Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, 40767-40772 [E7-14211]
Download as PDF
40767
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has
been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Administrator has determined that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage
unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory
requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be
available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is
amended as follows:
I
PART 64—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.
§ 64.6
[Amended]
2. The tables published under the
authority of § 64.6 are amended as
follows:
I
Community
No.
State and location
Region IV:
Kentucky: Carroll County, Unincorporated
Areas.
Prestonville, City of, Carroll County ................
Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of
flood insurance in community
Current effective
map date
210045
March 26, 1997, Emerg, September 1, 1998, Reg,
July 17, 2007, Susp.
August 2, 1976, Emerg, September 18, 1986,
Reg, July 17, 2007, Susp.
07/17/2007
210047
*Do ...
Date certain Federal assistance no
longer
available in
SFHAs
07/17/
2007.
Do.
*Do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
Dated: July 13, 2007.
David I. Maurstad,
Assistant Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E7–14344 Filed 7–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 07–2747; MB Docket No. 04–427; RM–
11127; RM–11239]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Ammon
and Dubois, ID
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of petition
for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
At the parties’ request, this
document dismisses the petition for
reconsideration of the Report and Order
in this proceeding. The withdrawal of
the petition for reconsideration was
filed jointly by Millcreek Broadcasting,
LLC, licensee of Stations KNJQ(FM),
Manti, Utah, KUUU(FM), South Jordan,
Utah, and KUDD(FM), Roy, Utah;
Simmons SLC–LS, LLC, licensee of
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Stations KDWY(FM), Diamondville,
Wyoming, KAOX(FM), Kemmerer,
Wyoming, and KRAR(FM), Brigham
City, Utah; Rocky Mountain Radio
Network, Inc., licensee of Station
KRMF(FM), Evanston, Wyoming; 3
Point Media—Coalville, LLC, licensee of
Station KCUA(FM), Naples, Utah, and
College Creek Broadcasting, LLC
successful bidder and applicant for four
vacant auction allotments.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB
Docket No. 04–427 adopted June 20,
2007, and released June 22, 2007. The
full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying
during regular business hours at the
FCC’s Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission
will not send a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order in a
report to be sent to Congress and the
General Accounting Office pursuant to
the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the petition
for reconsideration was dismissed.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E7–14368 Filed 7–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[ET Docket No. 04–151, WT Docket No. 05–
96 and ET Docket No. 02–380; FCC 07–
99]
Wireless Operations in the 3650–3700
MHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
40768
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
SUMMARY: This document addresses
petitions for reconsideration filed in
response to the Commission’s Report
and Order relating to the 3650–3700
MHz band (3650 MHz band) proceeding.
The Commission affirms its previous
decisions to create a spectrum
environment that will encourage
multiple entrants and stimulate the
expansion of broadband service to rural
and under served areas. To facilitate
rapid deployment in the band, the
Commissions maintain the previously
adopted, non-exclusive licensing
scheme. The clarification and
modification will facilitate operation of
the widest variety of broadband
technologies with minimal risk of
interference in both the near and long
terms. They should further reduce the
potential for co-channel interference,
provide additional protections to the
multiple users in the band under the
current licensing regime, and create
incentives for the rapid development of
broadly compatible contention
technologies.
DATES: Effective August 24, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Dygert, Policy and Rules
Division, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418–7300, e-mail:
Jeffrey.Dygert@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET
Docket No. 04–151, FCC 07–99, adopted
May 22, 2007 and released June 17,
2007. The full text of this document is
available on the Commission’s Internet
site at https://www.fcc.gov. It is also
available for inspection and copying
during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257),
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. The full text of this document
also may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplication contractor,
Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II,
445 12th St., SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202)
488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion
and Order
1. The Memorandum Opinion and
Order (MO&O) addresses petitions for
reconsideration filed in response to the
Commission’s Report and Order, 70 FR
24712, May 11, 2005, in prior
proceedings relating to the 3650–3700
MHz band (3650 MHz band). The
parties petitioning for reconsideration
were: BRN Phoenix (BRN); the
Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Intel Corporation, Redline
Communications and Alvarion (jointly);
Motorola; Redline Communications; the
Satellite Industry Association (SIA); the
Wireless Communications Association
(WCA); and the Wi-Max Forum.
2. The MO&O affirms the
Commission’s previous decisions to
create a spectrum environment that will
encourage multiple entrants and
stimulate the expansion of broadband
service to rural and under served areas.
To facilitate rapid deployment in the
band, the Commission maintains the
previously adopted, non-exclusive
licensing scheme. Additionally, the
Commission declines to reconsider the
requirement that equipment operating
in the 3650 MHz band incorporate a
contention-based protocol, a technology
that permits multiple licensees to share
spectrum by ensuring that all licensees
receive reasonable opportunities to
operate in the band. The Commission
clarifies the meaning of contentionbased protocol and modifies the rules to
limit the operation of equipment using
‘‘restricted’’ contention-based protocols
(those that are not capable of avoiding
co-frequency interference with all other
types of contention-based protocols) to
the lower 25 megahertz portion of the
3650 MHz band. The Commission’s
actions should facilitate operation of the
widest variety of broadband
technologies with minimal risk of
interference in both the near and long
terms. The order should further reduce
the potential for co-channel
interference, provide additional
protections to the multiple users in the
band under the current licensing
regime, and create incentives for the
rapid development of broadly
compatible contention technologies.
3. Additionally, the Commission
denies requests for reconsideration of
the previously adopted power limits for
fixed and mobile transmissions in the
band, concluding that the limits
adopted serve to protect against
interference both among the band’s
licensees and with satellite earth
stations. Finally, it denies requests to
modify the out-of-band emission limits
in the rules and declines to revise the
rules regarding coordination with
satellite licensees operating in the
grandfathered exclusion zones around
satellite earth stations.
Licensing and Use of the Band
4. The Commission adopted a
nationwide non-exclusive licensing
scheme for the 3650 MHz band in order
to create a spectrum environment
conducive to the prompt entry by
multiple broadband providers in underserved markets—and at low entry costs
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and with minimal regulatory delay. The
Commission concluded that the nonexclusive licensing model, in
conjunction with operational and
technical safeguards (such as the
contention-based protocol and a
registration requirement), would
obligate licensees to cooperate to avoid
harmful interference. The Commission
concluded that the licensing rules it
adopted would ‘‘ensure open access to
this spectrum for nominal application
fees and allow effective and efficient use
of this spectrum in response to market
forces.’’ This, the Commission reasoned,
would encourage ‘‘rapid deployment of
broadband technologies’’ and advance
the ‘‘goal of bringing broadband services
to all Americans, including consumers
living in less densely populated rural
and suburban areas.
