Consolidated Service Rules for the 758-769 and 788-799 MHz Bands, 588-601 [2013-28974]
Download as PDF
588
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and
post-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of tolerance.
*
*
*
*
*
Inert ingredients
Limits
*
*
*
Dimethyl adipate (CAS no. 627–93–0) ................................
*
None ............................
*
Solvent/co-solvent
*
*
*
*
*
Dimethyl glutarate (CAS no. 1119–40–0) ...........................
*
None ............................
*
Solvent/co-solvent
*
*
*
*
*
Dimethyl succinate (CAS no. 106–65–0) ............................
*
None ............................
*
Solvent/co-solvent
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–31582 Filed 1–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90
[PS Docket Nos. 12–94, 06–229, WT Docket
No. 06–150; FCC 13–137]
Consolidated Service Rules for the
758–769 and 788–799 MHz Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) adopts a
Second Report and Order that
establishes consolidated service rules
for the 758–769 and 788–799 MHz
bands, the 700 MHz spectrum licensed
to the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet) for purposes of
establishing a nationwide public safety
broadband network. The Second Report
and Order also lifts the suspension on
the certification of equipment for
operation in this band and directs the
Office of Engineering and Technology to
commence such certification, consistent
with the service rules adopted therein.
DATES: Effective January 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erika Olsen, Senior Legal Counsel,
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, (202) 418–2868 or
erika.olsen@fcc.gov; Brian Hurley,
Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418–
2220 or brian.hurley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Report and Order, FCC 13–137; PS
Docket Nos. 12–94, 06–229, WT Docket
No. 06–150; adopted and released
October 28, 2013. The full text of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
Uses
*
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or online at
https://www.fcc.gov/document/700-mhzpublic-safety-broadband-service-rulesreport-and-order. This document will
also be available via ECFS at https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains no new or
modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13.
I. Introduction
1. In the Second Report and Order
(Second R&O) we adopt consolidated
rules, primarily technical service rules,
for the 758–769/788–799 MHz band,
which is licensed to the First Responder
Network Authority (FirstNet) on a
nationwide basis. We also direct the
Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) to accept and process
applications for equipment certification
in this band consistent with the newly
consolidated rules. Our adoption of the
Second R&O will further ‘‘facilitate the
transition’’ of spectrum to FirstNet to
enable its deployment of a nationwide
public safety broadband network as
prescribed by statute. We also focus on
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
these technical matters in order to
expedite the availability of equipment
for use in this band, which will fulfill
‘‘the imminent need’’ FirstNet cites ‘‘for
authorized equipment to meet the needs
of jurisdictions that may deploy early’’
in its licensed spectrum.
2. The rules we adopt today will
provide a necessary foundation for
FirstNet’s operations and expedite the
availability of equipment for use in this
band. As noted below, in light of the
urgent need to resume our process for
certifying equipment for use in
promoting more effective public safety
operations in this band, and because
that process cannot be resumed in the
absence of governing technical service
rules, we find good cause to make the
Second R&O effective immediately
upon publication in the Federal
Register.
II. Background
3. The Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012, enacted
February 22, 2012, provides for the
deployment of a nationwide public
safety broadband network in the 700
MHz band. The Act established FirstNet
as an independent authority within the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and
required the Commission to grant a
license to FirstNet for the use of both
the existing public safety broadband
spectrum (763–768/793–798 MHz) and
the spectrally adjacent D Block (758–
763/788–793 MHz), a commercial
spectrum block that the statute required
the Commission to reallocate for public
safety use. The Act charges FirstNet
with the responsibility for establishing
and overseeing ‘‘a nationwide,
interoperable public safety broadband
network’’ operated in this spectrum by
taking ‘‘all actions necessary to ensure
the building, deployment, and operation
of the . . . network, in consultation
with Federal, State, tribal, and local
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
public safety entities, the Director of
NIST, the Commission, and the public
safety advisory committee [that section
6205 of the Act requires FirstNet to
establish].’’ Among its more specific
duties, FirstNet is responsible for
issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
and entering into contracts for the
construction, operation and
management of the network on a
nationwide basis, using funds allocated
for these purposes under the Act.
4. The Act also established within the
Commission a Technical Advisory
Board for First Responder
Interoperability (Interoperability Board)
charged with the development of
recommended minimum technical
requirements to ensure nationwide
interoperability for the public safety
broadband network based on
‘‘commercial standards for Long Term
Evolution (LTE) service.’’ On May 22,
2012, the Interoperability Board
submitted its recommendations to the
Commission, and on June 21, 2012, the
Commission approved the transmittal of
these recommendations to FirstNet. The
Act requires FirstNet to incorporate the
recommendations into its RFPs
‘‘without materially changing’’ them.
5. On September 7, 2012, the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
adopted, on delegated authority, a
Report and Order implementing the
clear statutory directive requiring the
Commission to reallocate the D Block
for ‘‘public safety services.’’ The Bureau
also deleted a number of Commission
rules that were plainly inconsistent with
this revised allocation, including the
rules establishing, providing license
authority with respect to, and governing
operations under the ‘‘Public Safety
Broadband License’’ that had previously
been established for the existing public
safety broadband spectrum. On
November 15, 2012, the Bureau granted
FirstNet the license prescribed by
statute, under call sign WQQE234.
6. The Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
March 8, 2013, seeking comment on
additional measures to implement its
statutory responsibilities regarding
deployment of the public safety
broadband network. The NPRM sought
comment on the adoption of
consolidated technical service rules for
the network; on the exercise of the
Commission’s statutory responsibilities
as they relate to oversight of FirstNet’s
operations; and on transition matters for
the various classes of incumbent
operations in the spectrum licensed to
FirstNet. The Commission also sought
comment on the scope of its authority
as it relates to these proposals,
particularly in light of the statutory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
delegation to FirstNet of the
responsibility to develop ‘‘the technical
and operational requirements of the
network.’’
7. FirstNet filed comments on the
NPRM on August 2, 2013, after the
comment cycle had completed. While
not addressing for the most part the
substantive rules at issue, FirstNet urged
the Commission to ‘‘act quickly to
amend its technical service rules to
enable FirstNet to expedite the
deployment of [its network].’’ FirstNet
also expressed support for ‘‘swift
Commission action to begin accepting
and processing equipment
authorizations’’ in its licensed
spectrum, particularly in light of
imminent public safety network
deployments planned therein. On
August 28, the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau published a
notice in the Federal Register providing
an additional seven days for public
comment on FirstNet’s filing, 78 FR
53124, Aug. 28, 2013. The few
comments received in response were
supportive of these views.
III. Second Report and Order
8. In the Second R&O, we adopt
consolidated technical service rules to
facilitate FirstNet’s efforts in deploying
a nationwide public safety broadband
network in the 700 MHz band. The
adoption of these rules will also enable
the Commission to certify for operation
in the spectrum licensed to FirstNet.
This will expedite the availability of
equipment for operation in this band,
which FirstNet and numerous other
commenters identify as an urgent
priority given the near-term
deployments planned in this spectrum.
9. In the NPRM we sought comment,
including specific data and information,
on the costs and benefits of each
proposal set forth and of any potential
alternatives to such proposals. The few
commenters that addressed the potential
costs associated with consolidating
technical service rules under part 90
anticipate that such costs will be
minimal. Such comments are
unsurprising, given that the rules
proposed for consolidation are already
codified in Commission rules and
largely track the service rules that apply
to commercial LTE services in
neighboring bands. Accordingly, we
proceed with the consolidation of
technical rules based on the record
before us.
A. Consolidating the Rules That Govern
the Nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network
10. In the NPRM, the Commission
observed that ‘‘rules governing 700 MHz
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
589
commercial wireless spectrum,
including the D Block, are codified
primarily in part 27 (‘‘Miscellaneous
Wireless Communications Services’’),
while rules governing the existing
public safety broadband spectrum
generally fall under part 90.’’ The
Commission proposed, as a general
matter, to modify its rules so as to merge
the requirements governing both band
segments into a unified set of part 90
rules. FirstNet and many other
commenters expressed support for this
general approach, and none opposed it.
Accordingly, in the Second R&O we
adopt a unified set of part 90 rules to
govern FirstNet’s licensed spectrum.
1. A Foundation of Technical Service
Rules for the Network
11. We first consider the
Commission’s proposed modifications
to the part 27 technical service rules
governing the D Block and parallel part
90 rules governing the public safety
broadband spectrum (763–768/793–798
MHz). The Commission proposed such
modifications to unify under a common
set of rules a number of technical
requirements, many of them
substantively similar or identical to one
another, that govern the two respective
segments of FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum. The Commission also sought
comment on the merits of these
technical requirements as applied to the
combined spectrum allocation licensed
to FirstNet. In this section, we consider
each requirement in turn.
a. Power Limits
12. Power Limits. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed to modify
§ 90.542(a) of its rules to bring the D
Block frequencies within its purview
and to delete as redundant the parallel
provisions of § 27.50(b). The
Commission also sought comment on
whether the power limits established in
§ 90.542(a) remain appropriate for the
combined public safety broadband
allocation, and on the relative costs and
benefits of any proposed alternatives. In
addition, the Commission sought
comment on whether the operational
parameters of Long Term Evolution
(LTE) technology call for the placement
of more restrictive limits on the power
output of portable (i.e., hand-held)
devices operated in the public safety
broadband allocation.
13. Comments. Most commenters that
addressed the issue support maintaining
the power and antenna height limits set
forth in § 90.542(a) and extending the
reach of this provision to the D Block.
Harris supports this general approach,
but argues that the rule’s reduced base
station power limits for antennas above
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
590
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
305 meters in height above average
terrain (HAAT) ‘‘may not reflect the
economic realities of building out [the
network] in rural areas’’ and that
‘‘[f]lexibility should be allowed for
implementation of a cost effective
network . . . but free of rules that may
force higher site densities based on
regulation rather than need.’’ To that
end, Harris contends that ‘‘a single set
of maximum power limits should be
established and the licensee should be
offered flexibility to determine specific
operating parameters for each RF site’’
within these limits. Verizon opposes
Harris’s proposal, observing that the
rule ‘‘already allow[s] operations in
rural areas at power levels that are twice
that of higher density areas.’’ Verizon
further argues that more restrictive
power limits on transmissions from
antennas above 305 meters HAAT
should remain in place ‘‘to protect not
only nearby commercial 700 MHz
operations, but other FirstNet and
narrowband public safety operations as
well.’’
14. A number of commenters also
argue that the power limits currently in
place for portable devices are consistent
with the operational parameters of LTE
and should not be restricted further.
Motorola Solutions explains that the
power limits established under § 90.542,
unlike those specified by LTE standards,
are expressed in terms of ‘‘effective
radiated power’’ (ERP) and thus account
for antenna gains and losses. Motorola
Solutions further argues that the
Commission should continue to permit
‘‘high gain/high powered operations’’ in
this band, because ‘‘higher power LTE
devices improve spectral efficiency and
coverage range, especially in rural areas
with large inter-site distances and low
user density.’’ Meanwhile, General
Dynamics contends that further
restricting the permissible power output
of hand-held devices operated in the
public safety broadband allocation
‘‘would negate some manufacturers’
research and development investmentto-date’’ in higher-power LTE devices
and ‘‘could greatly impact ongoing
system-level engineering trades for the
emerging [network] being designed by
the FirstNet.’’
15. Discussion. As the Commission
observed in the NPRM, power limits
play an important role in minimizing
the potential for radiofrequency (RF)
transmissions to create harmful
interference for operations in cochannel and adjacent spectrum bands.
Identical power limits are already in
place for the public safety broadband
spectrum and D Block, and the majority
of commenters support the
consolidation of these existing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
requirements under § 90.542. Moreover,
as AT&T observes, the proposed
consolidated limits are those that
already ‘‘apply to 700 MHz commercial
wireless services,’’ which include LTE
services. We thus find that the proposed
limits are reasonable for FirstNet’s
licensed spectrum, which will be used
to deploy a nationwide LTE broadband
network for first responders. Also, while
recognizing the need to afford FirstNet
flexibility to implement its network in
a cost-effective manner, we decline to
reformulate the rule as Harris proposes
to sever the relationship between base
station power limit and antenna height
above average terrain. We first observe
that FirstNet has not sought any
modification of the restrictions
currently in place, which are already
calibrated to provide maximum
flexibility to operators consistent with
protecting both adjacent and co-channel
operations from interference. We also
note Verizon’s observation that the rules
in place already provide for higherpower transmissions in rural areas,
which should enable sites to be
deployed less densely in areas where it
may be particularly costly to build out
the network. Accordingly, we
consolidate the power limits for
FirstNet’s licensed spectrum under
§ 90.542(a) as proposed. Moreover, as
we find no support in the record for
further restricting the permissible power
output of hand-held devices operated in
this spectrum to reflect the operational
parameters of LTE technology, we will
retain the 3 watt ERP limit the rule
currently prescribes for hand-held (i.e.,
portable) devices.
16. Power Strength Limits (Power Flux
Density). In the NPRM, the Commission
proposed consolidating under
§ 90.542(b) of its rules the power flux
density limits that govern the respective
segments of FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum. The Commission then sought
comment on whether the limit set forth,
namely 3000 microwatts per square
meter (mw/m2) on the ground within
1000 meters of the base of an antenna
for any signal transmitted in excess of
1000 watts ERP, remains appropriate.
Finally, it sought comment on the costs
and benefits of the proposed rule
consolidation and of any possible
alternatives.
17. Comments. Several commenters
support the proposed consolidation of
existing power flux density limits under
§ 90.542(b). One such commenter,
Motorola Solutions, explains that ‘‘[i]n
the 800 MHz band, the 3000 mw/m2
limit has proven to be an effective
compromise between service and
interference prevention,’’ one that ‘‘does
not prevent interference in all cases
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[but] is an effective standard to trigger
the initiation of mitigation work.’’
Harris, on the other hand, argues that
limiting the power flux density only of
signals transmitted in excess of 1000
watts ERP ‘‘is counterproductive to
minimizing harmful interference.’’
Harris explains that even lower ERP
transmissions from a FirstNet base
station could, ‘‘by a combined effect of
the site antenna directivity and ERP,’’
produce a power flux density that is
sufficient to create a serious potential
for interference with public safety
narrowband operations in the
surrounding area. Harris explains that
co-location of broadband and
narrowband sites can mitigate this
problem but that ‘‘site densities for LTE
are expected to be higher necessitating
the need for broadband-only sites.’’
Accordingly, Harris recommends
extending rule to cover base station
transmissions at any level of ERP.
18. Discussion. Power flux density
limits help mitigate the potential for a
base station’s transmissions to create
interference for adjacent-band users in
the immediate area. We agree with
Motorola Solutions that the limits
currently in place provide for
interference mitigation without unduly
constraining service. We further observe
that no public safety narrowband
licensee or other public safety
commenter argued that the proposed
PFD limits are insufficiently restrictive
to protect narrowband or other
operations from interference. We will
therefore consolidate the existing PFD
limits as proposed. In doing so, we
acknowledge Harris’s argument that
FirstNet’s placement and configuration
of sites within its network may affect
the probability that adjacent
narrowband users may encounter
harmful interference from its base
station transmissions. We would expect
that FirstNet will carefully coordinate
its site deployments with adjacent
narrowband licensees and adjust its
operations as appropriate to mitigate
any problems that may arise. The
Commission may also consider adoption
of a more restrictive PFD limit for this
spectrum in the future should
circumstances warrant.
b. Emission Limits
19. In the NPRM the Commission
sought comment on proposals to unify
under § 90.543 of our rules the out-ofband emission (OOBE) limits that
govern the public safety broadband
spectrum allocation, as expanded to
include the D Block. First, the
Commission proposed consolidating
into § 90.543(e) the provisions
restricting emissions from the public
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
safety broadband allocation into the
adjacent 700 MHz public safety
narrowband segment (769–775/799–805
MHz). It then proposed consolidating
into § 90.543(f) the limits on emissions
from the public safety broadband
allocation into the 1559–1610 MHz
band, which supports the operation of
Global Positioning System (GPS) L1
receivers, and to retain the explicit
language in § 90.543(f) that the rule
applies to emissions ‘‘including
harmonics.’’ Finally, it sought comment
on whether limits codified in
§ 27.53(d)(3) on emissions from the D
Block into frequencies below 758 MHz,
between 775 and 788 MHz, and above
806 MHz should be extended to apply
to the public safety broadband
spectrum. For each of these proposals,
the Commission also sought comment
on any possible alternatives and on the
respective costs and benefits of each.
