and how the 

Commission might consider 

implementing such guidance. 

Policy Statement 

In this section the Commission invites 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider issuing a policy 

statement to establish a clear and 

transparent Commission policy that can 

help bring receiver interference 

immunity performance into fuller 

consideration in spectrum management 

decisions, as some have suggested. The 

Commission first inquires generally 

whether a policy statement would be 

constructive. The Commission then 

inquires about possible models for a 

policy statement. 

Issuing a policy statement. Through 

the years, the Commission has issued 

various policy statements to guide 

public considerations and to advance 

spectrum management pursuits. For 

instance, in 1999 the Commission 

issued a Policy Statement on 

‘‘Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum 

to Encourage Development of 

Telecommunications Technologies for 

the New Millennium,’’ in which the 

Commission noted the unparalleled 

growth of wireless services in the 1990s 

and ‘‘set forth guiding principles for the 

Commission’s spectrum management 

activities’’—including ways to promote 

greater efficiency in spectrum markets, 

make more spectrum available, and 

identify new bands for spectrum 

reallocation—as the Commission 

engaged in spectrum management in 

2000 and beyond. In 2000, the 

Commission issued its Policy Statement 

on ‘‘Principles for Promoting the 

Efficient Use of Spectrum by 

Encouraging the Development of 

Secondary Markets,’’ in which it set 

forth the Commission’s vision and plans 

for facilitating secondary markets for 

radio spectrum that will allow and 

encourage licensees to make all or 

portions of their assigned frequencies or 

service areas available to other entities 

and uses. Both Policy Statements helped 

lay the foundation for the Commission’s 

forthcoming rulemakings implementing 

some of the enunciated policies in the 

early 2000s. 

In recommending that the 

Commission create more incentives for 

building more robust receivers, Silicon 

Flatirons suggested that issuance of a 

policy statement could be useful. Also, 

as discussed above, many commenters 

and reports have called for greater 

Commission clarity on how receiver 

performance considerations should be 

factored into the Commission’s 

spectrum management in ways that 

would provide clearer expectations and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29262 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

greater predictability for all spectrum 

users in the future. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should consider issuing a 

policy statement to more directly and 

transparently incorporate relevant and 

appropriate focus on receivers as part of 

a balanced approach—i.e., considering 

the important role of both transmitters 

and receivers—to promoting more 

efficient spectrum use in the 

Commission’s spectrum management 

decision-making. Would adoption of a 

policy statement be helpful in 

promoting the Commission’s efforts to 

incorporate receiver interference 

immunity performance considerations 

and promote more efficient spectrum 

use in the current and evolving RF 

environment? What purposes could be 

served by issuance of a policy 

statement? Would a policy statement, 

for instance, help establish clearer 

expectations and greater predictability 

for spectrum users going forward? 

If the Commission were to consider 

issuing a policy statement, what specific 

framework, features, factors, or 

statements should be included? The 

Commission asks that commenters in 

favor of the issuance of a policy 

statement set forth their 

recommendations, including discussion 

of the various goals of the policy 

statement, any suggested language, and 

the reasons for such language. 

Possible models for a policy 

statement. The Commission invites 

comment on possible models for 

crafting a policy statement. Commenters 

should identify any such models, and 

any specific framework or language in 

those models that they believe should 

be considered. 

In particular, the Commission 

inquires whether the TAC’s White Paper 

on Basic Principles for Assessing 

Compatibility of New Spectrum 

Allocations or some modification or 

variant of that framework, could supply 

a possible and constructive framework 

for consideration in developing a future 

Commission policy statement. As the 

TAC explained: 

Basic principles of spectrum utilization are 

important for all involved parties to consider, 

not just the regulatory authorities. 

Realization of certain facts of 

communications technology will temper the 

expectations of the incumbent services using 

spectrum resources as well as the new 

services that are trying to gain entry into the 

spectrum. 

As contemplated, with the nine ‘‘basic 

principles’’ the TAC sought to promote 

‘‘good neighbor policies’’ among 

spectrum users (generally found at 

spectral boundaries) that better enable 

adjacent and nearby spectrum users to 

‘‘get along’’ with each other. Several of 

these principles directly related to 

expectations about both transmitters 

and receivers. Given the many 

differences between the requirements of 

various types of systems, the TAC did 

not expect the application of these 

principles to result in a concrete set of 

regulations that fit all radio services in 

the same way, but nonetheless believed 

that the principles can be applied to all 

systems and result in an optimal 

solution for each service. As discussed 

in the basic principles below, several of 

the principles focused on establishing 

expectations and responsibilities 

concerning receiver performance within 

the larger context of spectrum 

management, including establishing that 

harmful interference is affected by the 

characteristics of both a transmitting 

service and a nearby receiving service, 

that receivers are responsible for 

mitigating interference outside their 

assigned channels, and that services 

under the FCC’s jurisdiction are 

expected to disclose the relevant 

standards, guidelines and characteristics 

of their systems if they expect 

protection from harmful interference. 

The basic principles identified by the 

TAC Working Group included three 

functional groups—‘‘Interference 

Realities’’ (realities of interference 

everyone must accept), 

‘‘Responsibilities of Services’’ 

(responsibilities that services have to 

mitigate their interaction with other 

services), and ‘‘Regulatory Requirements 

and Actions’’ (requirements for, and 

actions that should be taken by, 

regulatory authorities with respect to 

spectrum allocations): 

Interference Realities— 

• Principle 1: Harmful interference is 

affected by the characteristics of both a 

transmitting service and a nearby 

receiving service in frequency, space or 

time. 

• Principle 2: All services should 

plan for non-harmful interference from 

signals that are nearby in frequency, 

space or time, both now and for any 

changes that occur in the future. 

• Principle 3: Even under ideal 

conditions, the electromagnetic 

environment is unpredictable. Operators 

should expect and plan for occasional 

service degradation or interruption. The 

Commission should not base its rules on 

exceptional events. 

Responsibilities of Services. 

• Principle 4: Receivers are 

responsible for mitigating interference 

outside their assigned channels; 

• Principle 5: Systems are expected to 

use techniques at all layers of the stack 

to mitigate degradation from 

interference; and 

• Principle 6: Transmitters are 

responsible for minimizing the amount 

of their transmitted energy that appears 

outside their assigned frequencies and 

licensed areas. 

Regulatory Requirements and Actions. 

• Principle 7: Services under FCC 

jurisdiction are expected to disclose the 

relevant standards, guidelines and 

operating characteristics of their 

systems to the Commission if they 

expect protection from harmful 

interference; 

• Principle 8: The Commission may 

apply Interference Limits to quantify 

rights of protection from harmful 

interference. 

• Principle 9: A quantitative analysis 

of interactions between services shall be 

required before the Commission can 

make decisions regarding levels of 

protection. 

The Commission notes that several 

commenters expressed interest in 

having it explore these principles 

insofar as they pertained to expectations 

and responsibilities associated with 

receivers and receiver interference 

immunity performance, while others 

expressed particular concern about 

particular principles and their 

application to certain types of receivers. 

The Commission invites comment on 

the principles in the White Paper as 

they concern a Commission policy 

statement. Commenters should discuss 

their views and concerns on particular 

principles, and whether revisions or 

clarifications on any of the principles or 

on their applicability should be 

considered. 