5. All of the arguments for making
modifications to the licensing rules rest
on the assumption that non-exclusive
licensing will frustrate potential users of
the band and its efficient use. The
Commission disagrees with these
projections. While it acknowledges that
the use of a non-exclusive licensing
approach must be accompanied with the
means to ensure that multiple users can
operate successfully in the band, the
Commission concludes that it adopted
appropriate and practical mechanisms
to ensure such an outcome.
6. The Commission declines to alter
the band’s cooperation requirement to
approximate the rights available in an
exclusive licensing model. It is not
persuaded that the various steps that
parties suggest in this regard would
more effectively further the public
interest and the Commission’s goals in
this proceeding than the current nonexclusive licensing scheme or that the
benefits of these proposed changes
overweigh the costs. For example,
creating the type of first-in-time rights
that parties suggest would give initial
market entrants the ability to structure
their operations in a manner that could
impede subsequent providers’ ability to
offer viable services and diminish any
incentive that such initial market
entrants might have in negotiating
interference avoidance measures to
accommodate new entrants. Requiring
the use of third-party frequency
coordinators would also add an
unnecessary extra layer of process that
operators would have to satisfy before
deploying their equipment and
initiating service. Given the use of
contention protocols in the band, the
Commission declines to require a
separate entity to serve as a gate-keeper
for the spectrum. Similarly,
performance standards and the
attendant reporting obligation would
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
duplicate the discipline that the market
will already provide. If an operator is
not providing adequate service, other
operators will be free to deploy their
facilities in the market and begin their
own operations.
7. The Commission disagrees that
non-exclusive licensing will make the
band unusable. The licensing
procedures adopted for the band
provide no first-in-time right to exclude
others from entering a market, as would
be necessary to make squatting behavior
profitable. To the contrary, the
cooperation and contention-based
protocol rules both require that
licensees take various steps to
accommodate (or at least avoid
interfering with) the operations of other
licensees in their area. Similarly, these
requirements should eliminate licensee
behavior that could overcrowd the band
to the detriment of all users. They will
prevent licensees from consuming the
full band and crowding out the
transmissions of other operators.
Licensees that must coordinate their
operations with other licensees and
deploy equipment that avoids harmful
interference will not be able to
overwhelm their neighbors.
8. In contrast to an exclusive licensing
model in which a licensee may exclude
others from a particular license area, the
non-exclusive licensing model adopted
in the 3650 MHz Order requires a
potential entrant to consider that the
presence of other licensees will require
cooperative use and may, at times,
restrict the amount of spectrum and/or
time that spectrum is available to any
particular licensee. That trade-off,
however, does not automatically render
the spectrum unusable.
Contention-Based Protocol
9. In the 3650 MHz Order, the
Commission explained that contentionbased protocols, which it required for
fixed, base and mobile equipment
operating in the band, would ‘‘allow
multiple users to share the same
spectrum by defining the events that
must occur when two or more devices
attempt to simultaneously access the
same channel and establishing rules by
which each device is provided a
reasonable opportunity to operate.’’ The
Commission’s goal in adopting the
contention requirement was to speed
deployment in the 3650 MHz band by
allowing multiple entrants to provide
service. It saw the protocol as a means
to ‘‘ensure efficient and cooperative
shared use of the spectrum.’’ The
Commission chose not to require a
specific contention-based protocol,
leaving it to industry and standards
bodies to determine appropriate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
protocols. The Commission cautioned,
though, that equipment would not be
certified for use in the band if it
appeared ‘‘to be designed to preclude
others from using this spectrum.’’ The
Commission stated that it would
monitor use of the spectrum, and would
modify the rules if there appeared to be
significant problems in this regard.
10. The Commission concludes that
the public interest is best served by
retaining the requirement that fixed,
base and mobile equipment operating in
the band incorporate a contention-based
protocol. Given the decision to retain
non-exclusive licensing in the 3650
MHz band, the Commission continues
to believe that equipment incorporating
a contention-based protocol will
provide a cost-effective means to enable
multiple users to operate on the same
frequencies in the band without
interfering with one another. With
contention-based protocol requirement,
operators and their customers will not
have to rely on frequency coordination
prior to the initiation of service; this
will reduce costs and delay.
11. The Commission is not persuaded
that the shortcomings that petitioners
ascribe to contention protocols will
necessarily limit use of the band to short
range applications. Competing evidence
indicates that contention technology is
suitable for many different applications
that the 3650 MHz Order envisioned,
including long range operations. Long
range transmissions typically would be
point-to-point using narrow beams.
Point-to-point transmissions at the
power limits adopted for the band will
have a lower potential for interference
and allow providers to use this band for
backhaul operations, especially in less
congested rural areas. The
Commission’s goal of providing for
multiple entrants in the band can best
be accomplished if users have the
flexibility to choose the technology most
appropriate to meet their needs.
Accordingly, the Commission denies
those petitions for reconsideration that
seek elimination of the contention
protocol requirement.
12. The Commission clarifies that the
3650 MHz rules provide for certification
of a variety of devices that may use
different types of protocols or
interference avoidance mechanisms that
satisfy the contention definition that
applies to the 3650 MHz band. The
definition of what constitutes a valid
contention protocol for the 3650 MHz
band is broad enough to encompass
different types of contention protocols
and interference avoidance
mechanisms, thereby promoting
innovation and product development.
As stated in the 3650 MHz Order,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40769
equipment for use in the 3650 MHz
band must incorporate a mechanism
that allows ‘‘multiple users to share the
same spectrum * * * and establish[es]
rules by which each device is provided
a reasonable opportunity to operate.’’
13. The record reveals two broad
categories of contention-based
protocols, both of which appear to the
requirements for operation in the 3650
MHz band. Nonetheless, they may not
be compatible with each other, and the
use of both types could result in cofrequency interference and thus
frustrate the Commission’s goal of
allowing for multiple entrants in the
band. Under the Commission’s rules,
contention-based protocols can be
categorized as either ‘‘unrestricted’’ or
‘‘restricted.’’ Unrestricted protocols are
broadly compatible and function to
prevent interference even with other,
dissimilar contention technologies on
the market. A listen-before-talk
technology like that in Wi-Fi devices is
a prime example of an unrestricted
contention-based protocol. On the other
hand, restricted contention protocols
can prevent interference only with other
devices incorporating the same protocol.