20. Comments. All commenters that
addressed this issue support retaining
appropriate limits on emissions from
the public safety broadband allocation
into adjacent spectrum bands, and the
majority of these commenters endorse
the specific proposals issued in the
NPRM.
21. A number of commenters
emphasize the need for appropriate
rules limiting emissions from the public
safety broadband allocation into the
adjacent narrowband spectrum.
Motorola Solutions supports the
proposed consolidation of the existing
limits on such emissions, noting that it
‘‘strongly opposes any reduction in the
protection afforded to public safety
narrowband systems.’’ AT&T supports
the proposed rule consolidation as one
that would ‘‘apply to the national public
safety broadband spectrum the same
requirements applicable to commercial
wireless service.’’ Harris argues that the
protection of adjacent narrowband
systems ‘‘require[s] special attention by
the [C]ommission’’ given the
incompatibility of broadband
technologies with these systems, which
are ‘‘used for existing critical
communications.’’ Harris believes that
the proposed limit on emissions into the
narrowband spectrum would not
adequately protect these existing
systems from interference from LTE
operations. Accordingly, it proposes a
more robust set of protections under
which limits on emissions into the
narrowband spectrum would vary based
on the nature (e.g., base vs. mobile) of
both the transmitter and the receiver of
the out-of-band signal.
22. With respect to the 1559–1610
MHz band, commenters acknowledge
the importance of protecting GPS L1
receivers operated there from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
interference. General Dynamics states
that the protection of GPS operations ‘‘is
viewed with great importance,’’ while
Motorola Solutions observes that ‘‘GPS
is a critically important service to public
safety as well as a wide range of
consumer, enterprise and government
applications.’’ While commenters
generally support the proposed
consolidation under § 90.543(f) of the
existing rules limiting emissions from
the public safety broadband allocation
into the 1559–1610 MHz band, parties
disagree on whether that provision
should retain the phrase ‘‘including
harmonics.’’ General Dynamics
contends that this phrase ‘‘is necessary
to ensure that the rules are
unambiguous about restrictions that are
placed on harmonics of intended
transmissions’’ and that the cost impact
of its inclusion would be ‘‘minimal.’’
Ericsson, on the other hand, contends
that the provision in question would
apply to harmonics emissions even in
the absence of explicit wording to that
effect, making such wording ‘‘not
necessary.’’
23. Finally, a number of commenters
support the proposed extension to the
public safety broadband spectrum of
existing limits imposed on emissions
from the D Block into neighboring
commercial spectrum bands. General
Dynamics observes that ‘‘public safety
systems based on LTE technology will
have to co-exist with commercial
services operating in adjacent
spectrum’’ and that adopting the
proposed rule would merely ‘‘ensure
consistency’’ with emission limitations
already imposed on 700 MHz public
safety narrowband operations. General
Dynamics further contends that the
proposed limits ‘‘are relatively
straightforward to achieve by fixed,
mobile and portable stations’’ and that
adoption of the proposal thus ‘‘will not
impose any additional cost on public
safety station equipment.’’ AT&T also
supports the proposal, observing that its
adoption would harmonize the
requirements applicable to this band
with those that apply to 700 MHz
commercial wireless services.
24. Discussion. Out-of-band emissions
limits play a critical role in minimizing
inter-band interference. As several
commenters recognize, the limits
established under § 90.543(e) have been
calibrated to prevent public safety
broadband operations from interfering
with operations in the adjacent public
safety narrowband spectrum. Moreover,
while Harris explains that its alternative
proposal ‘‘is based on 3GPP standard
practice for evaluating co-location and
co-existence of commercial
deployments,’’ the rule as written is
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
591
aligned with the rules applicable to 700
MHz commercial bands. We accordingly
modify § 90.543(e) to include within its
purview the D Block portion of
FirstNet’s spectrum. In doing so, we
emphasize that this provision merely
establishes a baseline of protection, one
which FirstNet may opt to strengthen as
it moves forward with its deployment
and engages in its required
consultations with State and local
governments. Accordingly, while we
decline to adopt more stringent out-ofband emissions limits of the sort Harris
proposes, we encourage FirstNet to
work cooperatively with adjacentchannel narrowband licensees to ensure
that their respective operations are
adequately protected.
25. Section 90.543(f), which limits
emissions from the public safety
broadband spectrum into the 1559–1610
MHz band, protects critical GPS
operations from interference.
Accordingly, with the support of many
commenters, we incorporate the D Block
into this provision. We further observe
that no commenters provided a
compelling reason to delete the phrase
‘‘including harmonics’’ from this
provision, while one argues that such
deletion could create unnecessary
ambiguity. We therefore retain the
original wording of the part 90
provision.
26. Finally, we observe that many
commenters support the Commission’s
proposed adoption of a part 90
provision limiting emissions from the
public safety broadband allocation into
neighboring commercial spectrum
bands, and none oppose the proposal.
The adoption of this proposal would
further align the technical service rules
for this band with those established for
commercial 700 MHz LTE operations.
Moreover, the one commenter to
address the cost implications of the
proposal argues that it would create no
cost burden. We accordingly adopt the
proposal.
c. Field Strength Limits
27. In the NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether a field
strength limit should be established for
the expanded public safety broadband
allocation to limit interference between
the FirstNet radio access network (RAN)
and any State Networks deployed in the
same band. The Commission then
sought comment more specifically on
whether to adopt for this band the field
strength limit of 40 dBuV/M specified in
§ 27.55(a)(2) for 700 MHz commercial
wireless spectrum, or whether an
alternative limit would be more
appropriate. The Commission also
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
592
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sought comment on the costs and
benefits of the various options.
28. Comments. Commenters were
divided on whether the Commission
should adopt a field strength limit for
FirstNet’s licensed spectrum. Motorola
Solutions supports the adoption of the
proposed 40 dBuV/M limit ‘‘[g]iven the
likelihood that there will be more than
one network operating in [this
spectrum.]’’ However, it also notes that
40 dBuV/M represents a ‘‘relatively
high’’ field strength limit that is
‘‘sufficient to cause interference,’’ so
‘‘deployments near service area
boundaries [will] require licensee
coordination.’’ AT&T contends that a
field strength limit should be adopted
‘‘to mitigate the potential for harmful
interference between the nationwide
network and any State networks,’’ and
it proposes adoption of the 40 dBuV/M
limit already specified ‘‘for 700 MHz
commercial wireless services’’ in
§ 27.55(a)(2). General Dynamics and TIA
also support using the 40 dBuV/M limit
set forth in § 27.55(a)(2).
29. Some commenters, however,
oppose the Commission’s adoption of a
field strength limit for FirstNet’s
licensed spectrum. Harris contends that
any State Networks deployed in this
spectrum must ‘‘function logically [with
FirstNet’s network] as a single RAN,’’
making field strength limits ‘‘not
necessary for this spectrum.’’ Ericsson
similarly argues that such limits are
unnecessary given the expectation that
FirstNet ‘‘will work in a cooperative
way to ensure that harmful interference
is not an issue through coordination and
site engineering.’’ Alcatel-Lucent also
opposes adoption of such a limit ‘‘at this
time.’’
30. Discussion. Although FirstNet is
licensed on a nationwide basis, we
acknowledge the importance of
minimizing interference between the
FirstNet network and any ‘‘State
Network’’ deployed in the same
spectrum. The statutory scheme under
which State Networks may be deployed,
however, includes several provisions
that serve to promote the operational
integration of such networks with
FirstNet’s nationwide deployment. A
State electing to deploy its own network
must submit an interoperability plan for
the Commission’s approval; apply to
NTIA to lease spectrum capacity from
FirstNet upon demonstrating that will
have the technical capabilities to
operate its network, have the ability to
maintain ongoing interoperability with
FirstNet, and provide a comparable
quality of service; and pay any user fees
associated with its use of FirstNet’s core
network. These provisions, among
others, already contemplate a significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
amount of advance coordination of State
Network operations with those of
FirstNet. We therefore do not find it
necessary at this time to adopt a field
strength limit for RANs operated in
FirstNet’s licensed spectrum.
d. Interference Coordination
31. The Commission sought comment
in the NPRM on whether FirstNet or
other broadband operators in its
licensed spectrum should be required to
engage in interference coordination of
some kind, either with 700 MHz
commercial licensees or with incumbent
public safety narrowband licensees.
32. Comments. While several
commenters acknowledge the
importance of protecting co-channel and
spectrally adjacent operations from
mutual interference, many oppose the
adoption of formal requirements for
FirstNet or other public safety
broadband operators to coordinate with
either 700 MHz commercial or
incumbent public safety narrowband
licensees. APCO ‘‘cautions the
Commission to refrain from adopting
any unnecessary procedures or
requirements that would have the effect
of introducing additional complexity on
network planning with little or no
corresponding benefit.’’ Motorola
Solutions raises similar concerns and
suggests that interference coordination
procedures be ‘‘implemented as a design
guideline’’ rather than a binding rule.
Ericsson meanwhile suggests that, while
the Commission ‘‘is wise to consider
coordinating interference issues’’
between incumbent narrowband
operators and FirstNet, these two
constituencies are ‘‘highly motivated’’ to
coordinate with one another even in the
absence of any formal requirements.
AT&T also opposes the adoption of
formal coordination requirements but
recommends that the Commission adopt
for the public safety broadband
allocation the informal coordination
procedures codified for commercial
operations under § 27.64.
33. Alone among commenters, the
Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia)
argues ‘‘that co-ordination requirements
must be put in place to protect
incumbent narrowband operations’’
such as its own. In support of its
position, Virginia explains that its
network ‘‘has already experienced
harmful interference from the testing of
a 700 MHz LTE system in Virginia by
a manufacturer,’’ an outcome it deems
‘‘unacceptable for public safety
communications.’’
34. Discussion. We agree with
commenters that assert the importance
of coordination among spectrally and
geographically adjacent network
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
operators to protect against mutual
interference. At the same time, we
observe once again that the statute
creating FirstNet imposes on it a
number of consultative obligations,
including obligations to consult with
state and local governments as it designs
and implements its network. In
addition, FirstNet’s desire to attract
public safety customers and potential
commercial partners is likely to create
incentives for additional coordination
beyond what is statutorily required,
which are different in kind and degree
from those of a manufacturer
conducting tests. Accordingly, we do
not find it necessary at this time to
adopt any formal requirements that
FirstNet coordinate its operations with
either incumbent narrowband or 700
MHz commercial operators. We will
continue, however, to exercise our
spectrum management and licensing
responsibilities as necessary to ensure
that properly authorized radio
communications are protected from
harmful interference, and we encourage
all parties to work together to minimize
the potential for interference.
e. International Considerations
35. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposed to remove the D Block from
the reach of § 27.57(b) and place it
within the purview of § 90.533, which
sets forth substantively identical
requirements concerning international
coordination. Ericsson and General
Dynamics, the only parties to address
the issue, support this proposed rule
consolidation. Accordingly, we adopt
the proposal.
f. 700 MHz Public Safety Guard Band
36. In the NPRM, the Commission
observed that FirstNet’s license includes
the 768–769/798–799 MHz band, which
is designated as a guard band under
Commission rules to minimize the
potential for interference between the
broadband and narrowband segments of
the 700 MHz public safety band.
Observing that the transfer of the
broadband spectrum to FirstNet does
nothing to mitigate these concerns, the
Commission proposed to maintain the
designation of this spectrum as a guard
band and keep in place all associated
restrictions on its use. The Commission
sought comment on this proposal, and
on whether the possibility of broadband
operations eventually being permitted
in the narrowband segment should have
any impact on this analysis.
37. Comments. A number of
commenters support preserving the
designation of the 768–769/798–799
MHz band as a guard band, at least
during the early stages of public safety
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
broadband network development.
FirstNet recommends that ‘‘[a]t this
time’’ the Commission ‘‘enable the
guard band to continue serving as a
‘buffer’ between public safety
broadband and narrowband spectrum.’’
Harris agrees and further argues that
‘‘the existing expanded public safety
broadband allocation should be
deployed and subsequent evaluation of
real-world harmful interference should
be evaluated before the guard band is
allowed to be used.’’ Motorola Solutions
similarly contends that ‘‘[t]he
interference concerns that led to the
establishment of the guard band have
not been mitigated’’ and that ‘‘[t]he
Commission should take no actions
with respect to the guard band that
would jeopardize the continued
interference-free availability of the
public safety narrowband spectrum.’’
The Commonwealth of Virginia also
asserts that ‘‘a continued guard band is
a necessity.’’
38. Some commenters, however,
suggest that this spectrum could be
suitable for limited use, if only within
specified parameters. Motorola
Solutions envisions use of the band for
‘‘localized public safety applications’’
including ‘‘low power mobile/portable
applications that would enhance public
safety communications while posing
little risk of interference to adjacent
band systems.’’ NPSTC meanwhile
argues that designating this spectrum as
a ‘‘home’’ for narrowband vehicular
repeaters currently operated in the
public safety broadband spectrum could
serve as a cost-effective strategy for
managing the relocation of these
operations. FirstNet also cautions that
‘‘[its] plans could necessitate a change
in the status of the public safety guard
bands’’ to accommodate some
operations therein.
39. Finally, a few commenters
contend that FirstNet should retain
control over the operational parameters
of all spectrum licensed to it, including
the 768–769/798–799 MHz band. APCO
argues that FirstNet’s statutory
responsibilities ‘‘extend to the guard
bands’’ and that the Commission should
accordingly ‘‘remove the existing guard
band restrictions and instead leave to
FirstNet’s discretion as to how to
address any potential interference
issues.’’ Similarly, Ericsson ‘‘supports
allowing FirstNet discretion on its use
as long as these bands function as guard
bands to protect narrowband
operations.’’
40. Discussion. As an initial matter,
we observe that the Commission holds
authority to adopt regulations aimed at
preventing public safety broadband
network operations from creating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
interference for users in adjacent bands.
The operational restrictions that
currently attach to the 768–769 and
798–799 MHz ‘‘guard band’’ were
adopted to mitigate interference
between users in the broadband and
narrowband segments of the public
safety band, and no commenter has
challenged the Commission’s
observation that these underlying
concerns remain valid. In addition,
FirstNet itself recommends that the
band ‘‘continue serving as a ‘buffer’ ’’
between these bands, at least in the near
term. Accordingly, we will maintain the
guard band restrictions currently in
place for the 768–769 and 798–799 MHz
band. In a future proceeding we may
consider relaxing these restrictions to
accommodate some operations in this
band, such as those commenters
contemplate, but such matters are not
yet ripe for consideration at this early
stage of network development.
g. Equipment Certification
41. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposed consolidating under § 90.549
of its rules the requirements governing
certification of equipment for operation
in FirstNet’s licensed spectrum. The
Commission further observed that,
under this approach, such certification
would be subject to consolidated
technical rules that had themselves yet
to be adopted. Accordingly, it
suspended OET’s acceptance and
processing of applications for
equipment certification in FirstNet’s
licensed spectrum pending the adoption
of the necessary technical rules. In
addition, it sought comment on whether
to adopt certification requirements
specific to this band that would
augment the basic certification
requirements already codified under
§ 90.549. Finally, it proposed removing
from its rules a legacy provision,
§ 90.203(p), that required applicants for
equipment certification in the public
safety broadband spectrum to
demonstrate support for LTE interfaces
that public safety operators had been
required to implement under rules no
longer in force.