The Commission also asks whether 

there are other models that the 

Commission could draw from as it 

considers a policy statement. For 

instance, would ITU Radio Regulations 

(RR) or relevant ITU–R publications 

(e.g., ITU–R recommendations) that 

pertain to receiver performance (along 

with transmitter performance) provide a 

useful framework or particular language 

for consideration? As discussed above, 

several provisions in the Radio 

Regulations concern ‘‘technical 

characteristics of stations’’ associated 

with both the transmitter and receiver 

equipment and performance with 

respect to each other and in promoting 

more efficient and effective use of 

spectrum. As regards receivers in 

particular, the ITU provided regulations 

on several aspects on the role of receiver 

design and performance that would that 

serve to promote more efficient use of 

spectrum—including receiver design 

(RR No. 3.3—taking into account 

technical measures to reduce 

susceptibility to interference), 

bandwidth considerations (RR No. 3.9— 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29263 

keeping bandwidths at lowest values 

that the service permits), spectrum 

efficiency (RR No. 3.11—receivers 

should promote efficient use of 

spectrum), technical characteristics (RR 

No. 3.12—receiver selectivity that 

ensures efficient utilization of 

spectrum), and performance 

characteristics (RR No. 3.13—sufficient 

levels of receiver interference immunity 

performance so that receivers do not 

suffer from interference from 

transmitters operating at ‘‘a reasonable 

distance’’). Would any of these ITU 

references provide helpful guidance for 

consideration to be included in a 

Commission policy statement? 

Similarly, would the European Union 

Radio Equipment Directive provide 

useful guidance? That Directive also 

recognized the important role of both 

transmitter and receiver equipment in 

spectrum management. The Directive 

further indicated that ‘‘Essential 

Requirements’’ includes a requirement 

that radio equipment (both transmitters 

and receivers) should be constructed so 

as to ensure ‘‘an adequate level of 

electromagnetic compatibility’’ and in a 

manner that ‘‘both effectively uses and 

supports the efficient use of radio 

spectrum in order to avoid harmful 

interference. 

Finally, the Commission invites 

comment on any other models or other 

sources (e.g., proposals, reports, studies, 

etc.) that could provide useful 

discussion for Commission 

consideration about a policy statement 

and specific features or language that 

should be included. 

Interference Limits Policy, Including 

Harm Claim Thresholds 

In the White Paper on Interference 

Limits Policy issued in 2013, the TAC 

discussed an interference limits policy 

as well as one particular form of such 

a policy, harm claim thresholds. In 

2014, the TAC followed up this 

discussion with its White Paper on 

Harm Claim Thresholds. The TAC 

Working Groups authoring these two 

White Papers believed that an 

interference limits policy would 

promote more transparent consideration 

of receivers in spectrum management 

and promote better receiver 

performance policy in a more flexible 

manner if the Commission adopted 

receiver performance mandates. As 

discussed below, many commenters 

were in favor of the Commission further 

exploring interference limits policy, and 

harm claim thresholds in particular. 

The Commission summarizes at a 

high level these approaches below—but 

it direct commenters to review and 

address the details set forth in the two 

White Papers themselves. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether and how an interference limits 

policy, and a harm claim thresholds 

approach in particular, should be 

considered by the Commission. 

In these papers, the TAC working 

groups noted that, in order to meet the 

growing demand for wireless service, 

the number of wireless systems that 

operate in close proximity in frequency, 

space, and time need to increase, and 

that while there are many benefits 

derived from packing wireless systems 

among these dimensions (i.e., higher 

system density), there is also an 

increased risk of service disruption due 

to inter-service interference. The TAC 

stated that implementing an interference 

limit policy would bring receivers into 

the spectrum management picture, and 

do so with minimal regulatory 

intervention. As explained in the White 

Paper on Interference Limits Policy: 

Increased density requires more care in 

optimizing the whole wireless system 

structure, particularly regarding the 

interactions between transmitters and 

receivers on either side of band boundaries. 

. . . [R]eceivers that cannot reject interfering 

signals transmitted outside their assigned 

frequencies can preclude or constrain new 

allocations in adjacent bands. A holistic 

system view that facilitates trade-offs 

between receiver and transmitter 

performance requirements is needed. 

Receivers can be brought into the policy 

picture with minimal regulatory intervention 

by introducing an ‘‘interference limits’’ 

policy; that is, the establishment of ceilings, 

called harm claim thresholds, on in-band and 

out-of-band interfering signals that must be 

exceeded before a radio system can claim 

that it is experiencing harmful interference. 

Manufacturers and operators are left to 

determine whether and how to build 

receivers that can tolerate such interference, 

or even determine that they will choose to 

ignore these limits. Harm claim thresholds 

thus allow the FCC to provide guidance on 

the optimization of receiver performance 

without unduly restricting technical and 

commercial choice. 

The TAC contemplated rules that 

explicitly state when receivers may and 

may not claim harmful interference. 

Such rules would be a necessary 

complement to existing transmitter 

regulation that could facilitate the 

transition to more intensive frequency 

use by providing more clarity to service 

providers about the baseline regulatory 

and radio interference context going 

forward. The TAC stated that harm 

claim thresholds could be particularly 

useful in bands with many diverse and 

frequently emerging new technologies. 

As envisioned, the approach would 

delegate decisions about system design, 

including receiver performance, to 

manufacturers and operators, giving 

operators the flexibility to decide best 

how to deal with the RF environment 

(i.e., signal levels in adjacent or nearby 

bands which may be viewed as 

interference) they need to tolerate, 

whether by improving receiver 

selectivity, deploying more base 

stations, using internal guard bands, or 

accepting occasional service 

degradation given their choice of 

receiver design. Further, under such an 

approach, the private sector would play 

a key role in developing receiver 

specifications and standards that ensure 

adequate performance given the harm 

claim thresholds of a particular 

allocation. The TAC also recognized, 

however, that a harm claim threshold 

approach may require special 

consideration in cases where receivers 

are not controlled by a license holder or 

for life-safety systems like aviation and 

public safety. 

As the White Paper on Harm Claim 

Thresholds explained, the goal of a 

harm claim threshold is to reduce the 

uncertainty among radio system 

operators regarding the level of 

interference that one operator is entitled 

to impose on another operator, and that 

a related goal has been to find ways the 

Commission could encourage more 

efficient radio service coexistence, 

including ways to encourage receiver 

performance improvement without 

mandating receiver performance 

specifications. As articulated in the 

White Paper on Interference Limits, a 

guiding principle of this approach is 

that the number of interference disputes 

that require Commission resolution 

could be reduced if the responsibility to 

mitigate interference is more clearly 

assigned (i.e., if lines are more clearly 

drawn between the rights of transmitters 

and receivers). 

The TAC recommended that the 

Commission develop, where necessary, 

the expertise and that multi-stakeholder 

groups form to investigate interference 

limits policy at suitable high-value 

inter-service boundaries and suggested 

potential ways about implementing an 

interference limits policy. The TAC 

suggested introducing a harm claim 

thresholds approach on a gradual basis 

and suggested a three-step process for 

how the Commission might roll out 

rules and regulations on an interference 

limits policy, including harm claim 

thresholds. First, the Commission could 

identify frequency allocation boundaries 

where harm claim thresholds would 

bring immediate value, such as adjacent 

allocations where intensified use is 

anticipated. Second, the Commission 

would initiate a consultation process 

involving stakeholders in multiple 

services that span band boundaries. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29264 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Such multi-stakeholder groups could 

work collectively to develop options at 

these spectrum boundaries (e.g., 

methods for determining harm claim 

thresholds, enforcement and conflict 

adjudication mechanisms) as well as 

develop guidelines (and perhaps 

standards) for receiver performance 

parameters such as receiver sensitivity, 

selectivity, intermodulation rejection, 

and dynamic range, that, together with 

the transmitter power, signal 

modulation and deployment 

assumptions applicable to a particular 

service, would ensure that conformant 

receivers would operate satisfactorily 

within an RF environment where signal 

levels are no greater than the harm 

claim threshold. Third, the Commission 

would monitor the progress of the 

multi-stakeholder process, representing 

the interests of future licensees and 

other absent stakeholders while also 

ensuring that the record developed 

provides a thorough basis for a 

rulemaking should that be appropriate. 