14. Allowing the use of different
protocols in the band will serve the goal
of speeding deployment of service, since
operators will be able to deploy many
different technologies, including those
already being developed for use in the
3650 MHz band world-wide.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for
conflict between certain types of
protocols, which could result in
interference and/or a denial of access to
the band for certain users. To resolve
this conflict, the Commission will
certify equipment using a restricted
contention protocol but will limit the
operation of such equipment to the
lower 25 megahertz of the 3650 MHz
band. On the other hand, equipment
using an unrestricted contention
protocol will be allowed to operate
throughout the 50 megahertz in the 3650
MHz band, since it will be able to detect
other transmissions throughout the band
and thus avoid co-frequency
interference anywhere in the band. The
Commission concludes that this
approach will ensure efficient use of the
spectrum and permit the prompt
deployment in this country of
equipment that is already being used in
this spectrum in other countries around
the globe. Permitting a number of
different contention based technologies
to operate in the band will also provide
additional flexibility to licensees to
choose the best suitable technology for
the type of services they plan to
provide.
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
40770
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
15. The Commission will implement
this approach through the equipment
certification process, under which it
will examine for compliance with the
rules all equipment proposed for use in
the 3650 MHz band. It will condition
the certification for equipment using a
restricted protocol to limit its operation
and tuning range to the bottom 25
megahertz of the band. The registration
database will include the FCC
identification number, reflecting the
equipment certification condition
restricting the licensee’s operating
frequency range if the licensee employs
equipment using a restricted contentionbased protocol.
16. The Commission recognizes that
manufacturers, through software
upgrades or other means may alter the
emission characteristics of previously
deployed devices so that they move
from the restricted to the unrestricted
category. To the extent that this occurs,
the manufacturer will be responsible for
complying with the Commission’s rules
regarding the need for new equipment
certification before the device will be
permitted to tune over the full 50
megahertz of the 3650 MHz band.
Further, affected licensees must update
their base and fixed station registrations
to reflect this change.
17. By contrast, the Commission will
not condition the certification for
equipment incorporating an unrestricted
contention-based protocol, thus
allowing such equipment to operate
throughout the full 50 MHz of the band.
This should create an added incentive
for industry groups and manufacturers
to speed their development and
deployment of such technology. In the
long term, this, should improve the
quality of service in the 3650 MHz band,
furthering the public interest. At the
same time, however, permitting
restricted contention technologies to
operate in the lower 25 MHz of the band
will ensure that a wider range of
currently available equipment may be
immediately deployed in the band.
18. The Commission denies the
petitions for reconsideration to the
extent that they seek elimination of the
requirement that equipment in the 3650
MHz band incorporate a contentionbased protocol.
19. The Commission notes the request
by BRN Phoenix that the Commission
certify its Advanced Antenna System as
the (apparently sole) contention-based
protocol for use in the 3650 MHz band.
The Commission expects that a variety
of different contention technologies will
qualify for deployment in the band.
BRN, like other parties may seek
certification for its Advanced Antenna
System from the Laboratory Division of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
the Commission’s Office of Engineering
and Technology.
Emissions Limits
20. In setting the power limits for
transmissions in the 3650 MHz band,
the Commission balanced numerous
competing factors to ‘‘serve the public
interest and foster the expeditious
introduction of new terrestrial services
in the 3650 MHz band.’’ These factors
included (1) the importance of
interference protection for
grandfathered satellite earth stations
and federal government radiolocation
stations and (2) the need to ensure
efficient use of the band by avoiding
mutual interference among licensed
operators. To this end, the Commission
adopted a peak power density of 25
Watts per 25 MHz of bandwidth and no
greater than 1 watt per 1 MHz of
bandwidth for fixed operations and
imposed a limit of 1 Watt per 25 MHz
of bandwidth for mobile operations.
Fixed and Mobile Power Limits
21. The Commission declines to
increase the power limits for either
fixed or mobile operations in the 3650
MHz band. In adopting power limits for
this band, the Commission balanced the
potential for inter-service and intraservice interference with the need to
provide for satisfactory service by 3650
MHz devices. At the same time, the
Commission was concerned that the
combination of power limits and the
size of the earth station exclusion zones
that it adopted would adequately
protect from harmful interference the
grandfathered satellite operations and
Federal Government radiolocation
stations.
22. The Commission concludes that
the 3650 MHz Order set the 3650 MHz
power limits at an appropriate level.
The levels adopted are adequate to
support commercially viable services
and will allow licensees to operate
effectively in the band without
unacceptably interfering with each
other’s operations (provided they
deploy equipment incorporating an
appropriate contention technology). At
the same time, the power limits,
combined with the size of the protection
zones for grandfathered satellite earth
stations, will prevent terrestrial
operations in the band from interfering
with in-band satellite operations.
Advanced Antenna Systems
23. The Commission declines BRN’s
request to reconsider the limit on power
output in the 3650 MHz band. In the
3650 MHz Order, the Commission
balanced the public interest factors that
BRN raises in its petition. Specifically,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
it considered the issues surrounding
‘‘deployment of advanced antenna
systems, including sectorized and
adaptive array systems.’’ It balanced the
need for ‘‘flexibility for licensees to
employ a wide variety of advanced
antennas to meet their needs’’ with the
goal of protecting satellite earth stations.
In so doing, it concluded that, ‘‘to allow
flexibility in deployment’’ of these
systems, it would allow such antennas
to operate with a slightly higher power
output. BRN Phoenix identifies no
deficiency in the Commission’s decision
that would warrant reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Commission denies its
petition in this regard.
FSS Satellite Issues
24. The Commission took several
steps to minimize the extent to which
terrestrial operations in the 3650 MHz
band would affect the operations of
satellite operators in both the
conventional C-band (3700–4200 MHz)
and the extended C-band (3625–3700
MHz). First, the Commission established
protection zones with a radius of 150
km around the earth stations of
grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service
(FSS) operators in the 3650 MHz band.
The Commission ruled that licensees in
the 3650 MHz band could establish
Fixed Service operations within the
protection zones only with the consent
of the affected FSS operator. For 3650
MHz licensees, the Commission
established fixed station operating
power limits of 25 Watts and mobile
station operating power limits of 1 Watt.
Additionally, the Commission sought to
avoid out-of-band interference by
requiring operators to limit emissions
into adjacent bands by a minimum
attenuation of 43 + 10 log(P) below the
transmit power.
Out-of-Band Interference
25. The Satellite Industry Association
(SIA) sought reconsideration of the 3650
MHz Order, arguing that the newly
authorized terrestrial operations in the
3650 MHz band will create interference
in the adjacent 3700–4200 band that,
contrary to the public interest, could
disrupt C–band satellite operations. The
Commission concludes that SIA’s
analysis contains overly conservative
assumptions about path loss
attenuation, the necessary C/I protection
ratio and the arrival angle of a 3650
MHz signal at a satellite earth station.