42. Comments. In general,
commenters support the specific
proposals regarding equipment
certification set forth in the NPRM.
Those commenters that addressed these
matters support the proposed
consolidation of requirements under
§ 90.549 and the proposed deletion of
§ 90.203(p). With respect to the
proposed rule consolidation, General
Dynamics further observes that ‘‘[t]he
inclusion of the D Block frequency in
this section will have the benefit of
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
593
eliminating duplicative certification
processes, thereby reducing cost.’’
43. As noted earlier, a substantial
number of commenters, including
FirstNet, contend that urgent
Commission action is necessary to
ensure that equipment is made available
for operations in FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum on an expedited basis.
FirstNet explains that ‘‘there is an
imminent need for authorized
equipment to meet the needs of
jurisdictions that may deploy early’’ in
its licensed spectrum under lease
agreements. Motorola Solutions
similarly notes that ‘‘[t]here is already a
demand’’ for authorized equipment
‘‘that will increase as FirstNet
progresses towards deployment of the
nationwide public safety broadband
network,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he halt in
equipment authorizations is impacting
product development schedules for
devices being designed to meet this
demand.’’ Ericsson further argues that
‘‘delays in certifying equipment
hampe[r] the access to new and
potentially life-saving technologies by
the public safety community.’’ Some
commenters, including APCO and
Harris, offer proposals for expediting the
availability of equipment for use in this
band prior to the adoption of technical
service rules. APCO recommends
‘‘issuance of an earlier order that
focuses on [equipment certification] to
avoid further interruptions in the
development of equipment necessary for
[network] operations.’’ Harris,
meanwhile, recommends that the
Commission permit equipment with
existing certifications already granted
under the provisions of its 2010 waiver
order, and equipment subsequently
certified to be compliant with that
order’s technical requirements, to be
authorized for use by early adopter
networks while the Commission
continues to develop technical service
rules to permit the certification of
equipment. Harris clarifies, however,
that all equipment operated in the band
should be subject to the rules ultimately
adopted ‘‘to ensure interoperability and
[a] multi-vendor environment.’’
44. A few commenters also urge the
Commission to refrain from adopting
any band-specific requirements that
would augment the more basic
requirements for equipment certification
established under § 90.549. On this
point, Motorola Solutions observes that
‘‘[s]imilar to any commercial system
operator, FirstNet has the right to
impose additional requirements on
equipment vendors to support specified
features, protocols and applications’’
and that ‘‘[s]ubjecting future
enhancements and refinements to the
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
594
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission’s rulemaking process
would add unnecessary delay to
providing public safety with devices
that have the latest features and
functionality.’’
45. Discussion. Our adoption in the
Second R&O of consolidated public
safety broadband technical service rules
sets the stage for equipment
certifications to commence in this band.
Commenters widely support the
Commission’s proposal to unify the
equipment certification requirements for
this band under § 90.549, without
further modification. We accordingly
consolidate this rule as proposed and
direct the Office of Engineering and
Technology to certify equipment in this
band consistent with the technical rules
adopted in the Second R&O, as soon as
these rules become effective. We also
delete § 90.203(p) as proposed in the
NPRM.
46. Moreover, as explained in more
detail below, we will make the Second
R&O effective January 6, 2014. Such
action will expedite the Commission’s
ability to process applications for
equipment certification under the newly
consolidated rules, thereby obviating
the need for adoption of interim
measures such as those APCO and
Harris propose.
h. Miscellaneous Proposals From the
Comment Record
47. AT&T’s Proposed Rule on
Adherence to Commercial Standards.
AT&T proposes that, in addition to
consolidating existing technical rules
under part 90, the Commission should
adopt ‘‘a catch-all rule to ensure that the
public safety broadband network
operates in accordance with
‘commercial standards’ as defined [by
statute].’’ Motorola Solutions opposes
the adoption of such a rule, arguing that
it ‘‘may hinder FirstNet’s ability to
promote the development and use of
public safety applications and devices
that do not conform precisely to
commercial standards.’’
48. AT&T concedes that many of the
specific technical rules proposed in the
NPRM align with requirements
applicable to commercial spectrum
bands, but it asserts that its proposed
rule ‘‘would serve to fill any unintended
gaps in the other rules, provide
important context for construing any
ambiguities in the other rules, and
plainly place the Commission in step
with the mission of other governments
entities charged with implementing [the
statute].’’ The rule it proposes, however,
largely recites general principles set
forth by statute and, as such, would not
appear to place any affirmative
restriction on the conduct of FirstNet or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
any other entity in deploying and
operating the network. Any such
restriction the rule might impose, on the
other hand, may exceed the scope of the
NPRM, which did not expressly seek
comment on proposals to implement the
statutory requirement that FirstNet base
its network on ‘‘commercial standards,’’
or on how this requirement of the
Spectrum Act should be construed in
this context. We thus decline to adopt
AT&T’s proposal.
49. Harris’s Proposed Regulatory
Classification of LTE Base Stations.
Harris proposes that the Commission’s
public safety broadband service rules
‘‘establish distinct definitions and rules
for different types of base stations . . .
in a manner consistent with 3GPP
definitions and technical
specifications.’’ In particular, Harris
recommends the adoption of distinct
transmitter power and minimum
coupling loss (MCL) restrictions for
‘‘Wide area,’’ ‘‘Medium area,’’ ‘‘Local
area,’’ and ‘‘Home’’ base stations, at
levels defined by the LTE standard.
Specialized requirements for various
base station classes are necessary, Harris
asserts, ‘‘to ensure that minimum
technical requirements are placed on
each of the classes while minimizing
cost and harmful interference
potential.’’
50. The technical rules we are
establishing for FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum include power limits and
other technical requirements aimed at
mitigating the interference potential of
operations in FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum. These protections are wellestablished and enjoy broad record
support, and, as some commenters have
observed, they are generally aligned
with the technical service rules that
apply to 700 MHz commercial LTE
services. We do not find that Harris has
made the case for codifying a distinct
and potentially conflicting set of rules
for FirstNet’s licensed spectrum based
directly on LTE design specifications,
which themselves may evolve over time.
Accordingly, we decline to adopt
Harris’s proposal.
2. Further Rule Consolidations
51. In addition to its proposed
consolidation of technical service rules,
the Commission proposed additional
minor rule revisions necessary to
remove the D Block from the reach of
part 27 and place it within the purview
of part 90. The only commenters to
address these proposed revisions
support them. We accordingly adopt the
proposals. We also requested comment
more generally on ‘‘the development of
a unified set of rules for the expanded
public safety broadband allocation,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and Motorola Solutions identified for
revision two additional ‘‘nonsubstantive’’ part 27 references to the D
Block. We agree that these changes to
reflect the new statutory mandate with
respect to the D Block are purely
ministerial, and we adopt such revisions
as well.
52. The Commission also proposed
minor revisions to §§ 2.103, 90.179 and
90.523 of its rules to omit references to
the defunct Public Safety Broadband
Licensee. The few commenters that
addressed any of these proposed
revisions support them. We accordingly
adopt these proposals as well.
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities of rules adopted in the
Second R&O in PS Docket No. 12–94.
The Commission sought comment on
such impact in an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared in
connection with the NPRM in which the
rules were proposed. No commenters
directly responded to the IRFA.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
2. In the Second R&O, the
Commission adopts a unified set of
technical service rules for the spectrum
licensed to the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet) for purposes of
establishing a nationwide 700 MHz
public safety broadband network. This
unification primarily involves merging
into part 90 of the Commission’s rules
a number of technical requirements that
had been codified separately in parts 27
and 90 for the two respective segments
of FirstNet’s licensed spectrum, the
‘‘public safety broadband spectrum’’
(763–768/793–798 MHz) and the ‘‘D
Block’’ (758–763/788–793 MHz). Such
action will further ‘‘facilitate[s] the
transition’’ of spectrum to FirstNet for
its use in establishing a nationwide
wireless broadband communications
network for our Nation’s first
responders. In particular, the adoption
of consolidated rules for FirstNet’s
licensed spectrum will enable the
Commission to start certifying
equipment for operation in this
spectrum under the technical rules
established for the combined band.
C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Comments in Response to IRFA
3. No commenters directly responded
to the IRFA. A number of commenters
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
expressed support in general for the
consolidation of technical rules that we
effect in the Second R&O. Also, no
commenters expressed the view that
such consolidation of rules would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Below, we
further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees and
regulatees that may be affected by the
rules changes we propose in the NPRM.
5. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards. First, nationwide, there
are a total of approximately 27.5 million
small businesses, according to the SBA.
In addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.’’
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,506 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
6. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a
general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool
licensees include police, fire, local
government, forestry conservation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
highway maintenance, and emergency
medical services. Because of the vast
array of public safety licensees, the
Commission has not developed a small
business size standard specifically
applicable to public safety licensees.
The SBA rules contain a definition for
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in
radiotelephone communications
employing no more than 1,500 persons.
With respect to local governments, in
particular, since many governmental
entities comprise the licensees for these
services, we include under public safety
services the number of government
entities affected. According to
Commission records, there are a total of
approximately 133,870 licenses within
these services. There are 2,442 licenses
in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC
Universal Licensing System search of
May 23, 2012. We estimate that fewer
than 2,442 public safety radio licensees
hold these licenses because certain
entities may have multiple licenses.
7. We observe, however, that ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions’’—regardless
of their status as Public Safety Radio
Pool licensees—are ineligible to hold
direct Commission authorizations to
operate in the spectrum licensed to
FirstNet. By statute, FirstNet is charged
with constructing, operating and
maintaining public safety broadband
network in this spectrum on a
nationwide basis, under a nationwide
license. Accordingly, we do not believe
the technical service rules adopted in
the Second R&O to govern operations in
this spectrum will directly affect a
substantial number of small entities,
and that it is thus unnecessary to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
in connection with these requirements.
Nevertheless, to the extent such rules
could be construed as having a direct
effect on a substantial number of small
entities, we estimate that the economic
impact on any entity would be minimal.
This is because the rules adopted in the
Second R&O largely involve unifying
under a single set of part 90 provisions
a number of already existing technical
requirements that had been codified in
disparate rule sections.
8. The Second R&O does, however,
establish rules governing equipment
certification, which would apply
directly to equipment manufacturers or
other entities seeking to certify
equipment for use in FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum. The SBA category that
includes such entities is that of ‘‘Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing,’’ which the Census
Bureau defines as follows: ‘‘This
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
595
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, which is: all such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 939
establishments in this category that
operated for part or all of the entire year.
According to Census bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 919 firms in
this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 771 had less than 100
employees and 148 had more than 100
employees. Thus, under that size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
9. The technical service rules adopted
in the Second R&O largely involve
consolidating a number of parallel part
27 and part 90 rules within the latter
rule part, so as to subject FirstNet’s
licensed spectrum to a unified set of
rules. Because FirstNet is the
nationwide licensee in this spectrum, it
will be primarily responsible on a
nationwide basis for complying with
any such requirements that are
ultimately adopted. Accordingly, as
discussed, we do not believe that these
requirements would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
10. The Second R&O also establishes
certification requirements for equipment
operated in the combined public safety
broadband spectrum and directs the
Commission’s Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET) to process
certifications under the newly
consolidated rules. These certification
requirements will be applicable to
entities, such as equipment
manufacturers, seeking to certify
equipment for operation in this
spectrum. However, as we observed in
the IRFA, equipment certification is a
longstanding Commission practice,
widely applicable to equipment
marketed for operation in radiospectrum
licensed by the Commission. As the
Commission further anticipated in the
IRFA, the equipment certification rules
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
596
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
adopted in the Second R&O do not
depart significantly from current
practice in this area. Indeed, the rules
merely consolidate equipment
certification requirements already
applicable to the two respective
segments of FirstNet’s licensed
spectrum. We do not believe that such
consolidation would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
11. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
12. As previously discussed, the rules
adopted in the Second R&O already
involve the ‘‘consolidation’’ of existing
requirements into a unified set of part
90 provisions. We believe that such
action will help facilitate the efforts in
deploying the network, and there is no
reason to believe that such rule
consolidation would impose a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
13. We also do not believe it would
be tenable to establish differing
requirements for small entities or to
exempt such entities from rules adopted
in the Second R&O, including rules
governing equipment certification.
Given the importance of ensuring that
the public safety broadband network is
technically and operationally viable on
a nationwide basis, it is important that
the network be governed by a common
set of rules and requirements and that
all equipment operated in the network
be subject to common certification
procedures.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
14. None.
Effective Date
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act generally requires
publication of a rule in the Federal
Register at least thirty days before it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
goes into effect, but not when an agency
otherwise finds and publishes ‘‘good
cause’’ for an earlier effective date. We
believe there is good cause for making
such rules effective immediately upon
publication. As noted above, in our
NPRM we suspended OET’s acceptance
and processing of applications for
equipment certification in this band
pending the adoption of the foregoing
technical rules against which to
evaluate such equipment. With several
near-term deployments now planned in
FirstNet’s licensed spectrum, some
under lease agreements that have
already been executed, it is essential
that the Commission commence its
equipment certification process for this
band as soon as possible, particularly in
light of the clear public safety benefits
resulting from such proposed
deployments. Because the rules we
adopt in the Second R&O will provide
the foundation for this certification
process, expediting their effective date
is necessary to prevent delay in the
availability of equipment for operation
in FirstNet’s licensed spectrum. We will
therefore make the Second Report and
Order effective January 6, 2014.
Congressional Review Act
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Civil rights, Claims,
Communications common carriers,
Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental
impact statements, Equal access to
justice, Equal employment opportunity,
Federal buildings and facilities,
Government employees, Income taxes,
Indemnity payments, Individuals with
disabilities, Investigations, Lawyers,
Metric system, Penalties, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Satellites,
Telecommunications, Television,
Wages.
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Disaster
assistance, Imports, Radio, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications, Television,
Wiretapping and electronic
surveillance.
47 CFR Part 27
Communications common carriers,
Radio.
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Administrative practice and
procedure, Business and industry, Civil
defense, Common carriers,
Communications equipment, Emergency
medical services, Individuals with
disabilities, Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2,
27 and 90 as follows:
PART 1—PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r),
309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by
revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.9005
Included services.
*
The Bureau will send a copy of the
Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
PO 00000
47 CFR Part 90
*
*
*
*
(k) The Wireless Communications
Service in the 746–758 MHz, 775–788
MHz, and 805–806 MHz bands (part 27
of this chapter);
*
*
*
*
*
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS
AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302(a), 303, and
336, unless otherwise noted.
4. Section 2.103 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 2.103 Federal use of non-Federal
frequencies.
(a) Federal stations may be authorized
to use non-Federal frequencies in the
bands above 25 MHz (except the 758–
775 MHz and 788–805 MHz public
safety bands) if the Commission finds
that such use is necessary for
coordination of Federal and non-Federal
activities: Provided, however, that:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Federal stations may be authorized
by the First Responder Network
Authority to use channels in the 758–
769 MHz and 788–799 MHz public
safety bands.
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
5. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303,
307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, and 1451
unless otherwise noted.