Many commenters on the White Paper 

on Interference Limits Policy believed 

that the concepts deserved further 

consideration. Others, while 

acknowledging the need to consider an 

interference limits approach, opposed 

applying such an approach to particular 

services (e.g., aviation safety, safety-oflife services, amateur radio, or 

commercial mobile services) stating that 

a one-size-fits-all approach would not 

be appropriate. Some commenters, 

noting the difficult methodological and 

administrative implementation issues 

associated with this approach, stated 

that the Commission should explore and 

promote industry receiver performance 

measurements and some thought it 

important to develop appropriate 

enforcement mechanisms for any limits 

adopted. Many supported use of multistakeholder groups for formulating 

possible interference limits provided 

that appropriate representatives would 

participate. Some commenters 

supported the Commission using a pilot 

project to explore the approach in an 

appropriate band. 

In addition to the TAC, other entities 

recommended that the Commission 

further explore an interference limits 

policy, including harm claim threshold 

approaches. These included reports 

noting panelists’ consensus that a 

protection limits approach generally 

was preferable to adoption of receiver 

standards, and a later report largely 

supportive of developing an interference 

limits policy approach, including harm 

claim thresholds approach along with 

using multi-stakeholder groups to help 

develop appropriate technical solutions. 

One paper has proposed a specific harm 

claims threshold approach in which the 

threshold would be based on the 

interference environment associated 

with flexible use in the adjacent bands. 

PCAST also supported the harm claims 

threshold approach for receiver 

interference limits, which it contrasted 

with use of ‘‘heavy regulation of 

spectrum and devices’’ to solve receiverdriven interference issues. It believed 

that such an approach would provide a 

framework for defining harmful 

interference, could provide clarity on 

the requirements that a new entrant 

must meet to co-exist with legacy 

systems in adjacent bands, and would 

give device manufacturers freedom to 

address those requirements as they see 

fit. GAO also noted one of the 

Commission’s clear options for 

promoting receiver performance was 

further consideration of an interference 

limits approach. 

Discussion. In this document, the 

Commission seeks to develop an up-todate record on whether the Commission 

should further explore implementing an 

interference limits policy, and in 

particular, a harm claim thresholds 

approach. The Commission ask that 

commenters review the two TAC 

whitepapers, and offer their thoughts on 

the details discussed there, the issues 

and concerns raised, and how the 

Commission might proceed in 

consideration of interference limits 

policy and harm claim thresholds. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on how such an approach 

would fit into today’s spectrum 

environment characterized by much 

more intensive use compared to when 

these recommendations were 

developed. How could this approach 

alleviate spectrum issues the 

Commission is currently addressing as 

well as anticipated trouble spots as the 

Commission continues to examine 

opportunities for reallocating spectrum 

for higher valued uses? Should the 

Commission consider adopting any 

rules to implement such a policy? 

The Commission notes that the TAC 

recommended in the White Paper on 

Interference Limits Policy that the 

Commission issue a Notice of Inquiry 

seeking public comment on interference 

limits policy. First, the Commission 

seeks comment on the use of an 

interference limits policy at service 

boundaries in general, including the 

tradeoffs between interference limits 

policy and three alternatives to an 

interference limits policy that were 

noted in the White Paper on Interference 

Limits Policy. To focus this inquiry 

quantitatively, the Commission seeks 

comment on the use of an interference 

limits policy at service boundaries 

where there are legacy receivers for one 

of the radio services for which there are 

no published or industry-standard 

minimum out-of-band blocking 

threshold(s). Commenters should 

identify inter-service boundaries where 

there are some legacy receivers that are 

unable, for example, to tolerate 

fundamental signal levels outside their 

receive band that are more than 2%– 

10% displaced from the legacy receiver 

band edge and less than ¥15 dBm at the 

receiver input port (after antenna losses, 

prior to RF filter attenuation). 

Commenters that support different 

metrics for examining inter-service 

boundaries are encouraged to provide 

such metrics along with detailed 

explanations to support their choices as 

well as the boundaries where they 

should apply. The Commission is 

interested in knowing where legacy 

receivers are deployed that are designed 

and compliant with widely accepted 

industry receiver standards that include 

minimum out-of-band blocking (i.e., 

overload) tolerance specifications (e.g., 

radio receivers such as 3GPP base 

stations, user devices, aviation certified 

GPS receivers, etc.). Similarly, the 

Commission seeks information on 

where receivers are deployed that are 

not built to such standards, yet seek 

protection from signals outside their 

band. And the Commission requests that 

commenters identify the types of legacy 

receivers that are in the category 

identified by the TAC where 

interference limit policies may not be 

necessary at all. The Commission’s goal 

is to build a quantitative record based 

on commenters’ experience and 

spectrum viewpoints to inform the 

Commission where they believe highvalue interservice boundaries exist and 

where interference problems can be 

foreseen that could benefit from 

proactively implementing a harm claim 

threshold approach to specify licensees’ 

responsibilities for interference risk 

mitigation. 

Second, the Commission seeks 

comment on institutional approaches 

for implementing harm claim 

thresholds, including the use of multistakeholder processes, rulemaking, and 

in particular, inter-industry standards 

setting processes. The Commission 

seeks comment on specific tasks or 

reports that a multi-stakeholder group 

should address that would aid it if it 

were to further examine implementing a 

harm claim threshold approach. For 

example, would a multi-stakeholder 

group be able to evaluate any high value 

interservice boundaries identified by 

commenters and provide consensus 

insight into which spectrum allocations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29265 

should be addressed first or which 

would provide the largest benefits? 

Additionally, could a multi-stakeholder 

group compile data and produce a 

report or database regarding relevant 

technical specifications of deployed 

receivers including, but not limited to 

relative and absolute dynamic range, 

out-of-band blocking tolerance, and 

selectivity, where public owners of such 

receivers, other potentially affected 

spectrum users, and the Commission, do 

not have transparent insight? Such 

information could inform policy 

decisions and actions to balance 

transmitter emission power with 

receiver reception limits. What other 

tasks could a multi-stakeholder group 

tackle to help this process? 

Similarly, how can industry standards 

processes be leveraged to provide for 

improved receiver performance to 

support a harm claim threshold 

approach? In this regard, the 

Commission is not seeking to build a 

record to mandate the ‘‘design’’ of 

receivers that could chill technology 

evolution, but instead, the Commission 

is seeking ideas on how the importance 

of good receiver design can more 

effectively be represented in the 

lifecycle of receiver development and 

product evolution processes. For 

example, for receivers that require 

protection from fundamental signals in 

adjacent or nearby spectrum bands, the 

minimum undesired out-of-band power 

at which those receivers can operate 

without a degradation metric exceeding 

a low minimum, could be specified in 

an industry standard. The Commission 

notes that this is already done in some 

standards groups. Alternatively, specific 

receiver requirements can be specified 

as a receiver mandate in the 

Commission’s rules or absent such 

specificity, left to industry to meet a 

harm claim threshold signal strength or 

power flux over-the-air specification 

(i.e., signal-in-space) which could be 

codified in its rules. The Commission 

seeks comment on these alternatives 

and their tradeoffs. 