Each of these assumptions contributes
to the overly pessimistic picture that
SIA paints in its analysis. When these
assumptions are adjusted to reflect more
realistic operational scenarios the
attenuation requirement in the 3650
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
MHz Order adequately protects
operations in adjacent bands.
26. The Commission may, however,
require greater suppression of the outof-band emissions of a 3650 MHz
operator in those rare instances when a
3650 MHz transmitter falls near the
main beam and in a line of sight of a
satellite earth station.
Power Limits and LNB Saturation
27. SIA argued that the potential
exists for emissions from the 3650 MHz
transmitters to saturate the low noise
block converters (LNBs) on FSS earth
stations operating in the adjacent C–
band at 3700–4200 MHz. SIA requests
that the Commission reconsider the
permissible power level for fixed and
base stations, at least in the upper half
of the 3650 MHz band (that closest to
the C–band) and set it at a level below
the 25-watt figure that the prior order
adopted.
28. The Commission declines to
reconsider the permissible power limits
in the 3650 MHz band as SIA requests.
A review of the analysis that SIA
provides for its argument on LNB
saturation reveals that it is based on two
very conservative assumptions. The
predicted saturation is most pronounced
when the arrival angle of the satellite
antenna is 5 degrees. At greater arrival
angles—as will exist for the great
majority of earth stations—the
interference projected by SIA’s analysis
is reduced. The Commission also notes
that SIA has again assumed free space
assumptions for its propagation
analysis. Employing a path loss
exponent greater than 2, as was done for
the OOB emissions estimate,
significantly reduces the potential
interference.
29. Given the smaller separation
distances necessary to alleviate LNB
saturation predicted by a more realistic
propagation model, a modest
coordination effort should allow
satellite earth stations to operate
effectively, despite the presence of
nearby operations in the 3650 MHz
band. The Commission expects 3650
MHz licensees and satellite operators to
undertake such coordination where
necessary. The registration requirement
for fixed and base station operations in
the band will facilitate this
coordination. In the registration process,
licensees in the 3650 MHz band will be
required to provide identification and
location information for their fixed and
base stations, as well as the technical
information necessary for interference
analysis.
30. The Commission rejects the
argument that the authorization of
operations in the 3650 MHz band
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
improperly places the burden of
avoiding interference on incumbents. It
is not Commission policy to protect
incumbent licensees against all
emissions from adjacent bands; this is
particularly true when the emissions are
a foreseeable result of prior allocation
orders. Installation of appropriate filters
on satellite earth stations can adequately
address the LNB saturation issue that
SIA now raises.
Satellite Coordination Requirements
31. Petitioners urge the Commission
to impose the guidelines of the
Commission’s part 101 rules as a
framework for the coordination of 3650
MHz operations within the exclusion
zones established around grandfathered
FSS earth stations. They contend that
this would expedite fixed station entry
without creating interference risk to the
grandfathered FSS earth stations.
32. The Commission declines to adopt
the part 101 rules as the sole means of
coordination for those 3650 MHz
licensees seeking to operate fixed
services within the exclusion zones that
the Commission established around
grandfathered FSS earth stations. The
part 101 rules, inter alia, ‘‘prescribe the
manner in which portions of the radio
spectrum may be made available for
private * * * microwave operations
that require transmitting facilities on
land.’’ In doing so, however, they set out
specific coordination procedures and
interference protection criteria for
covered fixed microwave transmitters.
Rather than impose these specific
procedures and criteria, the Commission
prefers to allow the parties involved to
choose for themselves the rules
governing their particular negotiations.
Ordering Clauses
33. Pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 4(i), 302, 303(e),
303(f), and 307 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 307, this
Order on Reconsideration is hereby
adopted.
34. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e),
303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the petitions
for reconsideration, filed by Motorola
and Redline and seeking clarification
regarding the contention-based protocol
requirement are granted to the extent
discussed in the Memorandum Opinion
and Order.
35. Part 90 of the Commission’s rules
is amended as specified in rule changes,
and such rule amendments shall be
effective August 24, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40771
36. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e),
303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the
remainder of the petitions for
reconsideration filed by Motorola and
Redline, as well as the reconsideration
petitions of BRN Phoenix, the Enterprise
Wireless Alliance, the Satellite Industry
Association, the Wireless
Communications Association, the WiMax Forum, and the joint petition of
Intel, Redline and Alvarion are denied.
Report to Congress
37. The Commission will send a copy
of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act.1 In addition, the Commission will
send a copy of the Memorandum
Opinion and Order, to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 90
Communications equipment,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rule
For reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 to
read as follows:
I
PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE
RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 90
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r),
and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
2. Section 90.7 is amended by revising
the definition of ‘‘Contention-based
protocol’’ to read as follows.
I
§ 90.7
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Contention-based protocol. A protocol
that allows multiple users to share the
same spectrum by defining the events
that must occur when two or more
transmitters attempt to simultaneously
access the same channel and
establishing rules by which a
transmitter provides reasonable
opportunities for other transmitters to
operate. Such a protocol may consist of
procedures for initiating new
transmissions, procedures for
determining the state of the channel
1 See
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
25JYR1
40772
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(available or unavailable), and
procedures for managing
retransmissions in the event of a busy
channel. Contention-based protocols
shall fall into one of two categories:
(1) An unrestricted contention-based
protocol is one which can avoid cofrequency interference with devices
using all other types of contention-based
protocols.
(2) A restricted contention-based
protocol is one that does not qualify as
unrestricted.
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 90.203 is amended by
revising paragraph (o) to read as follows:
§ 90.203
Certification required.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Equipment certification for
transmitters in the 3650–3700 MHz
band. (1) Applications for all
transmitters must describe the
methodology used to meet the
requirement that each transmitter
employ a contention based protocol and
indicate whether it is capable of
avoiding co-frequency interference with
devices using all other types of
contention-based protocols (see §§ 90.7,
90.1305 and 90.1321 of this part);
(2) Applications for mobile
transmitters must identify the base
stations with which they are designed to
communicate and describe how the
requirement to positively receive and
decode an enabling signal is
incorporated (see § 90.1333 of this part);
and
(3) Applications for systems using
advanced antenna technology must
provide the algorithm used to reduce
the equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP) to the maximum allowed
in the event of overlapping beams (see
§ 90.1321 of this part).
(4) Applications for fixed transmitters
must include a description of the
installation instructions and guidelines
for RF safety exposure requirements that
will be included with the transmitter.
(See § 90.1335).
I 4. Section 90.1319 is revised to read
as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
§ 90.1319 Policies governing the use of the
3650–3700 MHz band.