6. Section 27.6 is amended by revising
paragraph (b) introductory text and
removing paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
■
§ 27.6
Service areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) 746–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz, and
805–806 MHz bands. WCS service areas
for the 746–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz,
and 805–806 MHz bands are as follows.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 27.11 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) introductory text
and removing paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 27.11
Initial authorization.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) 746–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz, and
805–806 MHz bands. Initial
authorizations for the 746–758 MHz,
775–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz bands
shall be for paired channels of 1, 5, 6,
or 11 megahertz of spectrum in
accordance with § 27.5(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 27.13 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
§ 27.13
License period.
*
*
*
*
(b) 698–758 MHz, 776–788, 775–776,
and 805–806 MHz bands. Initial
authorizations for the 698–758 MHz and
776–788 MHz bands will extend for a
term not to exceed ten years from June
13, 2009, except that initial
authorizations for a part 27 licensee that
provides broadcast services, whether
exclusively or in combination with
other services, will not exceed eight
years. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 27.14 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(a) and the first sentence in paragraph
(e), and removing and reserving
paragraphs (m) and (n), to read as
follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
§ 27.14 Construction requirements;
Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the
exception of WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
Block A in the 2305–2310 MHz and
2350–2355 MHz bands, Block B in the
2310–2315 MHz and 2355–2360 MHz
bands, Block C in the 2315–2320 MHz
band, and Block D in the 2345–2350
MHz band, and with the exception of
licensees holding AWS authorizations
in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and
2180–2200 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a
showing of ‘‘substantial service’’ in their
license area within the prescribed
license term set forth in § 27.13. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Comparative renewal proceedings
do not apply to WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block C in the 710–716
MHz and 740–746 MHz bands, Block D
in the 716–722 MHz band, Block E in
the 722–728 MHz band, or Block C, C1
or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787
MHz bands. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 27.15 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and
spectrum disaggregation.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, or Blocks C, C1, and C2 in
the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz
bands; and for licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands;
the following rules apply to WCS and
AWS licensees holding authorizations
for purposes of implementing the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 27.14. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, or Blocks C, C1, and C2 in
the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz
bands; and for licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands;
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
597
the following rules apply to WCS and
AWS licensees holding authorizations
for purposes of implementing the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 27.14. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Section 27.20 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 27.20 Digital television transition
education reports.
(a) The requirements of this section
shall apply only with regard to WCS
license authorizations in Block A in the
698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, and Block C, C1 or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Section 27.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text,
paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6), (b)(7)
introductory text, (b)(7)(i), (b)(8) through
(b)(10), (b)(12), (c)(5)(i), and the
headings to Table 1 through Table 4
below paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 27.50
Power limits and duty cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The following power and antenna
height limits apply to transmitters
operating in the 746–758 MHz, 775–788
MHz and 805–806 MHz bands:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Fixed and base stations
transmitting a signal in the 746–757
MHz and 776–787 MHz bands with an
emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less
must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts
and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT,
except that antenna heights greater than
305 m HAAT are permitted if power
levels are reduced below 1000 watts
ERP in accordance with Table 1 of this
section.
(3) Fixed and base stations located in
a county with population density of 100
or fewer persons per square mile, based
upon the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of
the Census, and transmitting a signal in
the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz
bands with an emission bandwidth of 1
MHz or less must not exceed an ERP of
2000 watts and an antenna height of 305
m HAAT, except that antenna heights
greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted
if power levels are reduced below 2000
watts ERP in accordance with Table 2 of
this section.
(4) Fixed and base stations
transmitting a signal in the 746–757
MHz and 776–787 MHz bands with an
emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz
must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts/
MHz and an antenna height of 305 m
HAAT, except that antenna heights
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
598
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted
if power levels are reduced below 1000
watts/MHz ERP in accordance with
Table 3 of this section.
(5) Fixed and base stations located in
a county with population density of 100
or fewer persons per square mile, based
upon the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of
the Census, and transmitting a signal in
the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz
bands with an emission bandwidth
greater than 1 MHz must not exceed an
ERP of 2000 watts/MHz and an antenna
height of 305 m HAAT, except that
antenna heights greater than 305 m
HAAT are permitted if power levels are
reduced below 2000 watts/MHz ERP in
accordance with Table 4 of this section.
(6) Licensees of fixed or base stations
transmitting a signal in the 746–757
MHz and 776–787 MHz bands at an ERP
greater than 1000 watts must comply
with the provisions set forth in
paragraph (b)(8) of this section and
§ 27.55(c).
(7) Licensees seeking to operate a
fixed or base station located in a county
with population density of 100 or fewer
persons per square mile, based upon the
most recently available population
statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
and transmitting a signal in the 746–757
MHz and 776–787 MHz bands at an ERP
greater than 1000 watts must:
(i) Coordinate in advance with all
licensees authorized to operate in the
698–758 MHz, 775–788, and 805–806
MHz bands within 120 kilometers (75
miles) of the base or fixed station;
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Licensees authorized to transmit in
the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz
bands and intending to operate a base or
fixed station at a power level permitted
under the provisions of paragraph (b)(6)
of this section must provide advanced
notice of such operation to the
Commission and to licensees authorized
in their area of operation. Licensees who
must be notified are all licensees
authorized to operate in the 758–775
MHz and 788–805 MHz bands under
part 90 of this chapter within 75 km of
the base or fixed station and all regional
planning committees, as identified in
§ 90.527 of this chapter, with
jurisdiction within 75 km of the base or
fixed station. Notifications must provide
the location and operating parameters of
the base or fixed station, including the
station’s ERP, antenna coordinates,
antenna height above ground, and
vertical antenna pattern, and such
notifications must be provided at least
90 days prior to the commencement of
station operation.
(9) Control stations and mobile
stations transmitting in the 746–757
MHz, 776–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz
bands and fixed stations transmitting in
the 787–788 MHz and 805–806 MHz
bands are limited to 30 watts ERP.
(10) Portable stations (hand-held
devices) transmitting in the 746–757
MHz, 776–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz
bands are limited to 3 watts ERP.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) For transmissions in the 746–757
and 776–787 MHz bands, licensees may
employ equipment operating in
compliance with either the
measurement techniques described in
paragraph (b)(11) of this section or a
Commission-approved average power
technique. In both instances, equipment
employed must be authorized in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 27.51.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Coordinate in advance with all
licensees authorized to operate in the
698–758 MHz, 775–788, and 805–806
MHz bands within 120 kilometers (75
miles) of the base or fixed station;
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
TABLE 1—PERMISSIBLE POWER AND ANTENNA HEIGHTS FOR BASE AND FIXED STATIONS IN THE 757–758 AND 775–776
MHZ BANDS AND FOR BASE AND FIXED STATIONS IN THE 698–757 MHZ AND 776–787 MHZ BANDS TRANSMITTING A
SIGNAL WITH AN EMISSION BANDWIDTH OF 1 MHZ OR LESS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 2—PERMISSIBLE POWER AND ANTENNA HEIGHTS FOR BASE AND FIXED STATIONS IN THE 698–757 MHZ AND 776–
787 MHZ BANDS TRANSMITTING A SIGNAL WITH AN EMISSION BANDWIDTH OF 1 MHZ OR LESS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 3—PERMISSIBLE POWER AND ANTENNA HEIGHTS FOR BASE AND FIXED STATIONS IN THE 698–757 MHZ AND 776–
787 MHZ BANDS TRANSMITTING A SIGNAL WITH AN EMISSION BANDWIDTH GREATER THAN 1 MHZ
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 4—PERMISSIBLE POWER AND ANTENNA HEIGHTS FOR BASE AND FIXED STATIONS IN THE 698–757 MHZ AND 776–
787 MHZ BANDS TRANSMITTING A SIGNAL WITH AN EMISSION BANDWIDTH GREATER THAN 1 MHZ
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
13. Section 27.53 is amended by
removing paragraph (d), redesignating
paragraphs (e) through (n) as paragraphs
(d) through (m), and revising newly
redesignated paragraphs (d)
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
*
introductory text, (d)(1), (d)(2) and (e) to
read as follows:
§ 27.53
*
PO 00000
*
Emission limits.
*
Frm 00070
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
*
*
(d) For operations in the 775–776
MHz and 805–806 MHz bands,
transmitters must comply with either
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this
section or the ACP emission limitations
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
set forth in paragraphs (d)(6) to (d)(9) of
this section.
(1) On all frequencies between 758–
775 MHz and 788–805 MHz, the power
of any emission outside the licensee’s
frequency bands of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) within the licensed band(s) of
operation, measured in watts, by a factor
not less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25
kHz band segment, for base and fixed
stations;
(2) On all frequencies between 758–
775 MHz and 788–805 MHz, the power
of any emission outside the licensee’s
frequency bands of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) within the licensed band(s) of
operation, measured in watts, by a factor
not less than 65 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25
kHz band segment, for mobile and
portable stations;
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For operations in the 746–758
MHz, 775–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz
bands, emissions in the band 1559–1610
MHz shall be limited to ¥70 dBW/MHz
equivalent isotropically radiated power
(EIRP) for wideband signals, and ¥80
dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the purpose
of equipment authorization, a
transmitter shall be tested with an
antenna that is representative of the
type that will be used with the
equipment in normal operation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 27.55 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 27.55
Power strength limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Power flux density limit for
stations operating in the 746–757 MHz
and 776–787 MHz bands. For base and
fixed stations operating in the 746–757
MHz and 776–787 MHz bands in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 27.50(b)(6), the power flux density that
would be produced by such stations
through a combination of antenna
height and vertical gain pattern must
not exceed 3000 microwatts per square
meter on the ground over the area
extending to 1 km from the base of the
antenna mounting structure.
■ 15. Section 27.57 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 27.57
International coordination.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Operation in the 698–758 MHz,
775–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz bands
is subject to international agreements
between Mexico and Canada. Unless
otherwise modified by international
treaty, licenses must not cause
interference to, and must accept harmful
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
interference from, television broadcast
operations in Mexico and Canada.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Section 27.60 is amended by
revising the introductory text, paragraph
(a)(1)(iii), the second sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text, the first
sentence in paragraph (b)(2)(i),
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory text,
and paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) and (C) to
read as follows:
§ 27.60 TV/DTV interference protection
criteria.
Base, fixed, control, and mobile
transmitters in the 698–758 MHz, 775–
788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz frequency
bands must be operated only in
accordance with the rules in this section
to reduce the potential for interference
to public reception of the signals of
existing TV and DTV broadcast stations
transmitting on TV Channels 51 through
68.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For transmitters operating in the
746–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz, and 805–
806 MHz frequency bands, 17 dB at the
equivalent Grade B contour (41 dBmV/
m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the
DTV station.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * Tables to determine the
necessary minimum distance from the
698–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz, and 805–
806 MHz station to the TV/DTV station,
assuming that the TV/DTV station has a
hypothetical or equivalent Grade B
contour of 88.5 kilometers (55 miles),
are located in § 90.309 of this chapter
and labeled as Tables B, D, and E. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) Base and fixed stations that operate
in the 746–758 MHz and 775–787 MHz
bands having an antenna height (HAAT)
less than 152 m. (500 ft.) shall afford
protection to co-channel and adjacent
channel TV/DTV stations in accordance
with the values specified in Table B (cochannel frequencies based on 40 dB
protection) and Table E (adjacent
channel frequencies based on 0 dB
protection) in § 90.309 of this chapter.
* * *
(ii) Control, fixed, and mobile stations
(including portables) that operate in the
787–788 MHz and 805–806 MHz bands
and control and mobile stations
(including portables) that operate in the
698–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands
are limited in height and power and
therefore shall afford protection to cochannel and adjacent channel TV/DTV
stations in the following manner:
(A) For control, fixed, and mobile
stations (including portables) that
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
599
operate in the 787–788 MHz and 805–
806 MHz bands and control and mobile
stations (including portables) that
operate in the 746–757 MHz and 776–
787 MHz bands, co-channel protection
shall be afforded in accordance with the
values specified in Table D (co-channel
frequencies based on 40 dB protection
for TV stations and 17 dB for DTV
stations) in § 90.309 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(C) For control, fixed, and mobile
stations (including portables) that
operate in the 787–788 MHz and 805–
806 MHz bands and control and mobile
stations (including portables) that
operate in the 698–757 MHz and 776–
787 MHz bands, adjacent channel
protection shall be afforded by
providing a minimum distance of 8
kilometers (5 miles) from all adjacent
channel TV/DTV station hypothetical or
equivalent Grade B contours (adjacent
channel frequencies based on 0 dB
protection for TV stations and ¥23 dB
for DTV stations).
*
*
*
*
*
17. Section 27.70 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 27.70
Information exchange.
(a) Prior notification. Public safety
licensees authorized to operate in the
758–775 MHz and 788–805 MHz bands
may notify any licensee authorized to
operate in the 746–757 or 776–787 MHz
bands that they wish to receive prior
notification of the activation or
modification of the licensee’s base or
fixed stations in their area. Thereafter,
the 746–757 or 776–787 MHz band
licensee must provide the following
information to the public safety licensee
at least 10 business days before a new
base or fixed station is activated or an
existing base or fixed station is
modified:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Allow a public safety licensee to
advise the 746–757 or 776–787 MHz
band licensee whether it believes a
proposed base or fixed station will
generate unacceptable interference;
(2) Permit 746–757 and 776–787 MHz
band licensees to make voluntary
changes in base or fixed station
parameters when a public safety
licensee alerts them to possible
interference; and,
*
*
*
*
*
18. Section 27.303 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
600
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 27.303 Upper 700 MHz commercial and
public safety coordination zone.
(a) General. CMRS operators are
required, prior to commencing
operations on fixed or base station
transmitters on the 776–787 MHz band
that are located within 500 meters of
existing or planned public safety base
station receivers, to submit a description
of their proposed facility to a
Commission-approved public safety
coordinator.
*
*
*
*
*
19. Section 27.501 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 27.501 746–758 MHz, 775–788 MHz, and
805–806 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial
applications for licenses in the 746–758
MHz, 775–788 MHz, and 805–806 MHz
bands are subject to competitive
bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in part 1,
subpart Q of this chapter will apply
unless otherwise provided in this
subpart.
PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE
RADIO SERVICES
20. 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), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156.
21. Section 90.179 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 90.179
Shared use of radio stations.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of
this section, licensees authorized to
operate radio systems on Public Safety
Pool frequencies designated in § 90.20
may share their facilities with Federal
Government entities on a non-profit,
cost-shared basis. Such a sharing
arrangement is subject to the provisions
of paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this
section, and § 2.103(c) of this chapter
concerning operations in the 758–769
MHz and 788–799 MHz bands. State
governments authorized to operate radio
systems under § 90.529 may share the
use of their systems (for public safety
services not made commercially
available to the public) with any entity
that would be eligible for licensing
under § 90.523 and Federal government
entities.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 90.203
[Amended]
22. Section 90.203 is amended by
removing paragraph (p) and
redesignating paragraph (q) as paragraph
(p).
■ 23. Section 90.205 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 90.205
Power and antenna height limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) 758–775 MHz and 788–805 MHz.
Power and height limitations are
specified in §§ 90.541 and 90.542.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 24. Section 90.523 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (e), to read as follows:
§ 90.523
Eligibility.
This section implements the
definition of public safety services
contained in 47 U.S.C. 337(f)(1). The
following are eligible to hold
Commission authorizations for systems
operating in the 769–775 MHz and 799–
805 MHz frequency bands:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) A nationwide license for the 758–
769 MHz and 788–799 MHz bands shall
be issued to the First Responder
Network Authority.
■ 25. Section 90.533 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 90.533 Transmitting sites near the U.S./
Canada or U.S./Mexico border.