Third, the Commission seeks 

comment on suitable parameters for 

harm claim thresholds, engineering 

methods to determine their values, and 

ongoing reporting, analysis, and 

enforcement challenges. For example, 

should the Commission consider 

whether to adopt a standard ‘‘reference 

value of far out-of-band blocking 

power’’ to evaluate inter-radio-service 

interference scenarios. If so, what value 

would be appropriate? Would a 

standard reference value such as ¥15 

dBm at the input to a receiver’s frontend filter, be useful in the early 

identification of suitable harm claim 

thresholds; i.e., identifying harm claim 

thresholds that may be ‘‘at,’’ ‘‘above,’’ or 

‘‘below’’ a standard reference value? If 

this value is inappropriate, what value 

would be appropriate? Should different 

values be specified for different radio 

services? If so, the Commission requests 

that commenters justify their position 

and provide detailed comment 

regarding recommended values and 

which radio services are applicable. Are 

there instances in which the harm claim 

threshold should be set based on 

assuming that the allocation in the 

adjacent band would be flexible use? 

How can the Commission incentivize 

industry segments where there are no 

consensus receiver standards, yet there 

is a desire for ‘‘protection’’ from interband interference? Since the 

responsibility for spectrum coexistence 

lies with both transmitters and 

receivers, can these (or other) harm 

claim threshold parameters be used to 

achieve the Commission’s policy goals? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether a harm claim threshold 

approach should incorporate two 

parameters that 3GPP has used to study 

the balance of transmitter impairments 

with receiver impairments: Adjacent 

Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) and 

Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS). 

These parameters are used to analyze 

and determine the balance between 

transmitter and receiver impairments 

within spectrum bands shared between 

multiple mobile broadband service 

providers using a basic formulation 

called Adjacent Channel Interference 

Ratio (ACIR). While the Commission is 

unaware of anyone applying this 

concept ‘‘between inter-service 

spectrum bands’’ (i.e., between different 

radio services) to assess whether out-ofband transmitter impairments or out-ofband blocking receiver filter 

impairments dominate the interference 

equation between spectrum bands, it 

seeks comment on whether these 

concepts can be used in this context. 

For commenters that support such an 

approach, the Commission requests 

specific information regarding how 

these concepts could be applied and 

what values should be considered for 

evaluation purposes for various radio 

services. 

Are there specific engineering 

methods or analysis tools that lend 

themselves to analyses necessary to 

support a harm claim threshold 

approach? In particular, a harm claim 

threshold approach may require 

specifying an ‘‘over the air’’ power flux 

or field strength threshold, over which 

‘‘claims of harm’’ could be made, and 

under which claims of harm could not 

be made. Spatial and temporal variables 

associated with transmitters and 

receivers, especially mobile radio, 

present a statistical challenge to assess 

probabilistic bounds versus 

deterministic bounds (e.g., a receiver 

dynamic range certification 

requirement). Moreover, radio 

propagation is highly variable and radio 

waves are ‘‘polarized’’ and ‘‘directional’’ 

creating more statistical uncertainty. 

Further, technology advancements such 

as 5G Advanced Antenna Systems 

(AAS) enable more effective 

‘‘directionality’’ to optimize wireless 

network coverage and performance, but 

technologies such as AAS also pose a 

dimension of uncertainty (e.g., RF 

emissions ‘below the horizon’ versus 

‘above the horizon’). How can these 

probabilistic variables be accounted for 

in analyses to produce trusted results 

agreed upon by interested parties? Can 

a standard methodology and modeling 

tools be used to implement these 

processes? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether a standard reporting or 

measurement scale can be developed to 

categorize levels of interference or 

impairment. For example, most people 

are familiar with the Fujita (tornadoes), 

Saffir-Simpson (hurricanes), and Richter 

(earthquakes) scales, that stratify the 

consequences of undesired 

environmental effects in a manner that 

is understandable by the public. Can 

something similar be developed for 

spectrum and RF interference? 

Currently, some parties point to a 

relative change in the noise floor as a 

single indicator of harmful interference. 

However, given the orders of magnitude 

of variation between transmitter and 

receiver impairment conditions for 

different services and situations, a 

single-value relative change metric may 

not be meaningful. Moreover, under a 

harm claim threshold approach, there 

should be flexibility to determine a 

range of relevant values and associated 

responsibilities or ability to claim 

inference protection. Should the 

Commission establish a few basic and 

standard reference categories of 

interference, to enable quantitative/ 

statistical risk assessment? As with the 

examples above, the absolute values of 

the scale can be different between 

different radio services. There is no 

‘‘one size fits all.’’ However, the notion 

here is that ‘‘sizes’’ (or ranges of power) 

are potentially describable and more 

meaningful to the public. What 

categories and levels do commenters 

believe would be both easy to describe 

and lend relevance to this approach? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how a harm claim threshold could be 

enforced given the spatial and temporal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29266 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

variations of various radio systems. The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

persistent and intermittent interference 

would or could be detected, reported, 

and used to identify a ‘‘claim’’ of 

interference? How would such a process 

distinguish external sources of 

interference from self-interference 

sources such as ‘‘cross coupling’’ 

between the transmit and receive paths 

within a radio transceiver, which could 

be misinterpreted as interference from 

an external source? How would sources 

of intermodulation interference be 

detectable and analyzed to distinguish 

(a) intermodulation interference 

generated from within a receiver, from 

(b) intermodulation products from the 

receiver’s antenna system, from (c) 

intermodulation interference from the 

local environment (e.g., rusty bolts, 

corroded metal infrastructure nearby), 

from [d] intermodulation interference 

generated from high power nearby RF 

emissions (e.g., fundamental signals F1

and F2 can create interference at 

F3 = 2 * F2¥F1) when impressed on a 

nonlinear element can cause co-channel 

interference within a receiver? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

and other relevant interference reporting 

processes and best-practices that can be 

employed for specific radio services, 

regardless of whether receiver 

performance minimum expectations are 

established by industry standards or 

harm claim threshold methods. What 

other factors need to be addressed to 

effectively enforce a harm claim 

threshold? Commenters should be 

specific regarding what they and 

industry stakeholders can proactively 

and specifically do, and what role the 

Commission should undertake to 

enforce a harm claim threshold 

approach, especially in maintaining a 

‘‘light touch’’ regulatory approach. 

Finally, the Commission inquires 

about whether a harm claim thresholds 

approach should be expected to evolve 

as receiver performance improves over 

time. Should receivers that may meet a 

standard when they are deployed be 

upgraded or replaced in the future to 

merit interference protection under the 

Commission’s rules if new receiver 

standards are developed that provide 

increased interference immunity? The 

Commission notes that different systems 

have different expected lifecycles. The 

Commission requests comment on 

whether it should consider a specified 

time frame from the date a receiver was 

deployed after which it should be 

expected to meet newer standards. 

Similarly, the Commission invites 

comment on whether limits should be 

reevaluated periodically and adjusted 

based on newer technology standards 

and capabilities, or whether receiver 

protection should be tied to certain 

required maintenance or replacement 

schedules. 