(a) Channels in this band are available
on a shared basis only and will not be
assigned for the exclusive use of any
licensee.
(b) Any base, fixed, or mobile station
operating in the band must employ a
contention-based protocol.
(c) Equipment incorporating an
unrestricted contention-based protocol
(i.e. one capable of avoiding cofrequency interference with devices
using all other types of contention-based
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 Jul 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
protocols) may operate throughout the
50 megahertz of this frequency band.
Equipment incorporating a restricted
contention-based protocol (i.e. one that
does not qualify as unrestricted) may
operate in, and shall only tune over, the
lower 25 megahertz of this frequency
band.
(d) All applicants and licensees shall
cooperate in the selection and use of
frequencies in the 3650–3700 MHz band
in order to minimize the potential for
interference and make the most effective
use of the authorized facilities. A
database identifying the locations of
registered stations will be available at
https://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. Licensees
should examine this database before
seeking station authorization, and make
every effort to ensure that their fixed
and base stations operate at a location,
and with technical parameters, that will
minimize the potential to cause and
receive interference. Licensees of
stations suffering or causing harmful
interference are expected to cooperate
and resolve this problem by mutually
satisfactory arrangements.
[FR Doc. E7–14211 Filed 7–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 070213032–7032–01]
RIN 0648–XB66
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch
in the Western Regulatory Area of the
Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the
Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary
to prevent exceeding the 2007 total
allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean
perch in the Western Regulatory Area of
the GOA.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local
time (A.l.t.), July 22, 2007, through 2400
hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
GOA exclusive economic zone
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Regulations governing
fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance
with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50
CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2007 TAC of Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Regulatory Area of the
GOA is 4,244 metric tons (mt) as
established by the 2007 and 2008
harvest specifications for groundfish of
the GOA (72 FR 9676, March 5, 2007).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),
the Administrator, Alaska Region,
NMFS (Regional Administrator), has
determined that the 2007 TAC of Pacific
ocean perch in the Western Regulatory
Area of the GOA will soon be reached.
Therefore, the Regional Administrator is
establishing a directed fishing
allowance of 4,194 mt, and is setting
aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to
support other anticipated groundfish
fisheries. In accordance with
§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional
Administrator finds that this directed
fishing allowance has been reached.
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Regulatory Area of the
GOA.
After the effective date of this closure
the maximum retainable amounts at
§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time
during a trip.
Classification
This action responds to the best
available information recently obtained
from the fishery. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA
(AA), finds good cause to waive the
requirement to provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment
pursuant to the authority set forth at 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. This requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest as it would prevent NMFS from
responding to the most recent fisheries
data in a timely fashion and would
delay the closure of Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Regulatory Area of the
GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a
notice providing time for public
comment because the most recent,
relevant data only became available as
of July 19, 2007.
The AA also finds good cause to
waive the 30-day delay in the effective
date of this action under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). This finding is based upon
the reasons provided above for waiver of
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40767-40772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[ET Docket No. 04-151, WT Docket No. 05-96 and ET Docket No. 02-380;
FCC 07-99]
Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
[[Page 40768]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addresses petitions for reconsideration filed in
response to the Commission's Report and Order relating to the 3650-3700
MHz band (3650 MHz band) proceeding. The Commission affirms its
previous decisions to create a spectrum environment that will encourage
multiple entrants and stimulate the expansion of broadband service to
rural and under served areas. To facilitate rapid deployment in the
band, the Commissions maintain the previously adopted, non-exclusive
licensing scheme. The clarification and modification will facilitate
operation of the widest variety of broadband technologies with minimal
risk of interference in both the near and long terms. They should
further reduce the potential for co-channel interference, provide
additional protections to the multiple users in the band under the
current licensing regime, and create incentives for the rapid
development of broadly compatible contention technologies.
DATES: Effective August 24, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Dygert, Policy and Rules
Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7300, e-mail:
Jeffrey.Dygert@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 04-151, FCC 07-99, adopted
May 22, 2007 and released June 17, 2007. The full text of this document
is available on the Commission's Internet site at https://www.fcc.gov.
It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and
Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. The Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) addresses petitions for
reconsideration filed in response to the Commission's Report and Order,
70 FR 24712, May 11, 2005, in prior proceedings relating to the 3650-
3700 MHz band (3650 MHz band). The parties petitioning for
reconsideration were: BRN Phoenix (BRN); the Enterprise Wireless
Alliance (EWA); Intel Corporation, Redline Communications and Alvarion
(jointly); Motorola; Redline Communications; the Satellite Industry
Association (SIA); the Wireless Communications Association (WCA); and
the Wi-Max Forum.
2. The MO&O affirms the Commission's previous decisions to create a
spectrum environment that will encourage multiple entrants and
stimulate the expansion of broadband service to rural and under served
areas. To facilitate rapid deployment in the band, the Commission
maintains the previously adopted, non-exclusive licensing scheme.
Additionally, the Commission declines to reconsider the requirement
that equipment operating in the 3650 MHz band incorporate a contention-
based protocol, a technology that permits multiple licensees to share
spectrum by ensuring that all licensees receive reasonable
opportunities to operate in the band. The Commission clarifies the
meaning of contention-based protocol and modifies the rules to limit
the operation of equipment using ``restricted'' contention-based
protocols (those that are not capable of avoiding co-frequency
interference with all other types of contention-based protocols) to the
lower 25 megahertz portion of the 3650 MHz band. The Commission's
actions should facilitate operation of the widest variety of broadband
technologies with minimal risk of interference in both the near and
long terms. The order should further reduce the potential for co-
channel interference, provide additional protections to the multiple
users in the band under the current licensing regime, and create
incentives for the rapid development of broadly compatible contention
technologies.
3. Additionally, the Commission denies requests for reconsideration
of the previously adopted power limits for fixed and mobile
transmissions in the band, concluding that the limits adopted serve to
protect against interference both among the band's licensees and with
satellite earth stations. Finally, it denies requests to modify the
out-of-band emission limits in the rules and declines to revise the
rules regarding coordination with satellite licensees operating in the
grandfathered exclusion zones around satellite earth stations.
Licensing and Use of the Band
4. The Commission adopted a nationwide non-exclusive licensing
scheme for the 3650 MHz band in order to create a spectrum environment
conducive to the prompt entry by multiple broadband providers in under-
served markets--and at low entry costs and with minimal regulatory
delay. The Commission concluded that the non-exclusive licensing model,
in conjunction with operational and technical safeguards (such as the
contention-based protocol and a registration requirement), would
obligate licensees to cooperate to avoid harmful interference. The
Commission concluded that the licensing rules it adopted would ``ensure
open access to this spectrum for nominal application fees and allow
effective and efficient use of this spectrum in response to market
forces.'' This, the Commission reasoned, would encourage ``rapid
deployment of broadband technologies'' and advance the ``goal of
bringing broadband services to all Americans, including consumers
living in less densely populated rural and suburban areas.