This section applies to each license to
operate one or more public safety
transmitters in the 758–775 MHz and
788–805 MHz bands, at a location or
locations North of Line A (see § 90.7) or
within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the
U.S.-Mexico border, until such time as
agreements between the government of
the United States and the government of
Canada or the government of the United
States and the government of Mexico, as
applicable, become effective governing
border area non-broadcast use of these
bands. Public safety licenses are granted
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Public safety transmitters
operating in the 758–775 MHz and 788–
805 MHz bands must conform to the
limitations on interference to Canadian
television stations contained in
agreement(s) between the United States
and Canada for use of television
channels in the border area.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Conditions may be added during
the term of the license, if required by
the terms of international agreements
between the government of the United
States and the government of Canada or
the government of the United States and
the government of Mexico, as
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applicable, regarding non-broadcast use
of the 758–775 MHz and 788–805 MHz
bands.
§ 90.542
[Amended]
26. Section 90.542 is amended by
revising all references to ‘‘763’’ to read
‘‘758’’ and ‘‘793’’ to read ‘‘788’’ in
paragraph (a) introductory text, in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8), in the
headers of Tables 1 through 4, and in
paragraph (b).
■ 27. Section 90.543 is amended by
revising the introductory text, revising
paragraph (e) introductory text,
redesignating paragraph (e)(3) as (e)(4),
adding new paragraphs (e)(3) and (5),
and revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
■
§ 90.543
Emission limitations.
Transmitters designed to operate in
769–775 MHz and 799–805 MHz
frequency bands must meet the
emission limitations in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section. Transmitters
operating in 758–768 MHz and 788–798
MHz bands must meet the emission
limitations in (e) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For operations in the 758–768
MHz and the 788–798 MHz bands, the
power of any emission outside the
licensee’s frequency band(s) of
operation shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) within the
licensed band(s) of operation, measured
in watts, in accordance with the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) On any frequency between 775–
788 MHz, above 805 MHz, and below
758 MHz, by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Compliance with the provisions of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section is based
on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution
bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater.
However, in the 100 kHz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the
frequency block, a resolution bandwidth
of 30 kHz may be employed.
(f) For operations in the 758–775 MHz
and 788–805 MHz bands, all emissions
including harmonics in the band 1559–
1610 MHz shall be limited to ¥70 dBW/
MHz equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP) for wideband signals, and
¥80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of
less than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the
purpose of equipment authorization, a
transmitter shall be tested with an
antenna that is representative of the
type that will be used with the
equipment in normal operation.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
28. Section 90.549 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 90.549
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Transmitter certification.
Transmitters operated in the 758–775
MHz and 788–805 MHz frequency
bands must be of a type that have been
authorized by the Commission under its
certification procedure as required by
§ 90.203.
29. Section 90.555 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
paragraph (b)(1), paragraph (b)(2), and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 90.555
(a) Prior notification. Public safety
licensees authorized to operate in the
758–775 MHz and 788–805 MHz bands
may notify any licensee authorized to
operate in the 746–757 MHz or 776–787
MHz bands that they wish to receive
prior notification of the activation or
modification of the licensee’s base or
fixed stations in their area. Thereafter,
the 746–757 MHz or 776–787 MHz band
licensee must provide the following
information to the public safety licensee
at least 10 business days before a new
base or fixed station is activated or an
existing base or fixed station is
modified:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Allow a public safety licensee to
advise the 746–757 or 776–787 MHz
band licensee whether it believes a
proposed base or fixed station will
generate unacceptable interference;
(2) Permit 746–757 and 776–787 MHz
band licensees to make voluntary
changes in base or fixed station
parameters when a public safety
licensee alerts them to possible
interference; and,
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Public Safety Information
Exchange. (1) Upon request by a 746–
757 or 776–787 MHz band licensee,
public safety licensees authorized to
operate radio systems in the 758–775
and 788–805 MHz bands shall provide
the operating parameters of their radio
system to the 746–757 or 776–787 MHz
band licensee.
(2) Public safety licensees who
perform the information exchange
described in this section must notify the
appropriate 746–757 or 776–787 MHz
band licensees prior to any technical
changes to their radio system.
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jan 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
[Docket No. 120918468–3111–02]
RIN 0648–XD058
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment
to the 2014 Gulf of Alaska Pollock and
Pacific Cod Total Allowable Catch
Amounts
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason
adjustment; request for comments.
AGENCY:
Information exchange.
[FR Doc. 2013–28974 Filed 1–3–14; 8:45 am]
50 CFR Part 679
SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 2014
total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for
the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pollock and
Pacific cod fisheries. This action is
necessary because NMFS has
determined these TACs are incorrectly
specified, and will ensure the GOA
pollock and Pacific cod TACs are the
appropriate amounts based on the best
available scientific information for
pollock and Pacific cod in the GOA.
This action is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local
time (A.l.t.), January 1, 2014, until the
effective date of the final 2014 and 2015
harvest specifications for GOA
groundfish, unless otherwise modified
or superseded through publication of a
notification in the Federal Register.
Comments must be received at the
following address no later than 4:30
p.m., A.l.t., January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by FDMS
Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-20120252 by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20120252, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
601
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
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
(Council) under authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens 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 final 2013 and 2014 harvest
specifications for groundfish in the GOA
(78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) set the
2014 pollock TAC at 111,530 metric
tons (mt) and the 2014 Pacific cod TAC
at 63,150 mt in the GOA. In December
2013, the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
recommended a 2014 pollock TAC of
174,976 mt for the GOA, which is more
than the 111,530 mt established by the
final 2013 and 2014 harvest
specifications for groundfish in the
GOA. The Council also recommended a
2014 Pacific cod TAC of 64,738 mt for
the GOA, which is more than the 63,150
mt established by the final 2013 and
2014 harvest specifications for
groundfish in the GOA. The Council’s
recommended 2014 TACs, and the area
and seasonal apportionments, are based
on the Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation report (SAFE), dated
November 2013, which NMFS has
determined is the best available
scientific information for these fisheries.
Steller sea lions occur in the same
location as the pollock and Pacific cod
fisheries and are listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Pollock and Pacific cod are a
principal prey species for Steller sea
lions in the GOA. The seasonal
apportionment of pollock and Pacific
cod harvest is necessary to ensure the
E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM
06JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 588-601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28974]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90
[PS Docket Nos. 12-94, 06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150; FCC 13-137]
Consolidated Service Rules for the 758-769 and 788-799 MHz Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts a
Second Report and Order that establishes consolidated service rules for
the 758-769 and 788-799 MHz bands, the 700 MHz spectrum licensed to the
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) for purposes of
establishing a nationwide public safety broadband network. The Second
Report and Order also lifts the suspension on the certification of
equipment for operation in this band and directs the Office of
Engineering and Technology to commence such certification, consistent
with the service rules adopted therein.
DATES: Effective January 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erika Olsen, Senior Legal Counsel,
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2868 or
erika.olsen@fcc.gov; Brian Hurley, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2220 or brian.hurley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order, FCC 13-137; PS Docket Nos. 12-94, 06-229, WT Docket
No. 06-150; adopted and released October 28, 2013. The full text of
this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/700-mhz-public-safety-broadband-service-rules-report-and-order. This document will also be available via ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains no new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13.
I. Introduction
1. In the Second Report and Order (Second R&O) we adopt
consolidated rules, primarily technical service rules, for the 758-769/
788-799 MHz band, which is licensed to the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet) on a nationwide basis. We also direct the Office
of Engineering and Technology (OET) to accept and process applications
for equipment certification in this band consistent with the newly
consolidated rules. Our adoption of the Second R&O will further
``facilitate the transition'' of spectrum to FirstNet to enable its
deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network as
prescribed by statute. We also focus on these technical matters in
order to expedite the availability of equipment for use in this band,
which will fulfill ``the imminent need'' FirstNet cites ``for
authorized equipment to meet the needs of jurisdictions that may deploy
early'' in its licensed spectrum.
2. The rules we adopt today will provide a necessary foundation for
FirstNet's operations and expedite the availability of equipment for
use in this band. As noted below, in light of the urgent need to resume
our process for certifying equipment for use in promoting more
effective public safety operations in this band, and because that
process cannot be resumed in the absence of governing technical service
rules, we find good cause to make the Second R&O effective immediately
upon publication in the Federal Register.
II. Background
3. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
enacted February 22, 2012, provides for the deployment of a nationwide
public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The Act
established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and required
the Commission to grant a license to FirstNet for the use of both the
existing public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/793-798 MHz) and the
spectrally adjacent D Block (758-763/788-793 MHz), a commercial
spectrum block that the statute required the Commission to reallocate
for public safety use. The Act charges FirstNet with the responsibility
for establishing and overseeing ``a nationwide, interoperable public
safety broadband network'' operated in this spectrum by taking ``all
actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of
the . . . network, in consultation with Federal, State, tribal, and
local
[[Page 589]]
public safety entities, the Director of NIST, the Commission, and the
public safety advisory committee [that section 6205 of the Act requires
FirstNet to establish].'' Among its more specific duties, FirstNet is
responsible for issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and entering into
contracts for the construction, operation and management of the network
on a nationwide basis, using funds allocated for these purposes under
the Act.
4. The Act also established within the Commission a Technical
Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (Interoperability
Board) charged with the development of recommended minimum technical
requirements to ensure nationwide interoperability for the public
safety broadband network based on ``commercial standards for Long Term
Evolution (LTE) service.'' On May 22, 2012, the Interoperability Board
submitted its recommendations to the Commission, and on June 21, 2012,
the Commission approved the transmittal of these recommendations to
FirstNet. The Act requires FirstNet to incorporate the recommendations
into its RFPs ``without materially changing'' them.
5. On September 7, 2012, the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau adopted, on delegated authority, a Report and Order implementing
the clear statutory directive requiring the Commission to reallocate
the D Block for ``public safety services.'' The Bureau also deleted a
number of Commission rules that were plainly inconsistent with this
revised allocation, including the rules establishing, providing license
authority with respect to, and governing operations under the ``Public
Safety Broadband License'' that had previously been established for the
existing public safety broadband spectrum. On November 15, 2012, the
Bureau granted FirstNet the license prescribed by statute, under call
sign WQQE234.
6. The Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
on March 8, 2013, seeking comment on additional measures to implement
its statutory responsibilities regarding deployment of the public
safety broadband network. The NPRM sought comment on the adoption of
consolidated technical service rules for the network; on the exercise
of the Commission's statutory responsibilities as they relate to
oversight of FirstNet's operations; and on transition matters for the
various classes of incumbent operations in the spectrum licensed to
FirstNet. The Commission also sought comment on the scope of its
authority as it relates to these proposals, particularly in light of
the statutory delegation to FirstNet of the responsibility to develop
``the technical and operational requirements of the network.''
7. FirstNet filed comments on the NPRM on August 2, 2013, after the
comment cycle had completed. While not addressing for the most part the
substantive rules at issue, FirstNet urged the Commission to ``act
quickly to amend its technical service rules to enable FirstNet to
expedite the deployment of [its network].'' FirstNet also expressed
support for ``swift Commission action to begin accepting and processing
equipment authorizations'' in its licensed spectrum, particularly in
light of imminent public safety network deployments planned therein. On
August 28, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau published a
notice in the Federal Register providing an additional seven days for
public comment on FirstNet's filing, 78 FR 53124, Aug. 28, 2013. The
few comments received in response were supportive of these views.
III. Second Report and Order
8. In the Second R&O, we adopt consolidated technical service rules
to facilitate FirstNet's efforts in deploying a nationwide public
safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The adoption of these
rules will also enable the Commission to certify for operation in the
spectrum licensed to FirstNet. This will expedite the availability of
equipment for operation in this band, which FirstNet and numerous other
commenters identify as an urgent priority given the near-term
deployments planned in this spectrum.
9. In the NPRM we sought comment, including specific data and
information, on the costs and benefits of each proposal set forth and
of any potential alternatives to such proposals. The few commenters
that addressed the potential costs associated with consolidating
technical service rules under part 90 anticipate that such costs will
be minimal. Such comments are unsurprising, given that the rules
proposed for consolidation are already codified in Commission rules and
largely track the service rules that apply to commercial LTE services
in neighboring bands. Accordingly, we proceed with the consolidation of
technical rules based on the record before us.
A. Consolidating the Rules That Govern the Nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network
10. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that ``rules governing 700
MHz commercial wireless spectrum, including the D Block, are codified
primarily in part 27 (``Miscellaneous Wireless Communications
Services''), while rules governing the existing public safety broadband
spectrum generally fall under part 90.'' The Commission proposed, as a
general matter, to modify its rules so as to merge the requirements
governing both band segments into a unified set of part 90 rules.
FirstNet and many other commenters expressed support for this general
approach, and none opposed it. Accordingly, in the Second R&O we adopt
a unified set of part 90 rules to govern FirstNet's licensed spectrum.
1. A Foundation of Technical Service Rules for the Network
11. We first consider the Commission's proposed modifications to
the part 27 technical service rules governing the D Block and parallel
part 90 rules governing the public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/
793-798 MHz). The Commission proposed such modifications to unify under
a common set of rules a number of technical requirements, many of them
substantively similar or identical to one another, that govern the two
respective segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission
also sought comment on the merits of these technical requirements as
applied to the combined spectrum allocation licensed to FirstNet. In
this section, we consider each requirement in turn.
a. Power Limits
12. Power Limits. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify
Sec. 90.542(a) of its rules to bring the D Block frequencies within
its purview and to delete as redundant the parallel provisions of Sec.
27.50(b). The Commission also sought comment on whether the power
limits established in Sec. 90.542(a) remain appropriate for the
combined public safety broadband allocation, and on the relative costs
and benefits of any proposed alternatives. In addition, the Commission
sought comment on whether the operational parameters of Long Term
Evolution (LTE) technology call for the placement of more restrictive
limits on the power output of portable (i.e., hand-held) devices
operated in the public safety broadband allocation.
13. Comments. Most commenters that addressed the issue support
maintaining the power and antenna height limits set forth in Sec.
90.542(a) and extending the reach of this provision to the D Block.
Harris supports this general approach, but argues that the rule's
reduced base station power limits for antennas above
[[Page 590]]
305 meters in height above average terrain (HAAT) ``may not reflect the
economic realities of building out [the network] in rural areas'' and
that ``[f]lexibility should be allowed for implementation of a cost
effective network . . . but free of rules that may force higher site
densities based on regulation rather than need.'' To that end, Harris
contends that ``a single set of maximum power limits should be
established and the licensee should be offered flexibility to determine
specific operating parameters for each RF site'' within these limits.
Verizon opposes Harris's proposal, observing that the rule ``already
allow[s] operations in rural areas at power levels that are twice that
of higher density areas.'' Verizon further argues that more restrictive
power limits on transmissions from antennas above 305 meters HAAT
should remain in place ``to protect not only nearby commercial 700 MHz
operations, but other FirstNet and narrowband public safety operations
as well.''
14. A number of commenters also argue that the power limits
currently in place for portable devices are consistent with the
operational parameters of LTE and should not be restricted further.
Motorola Solutions explains that the power limits established under
Sec. 90.542, unlike those specified by LTE standards, are expressed in
terms of ``effective radiated power'' (ERP) and thus account for
antenna gains and losses. Motorola Solutions further argues that the
Commission should continue to permit ``high gain/high powered
operations'' in this band, because ``higher power LTE devices improve
spectral efficiency and coverage range, especially in rural areas with
large inter-site distances and low user density.'' Meanwhile, General
Dynamics contends that further restricting the permissible power output
of hand-held devices operated in the public safety broadband allocation
``would negate some manufacturers' research and development investment-
to-date'' in higher-power LTE devices and ``could greatly impact
ongoing system-level engineering trades for the emerging [network]
being designed by the FirstNet.''