Receiver Performance Mandates 

As noted above, the Commission has 

not generally imposed requirements on 

receiver performance and relies instead 

on establishing technical and 

operational rules associated with 

transmitters. As to receiver 

performance, the Commission has relied 

largely on market forces rather than 

mandatory requirements to provide 

incentives for manufacturers to produce 

equipment with good receivers, though 

better performing receivers may come 

with increased cost. As discussed above, 

there have been a number of occasions 

in which the Commission has adopted 

rules that either promote receiver 

performance or require that receivers 

meet certain minimal technical 

performance capabilities, including 

situations involving repurposed 

spectrum where receiver performance 

specifications were required for future 

operations (DTV tuner requirements), 

developing acceptable levels of in-band 

and adjacent band interference for 

services (800 and 900 MHz bands), and 

safety-of-life services (maritime and 

location services). Some commenters or 

studies have indicated that in certain 

types of situations rules promoting 

receiver performance may be 

appropriate, such as in the case where 

the licensee does not have sufficient 

control over receiver performance. 

Discussion. The Commission requests 

comment on whether and under what 

circumstances it might be appropriate 

for it to consider adopting rules 

promoting receiver performance or 

specifying minimal receiver 

requirements. The Commission also 

invites comment on possible regulatory 

approaches that promote receiver 

performance without specifying 

technical requirements. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should consider expanding 

its receiver rules to encompass more 

radio services or to apply rules generally 

across all radio services. To what extent 

to do the Commission’s limited existing 

requirements on receivers provide 

guidance as it considers this issue? How 

successful were those efforts at 

balancing the need for a rule 

requirement without imposing undue 

costs that might be associated with such 

a regulatory approach? Should a 

particular approach already adopted by 

the Commission for one particular 

situation be appropriate for considering 

in an analogous situation? Are there 

particular services or situations today 

that suggest that the Commission should 

consider adopting a rule on receiver 

performance to serve the public 

interest? Why would such an approach 

be appropriate? 

If a commenter suggests that the 

Commission should consider adopting a 

rule requirement in particular 

situation(s), it seeks comment on why 

and how the rules could be applied. 

How specific would the requirements 

need to be? For example, the 

Commission could take a light touch 

regulatory approach and simply require 

equipment to meet certain industry 

standards or it could require receivers to 

meet certain benchmarks or a 

combination of the two based on radio 

service or type of equipment. Because 

some Commission licensees, such as 

mobile phone providers approve and 

certify specific phone models for use on 

their networks, should the Commission 

consider whether to adopt a 

requirement that those licensees ensure 

that their customers’ equipment meets 

some minimal standards (e.g., 3GPP 

standards)? Would a rule specifying 

such a requirement suffice? Or would 

specific minimum benchmarks be 

needed? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether there are certain cases where a 

regulatory approach should be 

considered because the receivers 

associated with a particular service are 

not sufficiently under the control of the 

licensee or may not be designed to meet 

particular industry specifications. The 

Commission notes, for instance, that in 

many cases consumers have a wide 

variety of equipment choices (e.g., inhome access point equipment, devices 

for use with a licensed or unlicensed 

services such as radar or satellite 

receivers), and the purchase decision is 

entirely in the consumer’s hands 

without any licensee providing the role 

of gatekeeper on receiver performance. 

Would regulatory requirements to 

ensure minimal performance be 

appropriate in certain situations such as 

those? What are the costs and benefits 

of such an approach? Commenters 

should provide detailed justification for 

what type of requirements should apply 

to which services or user classes, if the 

Commission were to consider amending 

its rules to implement receiver 

requirements. 

To what extent might it be 

appropriate for the Commission to 

consider requiring certain disclosure to 

consumers, and owners/operators of 

equipment and systems with embedded 

receivers or transceivers, so that they 

make a more informed choice about the 

equipment they purchase. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29267 

Commission invites comment on 

whether it should require radio 

equipment information disclosure, for 

example through a labeling requirement, 

or key metrics regarding the receiver. 

Would such a requirement be useful to 

consumers and owners/operators of 

integrated systems that employ 

receivers? If so, what type of 

information would be most helpful to 

inform consumers and operators to 

make an educated decision (e.g., 

selectivity, dynamic range, etc.)? Would 

such a requirement be beneficial across 

the board for all equipment or only for 

equipment designed for certain services 

or user bases? What would be the best 

way to disclose this information (e.g., on 

packaging, in the manual, etc.)? What 

burden and costs would a disclosure 

requirement place on manufacturers? 

Would this increase product costs? If so, 

by how much? Commenters should 

provide details regarding who would 

benefit most from such disclosures and 

for what type of equipment for which 

rule parts or portions thereof. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how, if it deems such rules are 

warranted, they should be enforced? 

Should it be part of the equipment 

certification process where the 

Commission already imposes certain 

labelling requirements? Finally, the 

Commission asks if such a disclosure 

requirement would incentivize 

manufacturers to build better receivers? 

Are there any other factors or policy 

issues that the Commission should 

consider as it pertains to the potential 

for requiring receiver labeling 

information? 

If the Commission were to pursue 

consideration of possible mandatory 

requirements, it requests comment on 

possible technical specifications or 

other requirements that would need to 

be considered. For example, could the 

rules tie a filtering requirement to the 

expected emissions in adjacent or 

nearby bands to ensure resiliency from 

out-of-band emissions or blocking 

interference? What about requirements 

regarding to spurious emissions or 

intermodulation interference? How 

could such requirements be 

implemented? What factors should go 

into determining such filter and other 

requirements? Is there a frequency 

separation that should be considered, 

either absolute or as a function of 

bandwidth that should be considered to 

adequately protect receivers against 

blocking interference? Should there be a 

required margin built in, to future proof 

receivers against future Commission 

actions that might affect the nearby RF 

environment? If so, how much of a 

margin is realistic? What issues need to 

be considered that affect the attenuation 

roll-off performance of filters? How 

should such requirements be 

contemplated for differing operational 

requirements (e.g., requirement 

differences in fixed, mobile, satellite, 

broadcasting, radiolocation services, 

etc.)? 

In the event a regulatory requirement 

is considered, the Commission seeks 

comment on what consideration should 

be given for services where the expected 

equipment lifetime differs. For example, 

certain industrial equipment is expected 

to work for 10 or 20 years or more while 

consumer mobile devices are typically 

replaced every few years. What other 

technical requirements would need to 

be specified? How should different 

receivers be categorized? Can a rating 

scale be developed to easily assess how 

much additional interference protection 

one receiver may have over another? 

Should any categorization be tied to 

characteristics of the desired 

transmitters? Or the undesired 

transmitters in adjacent and nearby 

bands? 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on how rules specifying 

particular receiver protection criteria 

may affect receiver architecture, 

particularly concerning implementation 

complexity, size, performance, form 

factors, number of external components, 

power consumption, impacts on other 

systems, and cost. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what type of tests may be needed if it 

were to consider specific requirements. 

Should such testing be part of the 

equipment approval process? Which 

receiver parameters should be 

examined? How should tests for these 

parameters be designed and conducted? 

Commenters should provide 

information regarding specific test 

details. Is there other information the 

Commission should consider, if it were 

to implement rule requirements for all 

or certain receivers? 

Finally, the Commission requests 

comment on any other regulatory 

approaches the Commission should 

consider that would promote improved 

receiver interference immunity 

performance where that would be 

appropriate. The Commission asks that 

commenters provide sufficient 

explanation of their ideas and rationale 

for why they would be appropriate for 

consideration of such a regulatory 

approach as the best means of 

promoting its goal of promoting more 

efficient use of spectrum through 

improved receiver performance. 