5. All of the arguments for making modifications to the licensing
rules rest on the assumption that non-exclusive licensing will
frustrate potential users of the band and its efficient use. The
Commission disagrees with these projections. While it acknowledges that
the use of a non-exclusive licensing approach must be accompanied with
the means to ensure that multiple users can operate successfully in the
band, the Commission concludes that it adopted appropriate and
practical mechanisms to ensure such an outcome.
6. The Commission declines to alter the band's cooperation
requirement to approximate the rights available in an exclusive
licensing model. It is not persuaded that the various steps that
parties suggest in this regard would more effectively further the
public interest and the Commission's goals in this proceeding than the
current non-exclusive licensing scheme or that the benefits of these
proposed changes overweigh the costs. For example, creating the type of
first-in-time rights that parties suggest would give initial market
entrants the ability to structure their operations in a manner that
could impede subsequent providers' ability to offer viable services and
diminish any incentive that such initial market entrants might have in
negotiating interference avoidance measures to accommodate new
entrants. Requiring the use of third-party frequency coordinators would
also add an unnecessary extra layer of process that operators would
have to satisfy before deploying their equipment and initiating
service. Given the use of contention protocols in the band, the
Commission declines to require a separate entity to serve as a gate-
keeper for the spectrum. Similarly, performance standards and the
attendant reporting obligation would
[[Page 40769]]
duplicate the discipline that the market will already provide. If an
operator is not providing adequate service, other operators will be
free to deploy their facilities in the market and begin their own
operations.
7. The Commission disagrees that non-exclusive licensing will make
the band unusable. The licensing procedures adopted for the band
provide no first-in-time right to exclude others from entering a
market, as would be necessary to make squatting behavior profitable. To
the contrary, the cooperation and contention-based protocol rules both
require that licensees take various steps to accommodate (or at least
avoid interfering with) the operations of other licensees in their
area. Similarly, these requirements should eliminate licensee behavior
that could overcrowd the band to the detriment of all users. They will
prevent licensees from consuming the full band and crowding out the
transmissions of other operators. Licensees that must coordinate their
operations with other licensees and deploy equipment that avoids
harmful interference will not be able to overwhelm their neighbors.
8. In contrast to an exclusive licensing model in which a licensee
may exclude others from a particular license area, the non-exclusive
licensing model adopted in the 3650 MHz Order requires a potential
entrant to consider that the presence of other licensees will require
cooperative use and may, at times, restrict the amount of spectrum and/
or time that spectrum is available to any particular licensee. That
trade-off, however, does not automatically render the spectrum
unusable.
Contention-Based Protocol
9. In the 3650 MHz Order, the Commission explained that contention-
based protocols, which it required for fixed, base and mobile equipment
operating in the band, would ``allow multiple users to share the same
spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two or more
devices attempt to simultaneously access the same channel and
establishing rules by which each device is provided a reasonable
opportunity to operate.'' The Commission's goal in adopting the
contention requirement was to speed deployment in the 3650 MHz band by
allowing multiple entrants to provide service. It saw the protocol as a
means to ``ensure efficient and cooperative shared use of the
spectrum.'' The Commission chose not to require a specific contention-
based protocol, leaving it to industry and standards bodies to
determine appropriate protocols. The Commission cautioned, though, that
equipment would not be certified for use in the band if it appeared
``to be designed to preclude others from using this spectrum.'' The
Commission stated that it would monitor use of the spectrum, and would
modify the rules if there appeared to be significant problems in this
regard.
10. The Commission concludes that the public interest is best
served by retaining the requirement that fixed, base and mobile
equipment operating in the band incorporate a contention-based
protocol. Given the decision to retain non-exclusive licensing in the
3650 MHz band, the Commission continues to believe that equipment
incorporating a contention-based protocol will provide a cost-effective
means to enable multiple users to operate on the same frequencies in
the band without interfering with one another. With contention-based
protocol requirement, operators and their customers will not have to
rely on frequency coordination prior to the initiation of service; this
will reduce costs and delay.
11. The Commission is not persuaded that the shortcomings that
petitioners ascribe to contention protocols will necessarily limit use
of the band to short range applications. Competing evidence indicates
that contention technology is suitable for many different applications
that the 3650 MHz Order envisioned, including long range operations.
Long range transmissions typically would be point-to-point using narrow
beams. Point-to-point transmissions at the power limits adopted for the
band will have a lower potential for interference and allow providers
to use this band for backhaul operations, especially in less congested
rural areas. The Commission's goal of providing for multiple entrants
in the band can best be accomplished if users have the flexibility to
choose the technology most appropriate to meet their needs.
Accordingly, the Commission denies those petitions for reconsideration
that seek elimination of the contention protocol requirement.
12. The Commission clarifies that the 3650 MHz rules provide for
certification of a variety of devices that may use different types of
protocols or interference avoidance mechanisms that satisfy the
contention definition that applies to the 3650 MHz band. The definition
of what constitutes a valid contention protocol for the 3650 MHz band
is broad enough to encompass different types of contention protocols
and interference avoidance mechanisms, thereby promoting innovation and
product development. As stated in the 3650 MHz Order, equipment for use
in the 3650 MHz band must incorporate a mechanism that allows
``multiple users to share the same spectrum * * * and establish[es]
rules by which each device is provided a reasonable opportunity to
operate.''
13. The record reveals two broad categories of contention-based
protocols, both of which appear to the requirements for operation in
the 3650 MHz band. Nonetheless, they may not be compatible with each
other, and the use of both types could result in co-frequency
interference and thus frustrate the Commission's goal of allowing for
multiple entrants in the band. Under the Commission's rules,
contention-based protocols can be categorized as either
``unrestricted'' or ``restricted.'' Unrestricted protocols are broadly
compatible and function to prevent interference even with other,
dissimilar contention technologies on the market. A listen-before-talk
technology like that in Wi-Fi devices is a prime example of an
unrestricted contention-based protocol. On the other hand, restricted
contention protocols can prevent interference only with other devices
incorporating the same protocol.