15. Discussion. As the Commission observed in the NPRM, power
limits play an important role in minimizing the potential for
radiofrequency (RF) transmissions to create harmful interference for
operations in co-channel and adjacent spectrum bands. Identical power
limits are already in place for the public safety broadband spectrum
and D Block, and the majority of commenters support the consolidation
of these existing requirements under Sec. 90.542. Moreover, as AT&T
observes, the proposed consolidated limits are those that already
``apply to 700 MHz commercial wireless services,'' which include LTE
services. We thus find that the proposed limits are reasonable for
FirstNet's licensed spectrum, which will be used to deploy a nationwide
LTE broadband network for first responders. Also, while recognizing the
need to afford FirstNet flexibility to implement its network in a cost-
effective manner, we decline to reformulate the rule as Harris proposes
to sever the relationship between base station power limit and antenna
height above average terrain. We first observe that FirstNet has not
sought any modification of the restrictions currently in place, which
are already calibrated to provide maximum flexibility to operators
consistent with protecting both adjacent and co-channel operations from
interference. We also note Verizon's observation that the rules in
place already provide for higher-power transmissions in rural areas,
which should enable sites to be deployed less densely in areas where it
may be particularly costly to build out the network. Accordingly, we
consolidate the power limits for FirstNet's licensed spectrum under
Sec. 90.542(a) as proposed. Moreover, as we find no support in the
record for further restricting the permissible power output of hand-
held devices operated in this spectrum to reflect the operational
parameters of LTE technology, we will retain the 3 watt ERP limit the
rule currently prescribes for hand-held (i.e., portable) devices.
16. Power Strength Limits (Power Flux Density). In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed consolidating under Sec. 90.542(b) of its rules
the power flux density limits that govern the respective segments of
FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission then sought comment on
whether the limit set forth, namely 3000 microwatts per square meter
([mu]w/m\2\) on the ground within 1000 meters of the base of an antenna
for any signal transmitted in excess of 1000 watts ERP, remains
appropriate. Finally, it sought comment on the costs and benefits of
the proposed rule consolidation and of any possible alternatives.
17. Comments. Several commenters support the proposed consolidation
of existing power flux density limits under Sec. 90.542(b). One such
commenter, Motorola Solutions, explains that ``[i]n the 800 MHz band,
the 3000 [mu]w/m\2\ limit has proven to be an effective compromise
between service and interference prevention,'' one that ``does not
prevent interference in all cases [but] is an effective standard to
trigger the initiation of mitigation work.'' Harris, on the other hand,
argues that limiting the power flux density only of signals transmitted
in excess of 1000 watts ERP ``is counterproductive to minimizing
harmful interference.'' Harris explains that even lower ERP
transmissions from a FirstNet base station could, ``by a combined
effect of the site antenna directivity and ERP,'' produce a power flux
density that is sufficient to create a serious potential for
interference with public safety narrowband operations in the
surrounding area. Harris explains that co-location of broadband and
narrowband sites can mitigate this problem but that ``site densities
for LTE are expected to be higher necessitating the need for broadband-
only sites.'' Accordingly, Harris recommends extending rule to cover
base station transmissions at any level of ERP.
18. Discussion. Power flux density limits help mitigate the
potential for a base station's transmissions to create interference for
adjacent-band users in the immediate area. We agree with Motorola
Solutions that the limits currently in place provide for interference
mitigation without unduly constraining service. We further observe that
no public safety narrowband licensee or other public safety commenter
argued that the proposed PFD limits are insufficiently restrictive to
protect narrowband or other operations from interference. We will
therefore consolidate the existing PFD limits as proposed. In doing so,
we acknowledge Harris's argument that FirstNet's placement and
configuration of sites within its network may affect the probability
that adjacent narrowband users may encounter harmful interference from
its base station transmissions. We would expect that FirstNet will
carefully coordinate its site deployments with adjacent narrowband
licensees and adjust its operations as appropriate to mitigate any
problems that may arise. The Commission may also consider adoption of a
more restrictive PFD limit for this spectrum in the future should
circumstances warrant.
b. Emission Limits
19. In the NPRM the Commission sought comment on proposals to unify
under Sec. 90.543 of our rules the out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits
that govern the public safety broadband spectrum allocation, as
expanded to include the D Block. First, the Commission proposed
consolidating into Sec. 90.543(e) the provisions restricting emissions
from the public
[[Page 591]]
safety broadband allocation into the adjacent 700 MHz public safety
narrowband segment (769-775/799-805 MHz). It then proposed
consolidating into Sec. 90.543(f) the limits on emissions from the
public safety broadband allocation into the 1559-1610 MHz band, which
supports the operation of Global Positioning System (GPS) L1 receivers,
and to retain the explicit language in Sec. 90.543(f) that the rule
applies to emissions ``including harmonics.'' Finally, it sought
comment on whether limits codified in Sec. 27.53(d)(3) on emissions
from the D Block into frequencies below 758 MHz, between 775 and 788
MHz, and above 806 MHz should be extended to apply to the public safety
broadband spectrum. For each of these proposals, the Commission also
sought comment on any possible alternatives and on the respective costs
and benefits of each.
20. Comments. All commenters that addressed this issue support
retaining appropriate limits on emissions from the public safety
broadband allocation into adjacent spectrum bands, and the majority of
these commenters endorse the specific proposals issued in the NPRM.
21. A number of commenters emphasize the need for appropriate rules
limiting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the
adjacent narrowband spectrum. Motorola Solutions supports the proposed
consolidation of the existing limits on such emissions, noting that it
``strongly opposes any reduction in the protection afforded to public
safety narrowband systems.'' AT&T supports the proposed rule
consolidation as one that would ``apply to the national public safety
broadband spectrum the same requirements applicable to commercial
wireless service.'' Harris argues that the protection of adjacent
narrowband systems ``require[s] special attention by the [C]ommission''
given the incompatibility of broadband technologies with these systems,
which are ``used for existing critical communications.'' Harris
believes that the proposed limit on emissions into the narrowband
spectrum would not adequately protect these existing systems from
interference from LTE operations. Accordingly, it proposes a more
robust set of protections under which limits on emissions into the
narrowband spectrum would vary based on the nature (e.g., base vs.
mobile) of both the transmitter and the receiver of the out-of-band
signal.
22. With respect to the 1559-1610 MHz band, commenters acknowledge
the importance of protecting GPS L1 receivers operated there from
interference. General Dynamics states that the protection of GPS
operations ``is viewed with great importance,'' while Motorola
Solutions observes that ``GPS is a critically important service to
public safety as well as a wide range of consumer, enterprise and
government applications.'' While commenters generally support the
proposed consolidation under Sec. 90.543(f) of the existing rules
limiting emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into the
1559-1610 MHz band, parties disagree on whether that provision should
retain the phrase ``including harmonics.'' General Dynamics contends
that this phrase ``is necessary to ensure that the rules are
unambiguous about restrictions that are placed on harmonics of intended
transmissions'' and that the cost impact of its inclusion would be
``minimal.'' Ericsson, on the other hand, contends that the provision
in question would apply to harmonics emissions even in the absence of
explicit wording to that effect, making such wording ``not necessary.''
23. Finally, a number of commenters support the proposed extension
to the public safety broadband spectrum of existing limits imposed on
emissions from the D Block into neighboring commercial spectrum bands.
General Dynamics observes that ``public safety systems based on LTE
technology will have to co-exist with commercial services operating in
adjacent spectrum'' and that adopting the proposed rule would merely
``ensure consistency'' with emission limitations already imposed on 700
MHz public safety narrowband operations. General Dynamics further
contends that the proposed limits ``are relatively straightforward to
achieve by fixed, mobile and portable stations'' and that adoption of
the proposal thus ``will not impose any additional cost on public
safety station equipment.'' AT&T also supports the proposal, observing
that its adoption would harmonize the requirements applicable to this
band with those that apply to 700 MHz commercial wireless services.
24. Discussion. Out-of-band emissions limits play a critical role
in minimizing inter-band interference. As several commenters recognize,
the limits established under Sec. 90.543(e) have been calibrated to
prevent public safety broadband operations from interfering with
operations in the adjacent public safety narrowband spectrum. Moreover,
while Harris explains that its alternative proposal ``is based on 3GPP
standard practice for evaluating co-location and co-existence of
commercial deployments,'' the rule as written is aligned with the rules
applicable to 700 MHz commercial bands. We accordingly modify Sec.
90.543(e) to include within its purview the D Block portion of
FirstNet's spectrum. In doing so, we emphasize that this provision
merely establishes a baseline of protection, one which FirstNet may opt
to strengthen as it moves forward with its deployment and engages in
its required consultations with State and local governments.
Accordingly, while we decline to adopt more stringent out-of-band
emissions limits of the sort Harris proposes, we encourage FirstNet to
work cooperatively with adjacent-channel narrowband licensees to ensure
that their respective operations are adequately protected.
25. Section 90.543(f), which limits emissions from the public
safety broadband spectrum into the 1559-1610 MHz band, protects
critical GPS operations from interference. Accordingly, with the
support of many commenters, we incorporate the D Block into this
provision. We further observe that no commenters provided a compelling
reason to delete the phrase ``including harmonics'' from this
provision, while one argues that such deletion could create unnecessary
ambiguity. We therefore retain the original wording of the part 90
provision.
26. Finally, we observe that many commenters support the
Commission's proposed adoption of a part 90 provision limiting
emissions from the public safety broadband allocation into neighboring
commercial spectrum bands, and none oppose the proposal. The adoption
of this proposal would further align the technical service rules for
this band with those established for commercial 700 MHz LTE operations.
Moreover, the one commenter to address the cost implications of the
proposal argues that it would create no cost burden. We accordingly
adopt the proposal.
c. Field Strength Limits
27. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether a field
strength limit should be established for the expanded public safety
broadband allocation to limit interference between the FirstNet radio
access network (RAN) and any State Networks deployed in the same band.
The Commission then sought comment more specifically on whether to
adopt for this band the field strength limit of 40 dBuV/M specified in
Sec. 27.55(a)(2) for 700 MHz commercial wireless spectrum, or whether
an alternative limit would be more appropriate. The Commission also
[[Page 592]]
sought comment on the costs and benefits of the various options.
28. Comments. Commenters were divided on whether the Commission
should adopt a field strength limit for FirstNet's licensed spectrum.
Motorola Solutions supports the adoption of the proposed 40 dBuV/M
limit ``[g]iven the likelihood that there will be more than one network
operating in [this spectrum.]'' However, it also notes that 40 dBuV/M
represents a ``relatively high'' field strength limit that is
``sufficient to cause interference,'' so ``deployments near service
area boundaries [will] require licensee coordination.'' AT&T contends
that a field strength limit should be adopted ``to mitigate the
potential for harmful interference between the nationwide network and
any State networks,'' and it proposes adoption of the 40 dBuV/M limit
already specified ``for 700 MHz commercial wireless services'' in Sec.
27.55(a)(2). General Dynamics and TIA also support using the 40 dBuV/M
limit set forth in Sec. 27.55(a)(2).
29. Some commenters, however, oppose the Commission's adoption of a
field strength limit for FirstNet's licensed spectrum. Harris contends
that any State Networks deployed in this spectrum must ``function
logically [with FirstNet's network] as a single RAN,'' making field
strength limits ``not necessary for this spectrum.'' Ericsson similarly
argues that such limits are unnecessary given the expectation that
FirstNet ``will work in a cooperative way to ensure that harmful
interference is not an issue through coordination and site
engineering.'' Alcatel-Lucent also opposes adoption of such a limit
``at this time.''
30. Discussion. Although FirstNet is licensed on a nationwide
basis, we acknowledge the importance of minimizing interference between
the FirstNet network and any ``State Network'' deployed in the same
spectrum. The statutory scheme under which State Networks may be
deployed, however, includes several provisions that serve to promote
the operational integration of such networks with FirstNet's nationwide
deployment. A State electing to deploy its own network must submit an
interoperability plan for the Commission's approval; apply to NTIA to
lease spectrum capacity from FirstNet upon demonstrating that will have
the technical capabilities to operate its network, have the ability to
maintain ongoing interoperability with FirstNet, and provide a
comparable quality of service; and pay any user fees associated with
its use of FirstNet's core network. These provisions, among others,
already contemplate a significant amount of advance coordination of
State Network operations with those of FirstNet. We therefore do not
find it necessary at this time to adopt a field strength limit for RANs
operated in FirstNet's licensed spectrum.
d. Interference Coordination
31. The Commission sought comment in the NPRM on whether FirstNet
or other broadband operators in its licensed spectrum should be
required to engage in interference coordination of some kind, either
with 700 MHz commercial licensees or with incumbent public safety
narrowband licensees.
32. Comments. While several commenters acknowledge the importance
of protecting co-channel and spectrally adjacent operations from mutual
interference, many oppose the adoption of formal requirements for
FirstNet or other public safety broadband operators to coordinate with
either 700 MHz commercial or incumbent public safety narrowband
licensees. APCO ``cautions the Commission to refrain from adopting any
unnecessary procedures or requirements that would have the effect of
introducing additional complexity on network planning with little or no
corresponding benefit.'' Motorola Solutions raises similar concerns and
suggests that interference coordination procedures be ``implemented as
a design guideline'' rather than a binding rule. Ericsson meanwhile
suggests that, while the Commission ``is wise to consider coordinating
interference issues'' between incumbent narrowband operators and
FirstNet, these two constituencies are ``highly motivated'' to
coordinate with one another even in the absence of any formal
requirements. AT&T also opposes the adoption of formal coordination
requirements but recommends that the Commission adopt for the public
safety broadband allocation the informal coordination procedures
codified for commercial operations under Sec. 27.64.
33. Alone among commenters, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia)
argues ``that co-ordination requirements must be put in place to
protect incumbent narrowband operations'' such as its own. In support
of its position, Virginia explains that its network ``has already
experienced harmful interference from the testing of a 700 MHz LTE
system in Virginia by a manufacturer,'' an outcome it deems
``unacceptable for public safety communications.''
34. Discussion. We agree with commenters that assert the importance
of coordination among spectrally and geographically adjacent network
operators to protect against mutual interference. At the same time, we
observe once again that the statute creating FirstNet imposes on it a
number of consultative obligations, including obligations to consult
with state and local governments as it designs and implements its
network. In addition, FirstNet's desire to attract public safety
customers and potential commercial partners is likely to create
incentives for additional coordination beyond what is statutorily
required, which are different in kind and degree from those of a
manufacturer conducting tests. Accordingly, we do not find it necessary
at this time to adopt any formal requirements that FirstNet coordinate
its operations with either incumbent narrowband or 700 MHz commercial
operators. We will continue, however, to exercise our spectrum
management and licensing responsibilities as necessary to ensure that
properly authorized radio communications are protected from harmful
interference, and we encourage all parties to work together to minimize
the potential for interference.
e. International Considerations
35. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to remove the D Block from
the reach of Sec. 27.57(b) and place it within the purview of Sec.
90.533, which sets forth substantively identical requirements
concerning international coordination. Ericsson and General Dynamics,
the only parties to address the issue, support this proposed rule
consolidation. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal.
f. 700 MHz Public Safety Guard Band
36. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that FirstNet's license
includes the 768-769/798-799 MHz band, which is designated as a guard
band under Commission rules to minimize the potential for interference
between the broadband and narrowband segments of the 700 MHz public
safety band. Observing that the transfer of the broadband spectrum to
FirstNet does nothing to mitigate these concerns, the Commission
proposed to maintain the designation of this spectrum as a guard band
and keep in place all associated restrictions on its use. The
Commission sought comment on this proposal, and on whether the
possibility of broadband operations eventually being permitted in the
narrowband segment should have any impact on this analysis.