Innovation and the Marketplace 

As part of the Commission’s overall 

spectrum management goals, the 

Commission seeks to promote 

innovative new technologies and uses of 

spectrum. The Commission requests 

that commenters address the various 

considerations and approaches that 

have been discussed in this document, 

and inform the Commission about how 

best to promote innovation. 

The Commission recognizes that 

receiver interference immunity 

performance specifications have the 

potential to impact receiver markets in 

various ways depending on how they 

are implemented. As discussed above, 

the Commission is examining three 

general types of approaches to 

promoting improved receiver 

performance—promoting industry-led 

voluntary approaches, providing 

additional Commission guidance, and 

possibly adopting mandatory 

requirements, or some combination of 

each. The Commission inquire as to 

how innovation and the marketplace 

would be affected by the approaches it 

is considering, and how best to consider 

the weighing of each approach as well 

as a balanced combination. 

The Commission notes, for instance, 

that receivers with improved 

interference immunity performance 

features may create product 

differentiation that is generally desirable 

for consumers/users. As for voluntary 

approaches, voluntary industry 

guidelines and standards that promote 

development of receivers that are better 

or more desirable would create product 

differentiation. At the same time, 

however, the cost of producing such 

receiver devices might be higher than 

the cost of producing less resilient 

receivers, resulting in higher prices. In 

such a case, consumers/users would 

ultimately determine whether the 

receivers with greater interference 

immunity are ultimately deployed 

(compared to less resilient receivers), 

and would generally be based on 

whether the users would be willing to 

pay any higher prices that might be 

charged. The Commission seeks 

comment on how it might assess 

voluntary approaches in the context of 

innovation and the marketplace, and 

which approaches would be most or 

least effective when it comes to 

facilitating innovation while promoting 

improved receiver performance. 

The Commission next seeks comment 

on how the various approaches 

discussed regarding potential 

Commission guidance would affect 

innovation and the marketplace. The 

Commission asks that commenters 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29268 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

address particular types of potential its 

policy guidance discussed herein— 

including general policy guidance, a 

policy statement, or an interference 

limits policy such as harm claim 

thresholds—and how those particular 

approaches affect innovation and the 

marketplace. Which approaches would 

be most or least effective as to 

facilitating innovation while promoting 

improved receiver performance? For 

instance, would clarification of 

Commission policy as to the integral 

role that receiver interference immunity 

performance plays in spectrum 

management, and clearer guidance 

about receiver responsibilities 

associated with developing and 

deploying receivers that protect against 

adjacent and nearby spectrum uses, help 

promote innovations in improved 

receiver design, and how should the 

Commission consider crafting such 

guidance in order to promote innovation 

in the marketplace? The Commission 

also notes that proponents of the 

development of an interference limits 

policy or harm claim threshold 

approaches note many benefits of such 

an approach, including that it could 

serve as a better alternative to adopting 

particular mandatory requirements in 

the rules. The Commission invites 

comment on how an interference limits 

policy or harm claim thresholds 

approaches affect innovation and the 

marketplace. 

The Commission also invites 

comment on the adoption of regulatory 

requirements or rules (including 

standards) that require minimal levels of 

receiver interference immunity 

performance as the means for achieving 

its public interest goals. The 

Commission notes that mandatory 

standards would be expected to ensure 

development and deployment of 

receivers with a minimal level of 

interference immunity performance that 

would help achieve particular 

Commission goals regarding particular 

spectrum bands, including addressing 

issues relating to enabling greater access 

to adjacent band spectrum for other 

spectrum users. At the same time, the 

Commission notes that there may be 

instances in which regulatory adoption 

of specification standards could stifle 

innovation by restricting the 

introduction of products with otherwise 

desirable new features that are 

inconsistent with the standards, or 

might not be the most efficient at 

achieving the Commission’s goals for 

ensuring a minimal level of receiver 

performance. The Commission asks for 

comment on how particular mandatory 

approaches may affect innovation and 

the marketplace. If a class of receivers 

are expected to be protected without a 

minimum knowable level of selfprotection (selectivity) designed-in the 

receiver, how can protection be 

ensured? 

With regard to each of the approaches 

discussed above, the Commission 

requests comment on the impacts of 

receiver interference immunity 

performance as to the following 

questions. What effects would 

interference immunity performance 

specifications have on innovation in 

equipment design, performance 

(especially as to performance not 

addressed by specifications) and 

features? What effects would particular 

approaches have on receiver markets in 

terms of cost of production, price and 

availability of equipment, and user 

demand? What aspects of specifications 

would have the greatest impacts on 

innovation and markets and what steps 

could be taken to minimize or mitigate 

their impacts? Since receiver filters to 

block OOB signals are generally a small 

fraction of the cost and complexity of a 

receiver, and generally, such 

components do not constrain the highlevel innovative functions of a receiver, 

commenters should be specific and 

describe the impact on innovation, if 

any, of establishing basic minimum 

power reception limits from signals 

outside of a receiver’s allocated 

spectrum band. Finally, to what extent 

should assessments of the impact on 

innovation and markets be a factor in 

the Commission’s consideration of the 

various approaches for promoting 

improved receiver interference 

immunity performance discussed in this 

document? 

In addition, the Commission inquires 

as to how it might evaluate an 

appropriate mix or balance among the 

various approaches that are discussed in 

this document as regards innovation 

and the marketplace. Commenters 

should offer their views on how the 

Commission might find that appropriate 

mix or balance. The Commission also 

invites comment on how these 

approaches might affect innovation in 

spectrum utilization. For example, how 

might these measures affect the 

development and costs and benefits of 

innovation associated with new wireless 

use cases? Compared to the 

Commission’s approach to receiver 

performance to date, how might any of 

the approaches discussed above 

potentially serve to promote innovation 

in spectrum use, including not only in 

receiver but in transmitter design and 

performance as well? 

Finally, the Commission invites 

comment on any other considerations 

that it should take into account on how 

best to promote innovation as it 

evaluates possible approaches to 

promoting improved receiver 

performance as part of its spectrum 

management in the future. 

Legacy Receivers and Transition 

Pathways 

There are many billions of receivers 

currently in use in various different 

radio services for a multitude of 

purposes. Depending on the types of 

approaches that industry and the 

Commission might take into promoting 

improvements in receiver performance, 

many of these existing ‘‘legacy’’ 

receivers may be impacted. Many 

receivers presumably already operate 

efficiently and include robust 

interference immunity, whether it is 

because they comply with voluntary 

industry guidelines, manufacturer 

designs are efficient, regulatory 

requirements are in place, or for other 

reasons. Many other receivers may 

currently not include the latest 

technologies or designs that could make 

the receivers more immune to 

interference, but also may be in the 

process of being replaced fairly quickly 

over the next few years, as is the case 

for consumer mobile devices over 

generally a five to ten year period. Then 

there are receivers in many different 

services, that may not be as immune to 

interference as they could be, 

particularly insofar as the receivers (or 

some subset of them) used in a 

particular service may be susceptible to 

interference from other operations in 

adjacent or nearby bands, or could 

experience interference with the 

introduction of new services in adjacent 

or nearby bands, in part because these 

receivers (or some subset of them) have 

not been designed to be more immune 

to interference. 

As the Commission observed in its 

2003 NOI on receiver performance, in 

situations where the Commission 

adopted spectrum policies that assumed 

receivers performed in accordance with 

a given set of interference immunity 

specifications, it is likely that many of 

the existing receivers could continue to 

provide satisfactory service. Further, 

interference conditions that would 

necessitate the use of receivers meeting 

the applicable guidelines/standards 

would not be present everywhere, and 

they may operate in locations where 

potentially interfering signals were not 

present or were present at levels within 

the capabilities of existing receivers. 