14. Allowing the use of different protocols in the band will serve
the goal of speeding deployment of service, since operators will be
able to deploy many different technologies, including those already
being developed for use in the 3650 MHz band world-wide. Nonetheless,
the potential exists for conflict between certain types of protocols,
which could result in interference and/or a denial of access to the
band for certain users. To resolve this conflict, the Commission will
certify equipment using a restricted contention protocol but will limit
the operation of such equipment to the lower 25 megahertz of the 3650
MHz band. On the other hand, equipment using an unrestricted contention
protocol will be allowed to operate throughout the 50 megahertz in the
3650 MHz band, since it will be able to detect other transmissions
throughout the band and thus avoid co-frequency interference anywhere
in the band. The Commission concludes that this approach will ensure
efficient use of the spectrum and permit the prompt deployment in this
country of equipment that is already being used in this spectrum in
other countries around the globe. Permitting a number of different
contention based technologies to operate in the band will also provide
additional flexibility to licensees to choose the best suitable
technology for the type of services they plan to provide.
[[Page 40770]]
15. The Commission will implement this approach through the
equipment certification process, under which it will examine for
compliance with the rules all equipment proposed for use in the 3650
MHz band. It will condition the certification for equipment using a
restricted protocol to limit its operation and tuning range to the
bottom 25 megahertz of the band. The registration database will include
the FCC identification number, reflecting the equipment certification
condition restricting the licensee's operating frequency range if the
licensee employs equipment using a restricted contention-based
protocol.
16. The Commission recognizes that manufacturers, through software
upgrades or other means may alter the emission characteristics of
previously deployed devices so that they move from the restricted to
the unrestricted category. To the extent that this occurs, the
manufacturer will be responsible for complying with the Commission's
rules regarding the need for new equipment certification before the
device will be permitted to tune over the full 50 megahertz of the 3650
MHz band. Further, affected licensees must update their base and fixed
station registrations to reflect this change.
17. By contrast, the Commission will not condition the
certification for equipment incorporating an unrestricted contention-
based protocol, thus allowing such equipment to operate throughout the
full 50 MHz of the band. This should create an added incentive for
industry groups and manufacturers to speed their development and
deployment of such technology. In the long term, this, should improve
the quality of service in the 3650 MHz band, furthering the public
interest. At the same time, however, permitting restricted contention
technologies to operate in the lower 25 MHz of the band will ensure
that a wider range of currently available equipment may be immediately
deployed in the band.
18. The Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration to the
extent that they seek elimination of the requirement that equipment in
the 3650 MHz band incorporate a contention-based protocol.
19. The Commission notes the request by BRN Phoenix that the
Commission certify its Advanced Antenna System as the (apparently sole)
contention-based protocol for use in the 3650 MHz band. The Commission
expects that a variety of different contention technologies will
qualify for deployment in the band. BRN, like other parties may seek
certification for its Advanced Antenna System from the Laboratory
Division of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology.
Emissions Limits
20. In setting the power limits for transmissions in the 3650 MHz
band, the Commission balanced numerous competing factors to ``serve the
public interest and foster the expeditious introduction of new
terrestrial services in the 3650 MHz band.'' These factors included (1)
the importance of interference protection for grandfathered satellite
earth stations and federal government radiolocation stations and (2)
the need to ensure efficient use of the band by avoiding mutual
interference among licensed operators. To this end, the Commission
adopted a peak power density of 25 Watts per 25 MHz of bandwidth and no
greater than 1 watt per 1 MHz of bandwidth for fixed operations and
imposed a limit of 1 Watt per 25 MHz of bandwidth for mobile
operations.
Fixed and Mobile Power Limits
21. The Commission declines to increase the power limits for either
fixed or mobile operations in the 3650 MHz band. In adopting power
limits for this band, the Commission balanced the potential for inter-
service and intra-service interference with the need to provide for
satisfactory service by 3650 MHz devices. At the same time, the
Commission was concerned that the combination of power limits and the
size of the earth station exclusion zones that it adopted would
adequately protect from harmful interference the grandfathered
satellite operations and Federal Government radiolocation stations.
22. The Commission concludes that the 3650 MHz Order set the 3650
MHz power limits at an appropriate level. The levels adopted are
adequate to support commercially viable services and will allow
licensees to operate effectively in the band without unacceptably
interfering with each other's operations (provided they deploy
equipment incorporating an appropriate contention technology). At the
same time, the power limits, combined with the size of the protection
zones for grandfathered satellite earth stations, will prevent
terrestrial operations in the band from interfering with in-band
satellite operations.
Advanced Antenna Systems
23. The Commission declines BRN's request to reconsider the limit
on power output in the 3650 MHz band. In the 3650 MHz Order, the
Commission balanced the public interest factors that BRN raises in its
petition. Specifically, it considered the issues surrounding
``deployment of advanced antenna systems, including sectorized and
adaptive array systems.'' It balanced the need for ``flexibility for
licensees to employ a wide variety of advanced antennas to meet their
needs'' with the goal of protecting satellite earth stations. In so
doing, it concluded that, ``to allow flexibility in deployment'' of
these systems, it would allow such antennas to operate with a slightly
higher power output. BRN Phoenix identifies no deficiency in the
Commission's decision that would warrant reconsideration. Accordingly,
the Commission denies its petition in this regard.
FSS Satellite Issues
24. The Commission took several steps to minimize the extent to
which terrestrial operations in the 3650 MHz band would affect the
operations of satellite operators in both the conventional C-band
(3700-4200 MHz) and the extended C-band (3625-3700 MHz). First, the
Commission established protection zones with a radius of 150 km around
the earth stations of grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
operators in the 3650 MHz band. The Commission ruled that licensees in
the 3650 MHz band could establish Fixed Service operations within the
protection zones only with the consent of the affected FSS operator.
For 3650 MHz licensees, the Commission established fixed station
operating power limits of 25 Watts and mobile station operating power
limits of 1 Watt. Additionally, the Commission sought to avoid out-of-
band interference by requiring operators to limit emissions into
adjacent bands by a minimum attenuation of 43 + 10 log(P) below the
transmit power.
Out-of-Band Interference
25. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) sought reconsideration
of the 3650 MHz Order, arguing that the newly authorized terrestrial
operations in the 3650 MHz band will create interference in the
adjacent 3700-4200 band that, contrary to the public interest, could
disrupt C-band satellite operations. The Commission concludes that
SIA's analysis contains overly conservative assumptions about path loss
attenuation, the necessary C/I protection ratio and the arrival angle
of a 3650 MHz signal at a satellite earth station. Each of these
assumptions contributes to the overly pessimistic picture that SIA
paints in its analysis. When these assumptions are adjusted to reflect
more realistic operational scenarios the attenuation requirement in the
3650
[[Page 40771]]
MHz Order adequately protects operations in adjacent bands.
26. The Commission may, however, require greater suppression of the
out-of-band emissions of a 3650 MHz operator in those rare instances
when a 3650 MHz transmitter falls near the main beam and in a line of
sight of a satellite earth station.