37. Comments. A number of commenters support preserving the
designation of the 768-769/798-799 MHz band as a guard band, at least
during the early stages of public safety
[[Page 593]]
broadband network development. FirstNet recommends that ``[a]t this
time'' the Commission ``enable the guard band to continue serving as a
`buffer' between public safety broadband and narrowband spectrum.''
Harris agrees and further argues that ``the existing expanded public
safety broadband allocation should be deployed and subsequent
evaluation of real-world harmful interference should be evaluated
before the guard band is allowed to be used.'' Motorola Solutions
similarly contends that ``[t]he interference concerns that led to the
establishment of the guard band have not been mitigated'' and that
``[t]he Commission should take no actions with respect to the guard
band that would jeopardize the continued interference-free availability
of the public safety narrowband spectrum.'' The Commonwealth of
Virginia also asserts that ``a continued guard band is a necessity.''
38. Some commenters, however, suggest that this spectrum could be
suitable for limited use, if only within specified parameters. Motorola
Solutions envisions use of the band for ``localized public safety
applications'' including ``low power mobile/portable applications that
would enhance public safety communications while posing little risk of
interference to adjacent band systems.'' NPSTC meanwhile argues that
designating this spectrum as a ``home'' for narrowband vehicular
repeaters currently operated in the public safety broadband spectrum
could serve as a cost-effective strategy for managing the relocation of
these operations. FirstNet also cautions that ``[its] plans could
necessitate a change in the status of the public safety guard bands''
to accommodate some operations therein.
39. Finally, a few commenters contend that FirstNet should retain
control over the operational parameters of all spectrum licensed to it,
including the 768-769/798-799 MHz band. APCO argues that FirstNet's
statutory responsibilities ``extend to the guard bands'' and that the
Commission should accordingly ``remove the existing guard band
restrictions and instead leave to FirstNet's discretion as to how to
address any potential interference issues.'' Similarly, Ericsson
``supports allowing FirstNet discretion on its use as long as these
bands function as guard bands to protect narrowband operations.''
40. Discussion. As an initial matter, we observe that the
Commission holds authority to adopt regulations aimed at preventing
public safety broadband network operations from creating interference
for users in adjacent bands. The operational restrictions that
currently attach to the 768-769 and 798-799 MHz ``guard band'' were
adopted to mitigate interference between users in the broadband and
narrowband segments of the public safety band, and no commenter has
challenged the Commission's observation that these underlying concerns
remain valid. In addition, FirstNet itself recommends that the band
``continue serving as a `buffer' '' between these bands, at least in
the near term. Accordingly, we will maintain the guard band
restrictions currently in place for the 768-769 and 798-799 MHz band.
In a future proceeding we may consider relaxing these restrictions to
accommodate some operations in this band, such as those commenters
contemplate, but such matters are not yet ripe for consideration at
this early stage of network development.
g. Equipment Certification
41. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed consolidating under Sec.
90.549 of its rules the requirements governing certification of
equipment for operation in FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The Commission
further observed that, under this approach, such certification would be
subject to consolidated technical rules that had themselves yet to be
adopted. Accordingly, it suspended OET's acceptance and processing of
applications for equipment certification in FirstNet's licensed
spectrum pending the adoption of the necessary technical rules. In
addition, it sought comment on whether to adopt certification
requirements specific to this band that would augment the basic
certification requirements already codified under Sec. 90.549.
Finally, it proposed removing from its rules a legacy provision, Sec.
90.203(p), that required applicants for equipment certification in the
public safety broadband spectrum to demonstrate support for LTE
interfaces that public safety operators had been required to implement
under rules no longer in force.
42. Comments. In general, commenters support the specific proposals
regarding equipment certification set forth in the NPRM. Those
commenters that addressed these matters support the proposed
consolidation of requirements under Sec. 90.549 and the proposed
deletion of Sec. 90.203(p). With respect to the proposed rule
consolidation, General Dynamics further observes that ``[t]he inclusion
of the D Block frequency in this section will have the benefit of
eliminating duplicative certification processes, thereby reducing
cost.''
43. As noted earlier, a substantial number of commenters, including
FirstNet, contend that urgent Commission action is necessary to ensure
that equipment is made available for operations in FirstNet's licensed
spectrum on an expedited basis. FirstNet explains that ``there is an
imminent need for authorized equipment to meet the needs of
jurisdictions that may deploy early'' in its licensed spectrum under
lease agreements. Motorola Solutions similarly notes that ``[t]here is
already a demand'' for authorized equipment ``that will increase as
FirstNet progresses towards deployment of the nationwide public safety
broadband network,'' and that ``[t]he halt in equipment authorizations
is impacting product development schedules for devices being designed
to meet this demand.'' Ericsson further argues that ``delays in
certifying equipment hampe[r] the access to new and potentially life-
saving technologies by the public safety community.'' Some commenters,
including APCO and Harris, offer proposals for expediting the
availability of equipment for use in this band prior to the adoption of
technical service rules. APCO recommends ``issuance of an earlier order
that focuses on [equipment certification] to avoid further
interruptions in the development of equipment necessary for [network]
operations.'' Harris, meanwhile, recommends that the Commission permit
equipment with existing certifications already granted under the
provisions of its 2010 waiver order, and equipment subsequently
certified to be compliant with that order's technical requirements, to
be authorized for use by early adopter networks while the Commission
continues to develop technical service rules to permit the
certification of equipment. Harris clarifies, however, that all
equipment operated in the band should be subject to the rules
ultimately adopted ``to ensure interoperability and [a] multi-vendor
environment.''
44. A few commenters also urge the Commission to refrain from
adopting any band-specific requirements that would augment the more
basic requirements for equipment certification established under Sec.
90.549. On this point, Motorola Solutions observes that ``[s]imilar to
any commercial system operator, FirstNet has the right to impose
additional requirements on equipment vendors to support specified
features, protocols and applications'' and that ``[s]ubjecting future
enhancements and refinements to the
[[Page 594]]
Commission's rulemaking process would add unnecessary delay to
providing public safety with devices that have the latest features and
functionality.''
45. Discussion. Our adoption in the Second R&O of consolidated
public safety broadband technical service rules sets the stage for
equipment certifications to commence in this band. Commenters widely
support the Commission's proposal to unify the equipment certification
requirements for this band under Sec. 90.549, without further
modification. We accordingly consolidate this rule as proposed and
direct the Office of Engineering and Technology to certify equipment in
this band consistent with the technical rules adopted in the Second
R&O, as soon as these rules become effective. We also delete Sec.
90.203(p) as proposed in the NPRM.
46. Moreover, as explained in more detail below, we will make the
Second R&O effective January 6, 2014. Such action will expedite the
Commission's ability to process applications for equipment
certification under the newly consolidated rules, thereby obviating the
need for adoption of interim measures such as those APCO and Harris
propose.
h. Miscellaneous Proposals From the Comment Record
47. AT&T's Proposed Rule on Adherence to Commercial Standards. AT&T
proposes that, in addition to consolidating existing technical rules
under part 90, the Commission should adopt ``a catch-all rule to ensure
that the public safety broadband network operates in accordance with
`commercial standards' as defined [by statute].'' Motorola Solutions
opposes the adoption of such a rule, arguing that it ``may hinder
FirstNet's ability to promote the development and use of public safety
applications and devices that do not conform precisely to commercial
standards.''
48. AT&T concedes that many of the specific technical rules
proposed in the NPRM align with requirements applicable to commercial
spectrum bands, but it asserts that its proposed rule ``would serve to
fill any unintended gaps in the other rules, provide important context
for construing any ambiguities in the other rules, and plainly place
the Commission in step with the mission of other governments entities
charged with implementing [the statute].'' The rule it proposes,
however, largely recites general principles set forth by statute and,
as such, would not appear to place any affirmative restriction on the
conduct of FirstNet or any other entity in deploying and operating the
network. Any such restriction the rule might impose, on the other hand,
may exceed the scope of the NPRM, which did not expressly seek comment
on proposals to implement the statutory requirement that FirstNet base
its network on ``commercial standards,'' or on how this requirement of
the Spectrum Act should be construed in this context. We thus decline
to adopt AT&T's proposal.
49. Harris's Proposed Regulatory Classification of LTE Base
Stations. Harris proposes that the Commission's public safety broadband
service rules ``establish distinct definitions and rules for different
types of base stations . . . in a manner consistent with 3GPP
definitions and technical specifications.'' In particular, Harris
recommends the adoption of distinct transmitter power and minimum
coupling loss (MCL) restrictions for ``Wide area,'' ``Medium area,''
``Local area,'' and ``Home'' base stations, at levels defined by the
LTE standard. Specialized requirements for various base station classes
are necessary, Harris asserts, ``to ensure that minimum technical
requirements are placed on each of the classes while minimizing cost
and harmful interference potential.''
50. The technical rules we are establishing for FirstNet's licensed
spectrum include power limits and other technical requirements aimed at
mitigating the interference potential of operations in FirstNet's
licensed spectrum. These protections are well-established and enjoy
broad record support, and, as some commenters have observed, they are
generally aligned with the technical service rules that apply to 700
MHz commercial LTE services. We do not find that Harris has made the
case for codifying a distinct and potentially conflicting set of rules
for FirstNet's licensed spectrum based directly on LTE design
specifications, which themselves may evolve over time. Accordingly, we
decline to adopt Harris's proposal.
2. Further Rule Consolidations
51. In addition to its proposed consolidation of technical service
rules, the Commission proposed additional minor rule revisions
necessary to remove the D Block from the reach of part 27 and place it
within the purview of part 90. The only commenters to address these
proposed revisions support them. We accordingly adopt the proposals. We
also requested comment more generally on ``the development of a unified
set of rules for the expanded public safety broadband allocation,'' and
Motorola Solutions identified for revision two additional ``non-
substantive'' part 27 references to the D Block. We agree that these
changes to reflect the new statutory mandate with respect to the D
Block are purely ministerial, and we adopt such revisions as well.
52. The Commission also proposed minor revisions to Sec. Sec.
2.103, 90.179 and 90.523 of its rules to omit references to the defunct
Public Safety Broadband Licensee. The few commenters that addressed any
of these proposed revisions support them. We accordingly adopt these
proposals as well.
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
rules adopted in the Second R&O in PS Docket No. 12-94. The Commission
sought comment on such impact in an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) prepared in connection with the NPRM in which the rules
were proposed. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the Second R&O, the Commission adopts a unified set of
technical service rules for the spectrum licensed to the First
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) for purposes of establishing a
nationwide 700 MHz public safety broadband network. This unification
primarily involves merging into part 90 of the Commission's rules a
number of technical requirements that had been codified separately in
parts 27 and 90 for the two respective segments of FirstNet's licensed
spectrum, the ``public safety broadband spectrum'' (763-768/793-798
MHz) and the ``D Block'' (758-763/788-793 MHz). Such action will
further ``facilitate[s] the transition'' of spectrum to FirstNet for
its use in establishing a nationwide wireless broadband communications
network for our Nation's first responders. In particular, the adoption
of consolidated rules for FirstNet's licensed spectrum will enable the
Commission to start certifying equipment for operation in this spectrum
under the technical rules established for the combined band.
C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Comments in Response to IRFA
3. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA. A number of
commenters
[[Page 595]]
expressed support in general for the consolidation of technical rules
that we effect in the Second R&O. Also, no commenters expressed the
view that such consolidation of rules would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (``SBA''). Below, we further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by
the rules changes we propose in the NPRM.
5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may
qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
6. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a general matter, Public
Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government,
forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical
services. Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the
Commission has not developed a small business size standard
specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The SBA rules
contain a definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in
radiotelephone communications employing no more than 1,500 persons.
With respect to local governments, in particular, since many
governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, we
include under public safety services the number of government entities
affected. According to Commission records, there are a total of
approximately 133,870 licenses within these services. There are 2,442
licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing
System search of May 23, 2012. We estimate that fewer than 2,442 public
safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may
have multiple licenses.
7. We observe, however, that ``small governmental jurisdictions''--
regardless of their status as Public Safety Radio Pool licensees--are
ineligible to hold direct Commission authorizations to operate in the
spectrum licensed to FirstNet. By statute, FirstNet is charged with
constructing, operating and maintaining public safety broadband network
in this spectrum on a nationwide basis, under a nationwide license.
Accordingly, we do not believe the technical service rules adopted in
the Second R&O to govern operations in this spectrum will directly
affect a substantial number of small entities, and that it is thus
unnecessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection
with these requirements. Nevertheless, to the extent such rules could
be construed as having a direct effect on a substantial number of small
entities, we estimate that the economic impact on any entity would be
minimal. This is because the rules adopted in the Second R&O largely
involve unifying under a single set of part 90 provisions a number of
already existing technical requirements that had been codified in
disparate rule sections.
8. The Second R&O does, however, establish rules governing
equipment certification, which would apply directly to equipment
manufacturers or other entities seeking to certify equipment for use in
FirstNet's licensed spectrum. The SBA category that includes such
entities is that of ``Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,'' which the Census Bureau
defines as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
part or all of the entire year. According to Census bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 919 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 771 had less than 100 employees and
148 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
9. The technical service rules adopted in the Second R&O largely
involve consolidating a number of parallel part 27 and part 90 rules
within the latter rule part, so as to subject FirstNet's licensed
spectrum to a unified set of rules. Because FirstNet is the nationwide
licensee in this spectrum, it will be primarily responsible on a
nationwide basis for complying with any such requirements that are
ultimately adopted. Accordingly, as discussed, we do not believe that
these requirements would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
10. The Second R&O also establishes certification requirements for
equipment operated in the combined public safety broadband spectrum and
directs the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to
process certifications under the newly consolidated rules. These
certification requirements will be applicable to entities, such as
equipment manufacturers, seeking to certify equipment for operation in
this spectrum. However, as we observed in the IRFA, equipment
certification is a longstanding Commission practice, widely applicable
to equipment marketed for operation in radiospectrum licensed by the
Commission. As the Commission further anticipated in the IRFA, the
equipment certification rules
[[Page 596]]
adopted in the Second R&O do not depart significantly from current
practice in this area. Indeed, the rules merely consolidate equipment
certification requirements already applicable to the two respective
segments of FirstNet's licensed spectrum. We do not believe that such
consolidation would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
11. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which
may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.''
12. As previously discussed, the rules adopted in the Second R&O
already involve the ``consolidation'' of existing requirements into a
unified set of part 90 provisions. We believe that such action will
help facilitate the efforts in deploying the network, and there is no
reason to believe that such rule consolidation would impose a
significant economic impact on small entities.
13. We also do not believe it would be tenable to establish
differing requirements for small entities or to exempt such entities
from rules adopted in the Second R&O, including rules governing
equipment certification. Given the importance of ensuring that the
public safety broadband network is technically and operationally viable
on a nationwide basis, it is important that the network be governed by
a common set of rules and requirements and that all equipment operated
in the network be subject to common certification procedures.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
14. None.
Effective Date
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires
publication of a rule in the Federal Register at least thirty days
before it goes into effect, but not when an agency otherwise finds and
publishes ``good cause'' for an earlier effective date. We believe
there is good cause for making such rules effective immediately upon
publication. As noted above, in our NPRM we suspended OET's acceptance
and processing of applications for equipment certification in this band
pending the adoption of the foregoing technical rules against which to
evaluate such equipment. With several near-term deployments now planned
in FirstNet's licensed spectrum, some under lease agreements that have
already been executed, it is essential that the Commission commence its
equipment certification process for this band as soon as possible,
particularly in light of the clear public safety benefits resulting
from such proposed deployments. Because the rules we adopt in the
Second R&O will provide the foundation for this certification process,
expediting their effective date is necessary to prevent delay in the
availability of equipment for operation in FirstNet's licensed
spectrum. We will therefore make the Second Report and Order effective
January 6, 2014.