Such receivers could provide 

satisfactory service in many situations 

where industry or the Commission 

adopted spectrum policies that promote 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29269 

receiver performance. Accordingly, the 

NOI noted that one approach would be 

to simply allow users to change to new 

receivers as they encountered 

interference. The Commission also 

identified another situation, such as 

where the service would be of more 

critical importance, and suggested that 

it might be necessary to require 

replacement of receivers, including the 

case in which a transition is being 

mandated for the replacement of 

receivers. The Commission asked about 

how to treat existing receivers that do 

not comply with any new receiver 

immunity specifications that may be 

developed, and how the size of the 

installed receiver base should affect 

development of receiver guidelines/ 

standards, what criteria should be used 

by the Commission if it were to take 

action to require replacement of 

receivers (either rapidly on a 

transitional basis) in particular services, 

and what would be an appropriate 

phase-in period. 

Regarding the potential replacement 

of legacy receivers, the GAO report 

noted both the lack of predictability 

about the future spectrum environment, 

and that it can take significant time and 

effort to upgrade and replace receivers 

once deployed. Silicon Flatirons 

suggested that it would be helpful if 

regulators could better anticipate the 

needs at band edges and provide proper 

notice (e.g., 10 years) regarding the need 

for better receivers, and further noted 

that in order to help manage costs 

development of a phase-in of receiver 

regulation would be important. CSMAC 

discussed the need for future spectrum 

planning to give due consideration to 

legacy equipment and not to 

unnecessarily strand such equipment 

due to new services or devices that 

cause interference. It believed that when 

developing future spectrum sharing 

policies and considering technological 

advancements that enable 

improvements in legacy equipment, 

spectrum managers should also consider 

the replacement rate of existing 

transmitting and receiving equipment. 

This would avoid the potential for 

unnecessary stranded investment in this 

equipment, and balance the cost of this 

investment with the public benefits of 

more spectrum access to both Federal 

Government and other users. 

The Commission further notes that 

the matter of how best to address legacy 

receivers and transition to less 

susceptible receivers in order to allow 

new operations in adjacent or nearby 

bands continues to be an important 

consideration as it seeks to enable new 

uses of spectrum and promote more 

efficient use of spectrum. The 

Commission anticipates that issues 

concerning legacy receivers that are not 

as interference-resilient as they could or 

should be may continue to arise, and 

consideration to potential pathways for 

addressing legacy receivers and any 

transitions to better performing 

receivers is important. 

Discussion. What is the state of 

receiver performance across the 

commercial sector, including public 

safety, aviation and maritime safety, and 

Federal spectrum users? The 

Commission requests comment and 

suggestions on the range of issues and 

considerations that it should take into 

account as it considers the treatment of 

existing receivers that may not comply 

with any new approaches or policies 

adopted in the future (e.g., improved 

receiver minimum interference 

immunity performance where that 

might be appropriate). The Commission 

notes that the issues include those 

relating to how it or others might 

determine the size of the installed base 

and identify existing or legacy receivers 

that potentially may be subject to 

approaches that lead to improved 

interference immunity performance. As 

discussed above, the Commission 

recognizes that in many instances, 

receivers are replaced fairly often, and 

that improved receiver performance in 

those cases could be achieved in a 

relatively rapid fashion, while there 

may be other situations in which other 

approaches (as discussed herein) may be 

appropriate. The Commission invites 

comment on each of these types of 

situations, including specific comment 

on whether and how to factor in the 

anticipated useful life of existing 

receivers. 

The Commission also requests 

comment on considerations that it 

should take into account related to 

transitions (e.g., repair or replacement) 

from use of legacy receivers to receivers 

that are more interference-immune in 

situations where that is deemed 

appropriate. Are there, for instance, 

particular approaches in previous or 

current Commission proceedings that 

provide some guidance that the 

Commission should consider? What are 

the complexities of introducing receiver 

requirements or harm claim thresholds 

in bands with existing spectrum 

allocations and service rules? What are 

realistic timelines for products in 

existing bands to adapt to a harm claim 

threshold or other regulatory actions to 

improve receiver performance? The 

Commission invites broad comment on 

relevant issues pertaining to legacy 

receivers and potential transition 

approaches, including timelines for 

transitioning that may be appropriate, 

the impact on global competitiveness, 

and consideration to regulatory actions 

that other nations have taken. Are there 

approaches that the Commission should 

consider that would enable smooth 

transitions? Should the Commission 

consider approaches that could facilitate 

any transition deemed appropriate that 

would minimize the costs that would be 

incurred? In sum, the Commission asks 

that commenters help it identify and 

consider the range of issues and 

concerns that should be taken into 

account with regard to addressing 

legacy receivers and transitioning to 

systems with improved receiver 

interference immunity performance that 

would serve the public interest. 

Costs and Benefits 

There are both costs and benefits that 

are associated with the implementation 

of the various approaches discussed in 

this document for the Commission’s 

consideration as it seeks to promote 

improved receiver interference 

immunity performance in appropriate 

ways. The Commission recognizes that 

there could be a range of tradeoffs to 

consider. The Commission invites 

comment on ways to minimize the 

costs, optimize the benefits, and 

otherwise balance the costs and 

benefits, as steps are taken in the future 

to improve receiver interference 

immunity performance as part of its 

overall spectrum management goals in 

those situations in which doing so 

would serve the public interest. 

The Commission notes that the TAC, 

in its White Paper on Risk-informed 

Interference Assessment, recommended 

that it include in its decision-making 

evaluation a quantitative risk-informed 

interference assessment (e.g., comparing 

various likelihood/consequence 

combinations for multiple different 

potential interference hazard scenarios 

among the potentially affected 

operators) as it considers the interests of 

incumbents, new entrants, and the 

public. Others have noted that better 

understanding of the costs and benefits 

associated with improved receiver 

interference immunity performance 

could be help ‘‘inform how to develop 

an incentive structure that would 

actually improve receiver selectivity.’’ 

CSMAC indicated that in considering 

costs, spectrum managers should take 

into account changes and improvements 

in legacy equipment that will occur in 

the marketplace, and try to minimize 

the cost of stranded investments. 

Several other reports have focused on 

considerations related to the costs 

associated with any new guidance or 

policy promoting improved receiver 

performance, and discussions of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29270 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

need for an appropriate phase-in 

depending on the situation. 

Discussion. The Commission invites 

comment on how it should consider the 

associated costs and benefits of the 

various approaches that are discussed in 

this document for promoting improved 

receiver interference immunity 

performance—including voluntary 

approaches, Commission guidance (e.g., 

policy clarification, policy statement, 

interference limits policies), or 

regulatory approaches such as adoption 

of mandatory requirements for specified 

services. 

The Commission also invites 

comment on how it might consider a 

phased-in approach when promoting 

improved receiver interference 

immunity performance in particular 

bands. As the Commission considers 

costs and benefits, what are the kinds of 

costs and the kinds of benefits that 

should be considered? The Commission 

asks that commenters discuss not only 

financial impacts but also 

considerations relating to competition 

as well as public safety and national 

security concerns. For example, would 

improvements in receiver interference 

immunity performance (e.g., selectivity 

to reject unwanted emissions) enhance 

the ability of receivers to reject jamming 

and spoofing attempts? How might the 

Commission best consider the trade-offs 

concerning potentially affected 

stakeholders? 