Power Limits and LNB Saturation
27. SIA argued that the potential exists for emissions from the
3650 MHz transmitters to saturate the low noise block converters (LNBs)
on FSS earth stations operating in the adjacent C-band at 3700-4200
MHz. SIA requests that the Commission reconsider the permissible power
level for fixed and base stations, at least in the upper half of the
3650 MHz band (that closest to the C-band) and set it at a level below
the 25-watt figure that the prior order adopted.
28. The Commission declines to reconsider the permissible power
limits in the 3650 MHz band as SIA requests. A review of the analysis
that SIA provides for its argument on LNB saturation reveals that it is
based on two very conservative assumptions. The predicted saturation is
most pronounced when the arrival angle of the satellite antenna is 5
degrees. At greater arrival angles--as will exist for the great
majority of earth stations--the interference projected by SIA's
analysis is reduced. The Commission also notes that SIA has again
assumed free space assumptions for its propagation analysis. Employing
a path loss exponent greater than 2, as was done for the OOB emissions
estimate, significantly reduces the potential interference.
29. Given the smaller separation distances necessary to alleviate
LNB saturation predicted by a more realistic propagation model, a
modest coordination effort should allow satellite earth stations to
operate effectively, despite the presence of nearby operations in the
3650 MHz band. The Commission expects 3650 MHz licensees and satellite
operators to undertake such coordination where necessary. The
registration requirement for fixed and base station operations in the
band will facilitate this coordination. In the registration process,
licensees in the 3650 MHz band will be required to provide
identification and location information for their fixed and base
stations, as well as the technical information necessary for
interference analysis.
30. The Commission rejects the argument that the authorization of
operations in the 3650 MHz band improperly places the burden of
avoiding interference on incumbents. It is not Commission policy to
protect incumbent licensees against all emissions from adjacent bands;
this is particularly true when the emissions are a foreseeable result
of prior allocation orders. Installation of appropriate filters on
satellite earth stations can adequately address the LNB saturation
issue that SIA now raises.
Satellite Coordination Requirements
31. Petitioners urge the Commission to impose the guidelines of the
Commission's part 101 rules as a framework for the coordination of 3650
MHz operations within the exclusion zones established around
grandfathered FSS earth stations. They contend that this would expedite
fixed station entry without creating interference risk to the
grandfathered FSS earth stations.
32. The Commission declines to adopt the part 101 rules as the sole
means of coordination for those 3650 MHz licensees seeking to operate
fixed services within the exclusion zones that the Commission
established around grandfathered FSS earth stations. The part 101
rules, inter alia, ``prescribe the manner in which portions of the
radio spectrum may be made available for private * * * microwave
operations that require transmitting facilities on land.'' In doing so,
however, they set out specific coordination procedures and interference
protection criteria for covered fixed microwave transmitters. Rather
than impose these specific procedures and criteria, the Commission
prefers to allow the parties involved to choose for themselves the
rules governing their particular negotiations.
Ordering Clauses
33. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 302,
303(e), 303(f), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 307, this Order on
Reconsideration is hereby adopted.
34. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the petitions for
reconsideration, filed by Motorola and Redline and seeking
clarification regarding the contention-based protocol requirement are
granted to the extent discussed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
35. Part 90 of the Commission's rules is amended as specified in
rule changes, and such rule amendments shall be effective August 24,
2007.
36. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the remainder of the
petitions for reconsideration filed by Motorola and Redline, as well as
the reconsideration petitions of BRN Phoenix, the Enterprise Wireless
Alliance, the Satellite Industry Association, the Wireless
Communications Association, the Wi-Max Forum, and the joint petition of
Intel, Redline and Alvarion are denied.
Report to Congress
37. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act.\1\ In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order, to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 90
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rule
0
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 to read as follows:
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
0
2. Section 90.7 is amended by revising the definition of ``Contention-
based protocol'' to read as follows.
Sec. 90.7 Definitions.
* * * * *
Contention-based protocol. A protocol that allows multiple users to
share the same spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two
or more transmitters attempt to simultaneously access the same channel
and establishing rules by which a transmitter provides reasonable
opportunities for other transmitters to operate. Such a protocol may
consist of procedures for initiating new transmissions, procedures for
determining the state of the channel
[[Page 40772]]
(available or unavailable), and procedures for managing retransmissions
in the event of a busy channel. Contention-based protocols shall fall
into one of two categories:
(1) An unrestricted contention-based protocol is one which can
avoid co-frequency interference with devices using all other types of
contention-based protocols.
(2) A restricted contention-based protocol is one that does not
qualify as unrestricted.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.203 Certification required.
* * * * *
(o) Equipment certification for transmitters in the 3650-3700 MHz
band. (1) Applications for all transmitters must describe the
methodology used to meet the requirement that each transmitter employ a
contention based protocol and indicate whether it is capable of
avoiding co-frequency interference with devices using all other types
of contention-based protocols (see Sec. Sec. 90.7, 90.1305 and 90.1321
of this part);
(2) Applications for mobile transmitters must identify the base
stations with which they are designed to communicate and describe how
the requirement to positively receive and decode an enabling signal is
incorporated (see Sec. 90.1333 of this part); and
(3) Applications for systems using advanced antenna technology must
provide the algorithm used to reduce the equivalent isotropically
radiated power (EIRP) to the maximum allowed in the event of
overlapping beams (see Sec. 90.1321 of this part).
(4) Applications for fixed transmitters must include a description
of the installation instructions and guidelines for RF safety exposure
requirements that will be included with the transmitter. (See Sec.
90.1335).
0
4. Section 90.1319 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1319 Policies governing the use of the 3650-3700 MHz band.
(a) Channels in this band are available on a shared basis only and
will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee.
(b) Any base, fixed, or mobile station operating in the band must
employ a contention-based protocol.
(c) Equipment incorporating an unrestricted contention-based
protocol (i.e. one capable of avoiding co-frequency interference with
devices using all other types of contention-based protocols) may
operate throughout the 50 megahertz of this frequency band. Equipment
incorporating a restricted contention-based protocol (i.e. one that
does not qualify as unrestricted) may operate in, and shall only tune
over, the lower 25 megahertz of this frequency band.
(d) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection
and use of frequencies in the 3650-3700 MHz band in order to minimize
the potential for interference and make the most effective use of the
authorized facilities. A database identifying the locations of
registered stations will be available at https://wireless.fcc.gov/uls.
Licensees should examine this database before seeking station
authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their fixed and
base stations operate at a location, and with technical parameters,
that will minimize the potential to cause and receive interference.
Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference are
expected to cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements.
[FR Doc. E7-14211 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P