Legal Authority 

As the Commission considers possible 

approaches to explore further, it seeks 

comment on its legal authority 

concerning the kinds of approaches it 

may be considering. In the 2003 NOI on 

Receiver Performance Specifications, 

the Commission stated its belief that it 

had the ‘‘necessary statutory authority 

to promulgate receiver immunity 

guidelines and standards under sections 

4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f), and (r) of the 

Communications Act, as amended.’’ 

Several commenting parties generally 

agree, while others suggested that the 

Commission’s authority could be 

limited. 

Discussion. The Commission 

continues to believe that it has the 

necessary statutory authority to 

promulgate receiver immunity 

guidelines and standards under sections 

4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f), and (r) of the 

Communications Act, as amended. The 

Commission requests comment on the 

assessment of its authority. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

other sources of authority as it considers 

the various approaches concerning 

receiver performance as discussed in 

this document. The Commission seeks 

comment in this document on whether 

the extent and limits of its statutory 

authority and enforcement mechanisms 

should affect its consideration of the 

possible approaches. 

The Communications Act provides it 

with broad spectrum management 

authority, including authority under 

Title III of the Act to manage the use of 

radio spectrum and to prescribe the 

nature of wireless services to be 

rendered. In particular, section 303(e) 

allows the Commission to ‘‘regulate the 

kind of apparatus to be used with 

respect to its external effects and the 

purity and sharpness of the emissions 

from each station and from the 

apparatus,’’ section 303(f) directs the 

Commission to ‘‘[m]ake such regulations 

not inconsistent with law as it may 

deem necessary to prevent interference 

between stations and to carry out the 

provisions of the chapter,’’ and section 

303(r) provides the Commission with 

general rulemaking authority. In the 

past, the Commission has drawn on its 

authority under section 303 to adopt 

requirements designed to protect 

receiving devices from interference from 

incoming signals by defining the 

conditions that constitute interference, 

including the operating parameters of 

the equipment causing and receiving the 

interference. For example, as discussed 

above, in both the 800 MHz public 

safety service and 900 MHz Business 

and Industrial/Land Transportation 

(B/ILT) service the Commission adopted 

regulations that required licensees 

claiming protection from unacceptable 

interference to use receivers capable of 

distinguishing wanted signals from 

unwanted signals. More recently, the 

Commission adopted rules for 

commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band 

that included protection limits afforded 

to receivers, although in that proceeding 

the Commission found it was 

unnecessary to mandate receiver 

performance specifications. 

In addition to the Commission’s clear 

authority to regulate receivers by 

defining the conditions that constitute 

interference, the Title III mandate to 

prevent interference ‘‘between stations’’ 

may also authorize it to regulate the 

operations of a receiving station with 

respect to its compliance with technical 

parameters designed to ensure that it is 

capable of screening out certain levels of 

RF energy that would otherwise 

interfere with its reception of desired 

signals. The Commission invites 

commenters to provide an assessment of 

the extent of its Title III authority over 

receivers. Can section 303(f) be 

interpreted to authorize the regulation 

of either the transmission or reception 

of the undesired signal in order to 

prevent interference? Does section 

303(f), together with sections 4(i), 301, 

302(a), 303(e), and (r), provide a 

sufficient basis for the Commission to 

establish interference protection rights 

for licensees or other authorized users of 

licensed devices, contingent on their 

devices meeting certain threshold 

performance requirements? Do these or 

other statutory provisions also provide 

authority for the Commission to adopt 

requirements that specify interferencerejection capabilities for wireless 

receivers or to impose direct controls on 

receiver devices that lack sufficient 

capacity to reject incoming interfering 

signals? Are such regulations reasonably 

ancillary to the Commission’s broad 

authority to ensure efficient use of radio 

spectrum? Prohibiting the manufacture 

or use of devices that are particularly 

susceptible to interference would 

prevent interference under the terms of 

section 303(f), insofar as that provision 

empowers the Commission to adopt 

regulations to prevent interference 

‘‘between stations.’’ If Congress had 

intended to limit the Commission’s 

authority to the regulation of the 

transmission of the undesired signal, it 

could have made that intent clear by 

stating in section 303(f) that the 

Commission has authority to adopt 

regulations to prevent stations from 

‘‘causing interference to other stations.’’ 

By using the phrase ‘‘between stations,’’ 

however, Congress arguably provided 

the Commission with the flexibility to 

address interference problems at both 

the transmitting and receiving ends. Do 

commenters agree? The Commission 

seeks comment on the scope of the 

statutory definition of ‘‘stations’’ in the 

context, including how to interpret the 

definition of ‘‘radio communication’’ or 

‘‘radio transmission of energy,’’ the 

former of which includes ‘‘all 

instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, 

and services (among other things, the 

receipt, forwarding, and delivery of 

communications) incidental to such 

transmission.’’ 

What is the Commission’s authority to 

impose direct regulation on device 

manufacturers—i.e., to prohibit the 

manufacture or marketing of devices 

that fail to conform to minimum 

performance standards for resisting 

interference? Section 302(a)(2) of the 

Communications Act gives the 

Commission authority to ‘‘establish[ ] 

minimum performance standards for 

home electronic equipment and systems 

to reduce their susceptibility to 

interference from radio frequency 

energy’’ and provides that ‘‘[s]uch 

regulations shall be applicable to the 

manufacture, import, sale, use, offer for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29271 

sale, or shipment of such devices and 

home electronic equipment and 

systems, and to the use of such 

systems.’’ While the Commission has 

clear authority to adopt performance 

standards for receivers used as home 

electronic equipment under section 

302(a)(2), the Commission seeks 

comment on the scope of the 

Commission’s authority pursuant to the 

provision. To what extent does the 

Commission’s authority extend to 

receivers used in commercial 

applications, such as on airplanes, 

commercial delivery trucks, or tractors 

on industrial-scale farms? Can 

consumer-facing devices used outside of 

the home, such as GPS devices used as 

navigation aids, be regulated under the 

authority? 

The Commission invites comment on 

any other sources of authority it could 

rely on for the actions it considers here. 

Commenters should explain in detail 

why they do or do not believe the 

Commission have authority to act if it 

chooses to do so. Commenters should 

also address whether the kinds of efforts 

or approaches that the Commission may 

ultimately take (e.g., gathering more 

information on receiver characteristics, 

developing and implementing harm 

claim threshold approaches, requiring 

transitions) would affect the analysis of 

the Commission’s authority or of its 

ability to enforce its rules effectively. 

Other Possible Approaches and Issues 

The Commission invites comment on 

other possible approaches for its 

consideration. For instance, would 

convening Commission-led workshops 

comprised of a variety of experts from 

industry and government be helpful? 

Would any pilot project be appropriate, 

and if so, with what particular 

frequency band(s) should be considered. 

Are there further studies that could help 

inform the Commission on important 

considerations with regard to improving 

receiver interference immunity 

performance? Are there other studies, 

efforts, analyses that the Commission 

should consider in the proceeding? If so, 

the Commission asks that commenters 

identify them and explain why they 

should be considered. 

Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, 

the Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the various approaches and issues 

discussed herein. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

various approaches that it may consider 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall 

be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with Rule 

§ 1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Participants in the proceeding should 

familiarize themselves with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of the document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) or by paper. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically by accessing ECFS at 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Paper filings can 

be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 

by commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. 

D Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be publicly 

available online via ECFS. These 

documents will also be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, when FCC 

Headquarters reopen to the public. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), the Notice of 

Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09938 Filed 5–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1