Congressional Review Act
The Bureau will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims,
Communications common carriers, Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental impact
statements, Equal access to justice, Equal employment opportunity,
Federal buildings and facilities, Government employees, Income taxes,
Indemnity payments, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations,
Lawyers, Metric system, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Satellites, Telecommunications, Television, Wages.
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Disaster assistance, Imports, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications,
Television, Wiretapping and electronic surveillance.
47 CFR Part 27
Communications common carriers, Radio.
47 CFR Part 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Civil
defense, Common carriers, Communications equipment, Emergency medical
services, Individuals with disabilities, Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
0
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(k) The Wireless Communications Service in the 746-758 MHz, 775-788
MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands (part 27 of this chapter);
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302(a), 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
4. Section 2.103 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.103 Federal use of non-Federal frequencies.
(a) Federal stations may be authorized to use non-Federal
frequencies in the bands above 25 MHz (except the 758-775 MHz and 788-
805 MHz public safety bands) if the Commission finds that such use is
necessary for coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities:
Provided, however, that:
* * * * *
(c) Federal stations may be authorized by the First Responder
Network Authority to use channels in the 758-769 MHz and 788-799 MHz
public safety bands.
[[Page 597]]
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
0
6. Section 27.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text
and removing paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(b) 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands. WCS service
areas for the 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands are as
follows.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 27.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text
and removing paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.11 Initial authorization.
* * * * *
(c) 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands. Initial
authorizations for the 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands
shall be for paired channels of 1, 5, 6, or 11 megahertz of spectrum in
accordance with Sec. 27.5(b).
* * * * *
0
8. Section 27.13 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(b) 698-758 MHz, 776-788, 775-776, and 805-806 MHz bands. Initial
authorizations for the 698-758 MHz and 776-788 MHz bands will extend
for a term not to exceed ten years from June 13, 2009, except that
initial authorizations for a part 27 licensee that provides broadcast
services, whether exclusively or in combination with other services,
will not exceed eight years. * * *
* * * * *
0
9. Section 27.14 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph
(a) and the first sentence in paragraph (e), and removing and reserving
paragraphs (m) and (n), to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz
bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the
722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz
bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in
the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz
band, and Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the exception of
licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in
Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(e) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz
bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block C in the
710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz bands, Block D in the 716-722 MHz band,
Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, or Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-757
MHz and 776-787 MHz bands. * * *
* * * * *
0
10. Section 27.15 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, or Blocks C, C1,
and C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands
or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply
to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. *
* *
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, or Blocks C, C1,
and C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands
or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply
to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. *
* *
* * * * *
0
11. Section 27.20 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.20 Digital television transition education reports.
(a) The requirements of this section shall apply only with regard
to WCS license authorizations in Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734
MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in
the 722-728 MHz band, and Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-
787 MHz bands.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text, paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6), (b)(7) introductory text,
(b)(7)(i), (b)(8) through (b)(10), (b)(12), (c)(5)(i), and the headings
to Table 1 through Table 4 below paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(b) The following power and antenna height limits apply to
transmitters operating in the 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz and 805-806 MHz
bands:
* * * * *
(2) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal in the 746-757
MHz and 776-787 MHz bands with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less
must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m
HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted
if power levels are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in accordance with
Table 1 of this section.
(3) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
and transmitting a signal in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands with
an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less must not exceed an ERP of 2000
watts and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT, except that antenna heights
greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels are reduced below
2000 watts ERP in accordance with Table 2 of this section.
(4) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal in the 746-757
MHz and 776-787 MHz bands with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz
must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m
HAAT, except that antenna heights
[[Page 598]]
greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels are reduced below
1000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with Table 3 of this section.
(5) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
and transmitting a signal in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands with
an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz must not exceed an ERP of 2000
watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT, except that antenna
heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels are
reduced below 2000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with Table 4 of this
section.
(6) Licensees of fixed or base stations transmitting a signal in
the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands at an ERP greater than 1000 watts
must comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section and Sec. 27.55(c).
(7) Licensees seeking to operate a fixed or base station located in
a county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square
mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics from
the Bureau of the Census, and transmitting a signal in the 746-757 MHz
and 776-787 MHz bands at an ERP greater than 1000 watts must:
(i) Coordinate in advance with all licensees authorized to operate
in the 698-758 MHz, 775-788, and 805-806 MHz bands within 120
kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station;
* * * * *
(8) Licensees authorized to transmit in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787
MHz bands and intending to operate a base or fixed station at a power
level permitted under the provisions of paragraph (b)(6) of this
section must provide advanced notice of such operation to the
Commission and to licensees authorized in their area of operation.
Licensees who must be notified are all licensees authorized to operate
in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands under part 90 of this chapter
within 75 km of the base or fixed station and all regional planning
committees, as identified in Sec. 90.527 of this chapter, with
jurisdiction within 75 km of the base or fixed station. Notifications
must provide the location and operating parameters of the base or fixed
station, including the station's ERP, antenna coordinates, antenna
height above ground, and vertical antenna pattern, and such
notifications must be provided at least 90 days prior to the
commencement of station operation.
(9) Control stations and mobile stations transmitting in the 746-
757 MHz, 776-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands and fixed stations
transmitting in the 787-788 MHz and 805-806 MHz bands are limited to 30
watts ERP.
(10) Portable stations (hand-held devices) transmitting in the 746-
757 MHz, 776-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands are limited to 3 watts ERP.
* * * * *
(12) For transmissions in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands,
licensees may employ equipment operating in compliance with either the
measurement techniques described in paragraph (b)(11) of this section
or a Commission-approved average power technique. In both instances,
equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 27.51.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Coordinate in advance with all licensees authorized to operate
in the 698-758 MHz, 775-788, and 805-806 MHz bands within 120
kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station;
* * * * *
(i) * * *
Table 1--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed
Stations in the 757-758 and 775-776 MHz Bands and for Base and Fixed
Stations in the 698-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal
With an Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed
Stations in the 698-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal
With an Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed
Stations in the 698-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal
With an Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1 MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed
Stations in the 698-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal
With an Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1 MHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
13. Section 27.53 is amended by removing paragraph (d), redesignating
paragraphs (e) through (n) as paragraphs (d) through (m), and revising
newly redesignated paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), (d)(2) and
(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(d) For operations in the 775-776 MHz and 805-806 MHz bands,
transmitters must comply with either paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of
this section or the ACP emission limitations
[[Page 599]]
set forth in paragraphs (d)(6) to (d)(9) of this section.
(1) On all frequencies between 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz, the
power of any emission outside the licensee's frequency bands of
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within
the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by a factor not
less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for base and
fixed stations;
(2) On all frequencies between 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz, the
power of any emission outside the licensee's frequency bands of
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within
the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by a factor not
less than 65 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for mobile and
portable stations;
* * * * *
(e) For operations in the 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz
bands, emissions in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be limited to -70 dBW/
MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband
signals, and -80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth. For the purpose of equipment authorization, a transmitter
shall be tested with an antenna that is representative of the type that
will be used with the equipment in normal operation.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
* * * * *
(c) Power flux density limit for stations operating in the 746-757
MHz and 776-787 MHz bands. For base and fixed stations operating in the
746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 27.50(b)(6), the power flux density that would be produced by
such stations through a combination of antenna height and vertical gain
pattern must not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground
over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting
structure.
0
15. Section 27.57 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(b) Operation in the 698-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz
bands is subject to international agreements between Mexico and Canada.
Unless otherwise modified by international treaty, licenses must not
cause interference to, and must accept harmful interference from,
television broadcast operations in Mexico and Canada.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 27.60 is amended by revising the introductory text,
paragraph (a)(1)(iii), the second sentence in paragraph (b)
introductory text, the first sentence in paragraph (b)(2)(i), paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) and (C) to
read as follows:
Sec. 27.60 TV/DTV interference protection criteria.
Base, fixed, control, and mobile transmitters in the 698-758 MHz,
775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz frequency bands must be operated only in
accordance with the rules in this section to reduce the potential for
interference to public reception of the signals of existing TV and DTV
broadcast stations transmitting on TV Channels 51 through 68.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For transmitters operating in the 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz,
and 805-806 MHz frequency bands, 17 dB at the equivalent Grade B
contour (41 dB[micro]V/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV
station.
* * * * *
(b) * * * Tables to determine the necessary minimum distance from
the 698-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz station to the TV/DTV
station, assuming that the TV/DTV station has a hypothetical or
equivalent Grade B contour of 88.5 kilometers (55 miles), are located
in Sec. 90.309 of this chapter and labeled as Tables B, D, and E. * *
*
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Base and fixed stations that operate in the 746-758 MHz and
775-787 MHz bands having an antenna height (HAAT) less than 152 m. (500
ft.) shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV
stations in accordance with the values specified in Table B (co-channel
frequencies based on 40 dB protection) and Table E (adjacent channel
frequencies based on 0 dB protection) in Sec. 90.309 of this chapter.
* * *
(ii) Control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables) that
operate in the 787-788 MHz and 805-806 MHz bands and control and mobile
stations (including portables) that operate in the 698-757 MHz and 776-
787 MHz bands are limited in height and power and therefore shall
afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in
the following manner:
(A) For control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables)
that operate in the 787-788 MHz and 805-806 MHz bands and control and
mobile stations (including portables) that operate in the 746-757 MHz
and 776-787 MHz bands, co-channel protection shall be afforded in
accordance with the values specified in Table D (co-channel frequencies
based on 40 dB protection for TV stations and 17 dB for DTV stations)
in Sec. 90.309 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(C) For control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables)
that operate in the 787-788 MHz and 805-806 MHz bands and control and
mobile stations (including portables) that operate in the 698-757 MHz
and 776-787 MHz bands, adjacent channel protection shall be afforded by
providing a minimum distance of 8 kilometers (5 miles) from all
adjacent channel TV/DTV station hypothetical or equivalent Grade B
contours (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0 dB protection for TV
stations and -23 dB for DTV stations).
* * * * *
0
17. Section 27.70 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.70 Information exchange.
(a) Prior notification. Public safety licensees authorized to
operate in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands may notify any
licensee authorized to operate in the 746-757 or 776-787 MHz bands that
they wish to receive prior notification of the activation or
modification of the licensee's base or fixed stations in their area.
Thereafter, the 746-757 or 776-787 MHz band licensee must provide the
following information to the public safety licensee at least 10
business days before a new base or fixed station is activated or an
existing base or fixed station is modified:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Allow a public safety licensee to advise the 746-757 or 776-787
MHz band licensee whether it believes a proposed base or fixed station
will generate unacceptable interference;
(2) Permit 746-757 and 776-787 MHz band licensees to make voluntary
changes in base or fixed station parameters when a public safety
licensee alerts them to possible interference; and,
* * * * *
0
18. Section 27.303 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
[[Page 600]]
Sec. 27.303 Upper 700 MHz commercial and public safety coordination
zone.
(a) General. CMRS operators are required, prior to commencing
operations on fixed or base station transmitters on the 776-787 MHz
band that are located within 500 meters of existing or planned public
safety base station receivers, to submit a description of their
proposed facility to a Commission-approved public safety coordinator.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 27.501 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.501 746-758 MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands subject
to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the 746-758
MHz, 775-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands are subject to competitive
bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part
1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in
this subpart.
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
20. 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), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
0
21. Section 90.179 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.
* * * * *
(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, licensees
authorized to operate radio systems on Public Safety Pool frequencies
designated in Sec. 90.20 may share their facilities with Federal
Government entities on a non-profit, cost-shared basis. Such a sharing
arrangement is subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b), (d), and
(e) of this section, and Sec. 2.103(c) of this chapter concerning
operations in the 758-769 MHz and 788-799 MHz bands. State governments
authorized to operate radio systems under Sec. 90.529 may share the
use of their systems (for public safety services not made commercially
available to the public) with any entity that would be eligible for
licensing under Sec. 90.523 and Federal government entities.
* * * * *
Sec. 90.203 [Amended]
0
22. Section 90.203 is amended by removing paragraph (p) and
redesignating paragraph (q) as paragraph (p).
0
23. Section 90.205 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.205 Power and antenna height limits.
* * * * *
(j) 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz. Power and height limitations are
specified in Sec. Sec. 90.541 and 90.542.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 90.523 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (e), to read as follows:
Sec. 90.523 Eligibility.
This section implements the definition of public safety services
contained in 47 U.S.C. 337(f)(1). The following are eligible to hold
Commission authorizations for systems operating in the 769-775 MHz and
799-805 MHz frequency bands:
* * * * *
(e) A nationwide license for the 758-769 MHz and 788-799 MHz bands
shall be issued to the First Responder Network Authority.
0
25. Section 90.533 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.533 Transmitting sites near the U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico
border.
This section applies to each license to operate one or more public
safety transmitters in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands, at a
location or locations North of Line A (see Sec. 90.7) or within 120
kilometers (75 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border, until such time as
agreements between the government of the United States and the
government of Canada or the government of the United States and the
government of Mexico, as applicable, become effective governing border
area non-broadcast use of these bands. Public safety licenses are
granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) Public safety transmitters operating in the 758-775 MHz and
788-805 MHz bands must conform to the limitations on interference to
Canadian television stations contained in agreement(s) between the
United States and Canada for use of television channels in the border
area.
* * * * *
(c) Conditions may be added during the term of the license, if
required by the terms of international agreements between the
government of the United States and the government of Canada or the
government of the United States and the government of Mexico, as
applicable, regarding non-broadcast use of the 758-775 MHz and 788-805
MHz bands.
Sec. 90.542 [Amended]
0
26. Section 90.542 is amended by revising all references to ``763'' to
read ``758'' and ``793'' to read ``788'' in paragraph (a) introductory
text, in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8), in the headers of Tables 1
through 4, and in paragraph (b).
0
27. Section 90.543 is amended by revising the introductory text,
revising paragraph (e) introductory text, redesignating paragraph
(e)(3) as (e)(4), adding new paragraphs (e)(3) and (5), and revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.543 Emission limitations.
Transmitters designed to operate in 769-775 MHz and 799-805 MHz
frequency bands must meet the emission limitations in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section. Transmitters operating in 758-768 MHz and
788-798 MHz bands must meet the emission limitations in (e) of this
section.
* * * * *
(e) For operations in the 758-768 MHz and the 788-798 MHz bands,
the power of any emission outside the licensee's frequency band(s) of
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within
the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, in accordance
with the following:
* * * * *
(3) On any frequency between 775-788 MHz, above 805 MHz, and below
758 MHz, by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
* * * * *
(5) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e)(3) of this
section is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a
resolution bandwidth of 30 kHz may be employed.
(f) For operations in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands, all
emissions including harmonics in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be
limited to -70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP)
for wideband signals, and -80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the purpose of equipment authorization, a
transmitter shall be tested with an antenna that is representative of
the type that will be used with the equipment in normal operation.
* * * * *
[[Page 601]]
0
28. Section 90.549 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.549 Transmitter certification.
Transmitters operated in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz frequency
bands must be of a type that have been authorized by the Commission
under its certification procedure as required by Sec. 90.203.
0
29. Section 90.555 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, paragraph (b)(1), paragraph (b)(2), and paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.555 Information exchange.
(a) Prior notification. Public safety licensees authorized to
operate in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands may notify any
licensee authorized to operate in the 746-757 MHz or 776-787 MHz bands
that they wish to receive prior notification of the activation or
modification of the licensee's base or fixed stations in their area.
Thereafter, the 746-757 MHz or 776-787 MHz band licensee must provide
the following information to the public safety licensee at least 10
business days before a new base or fixed station is activated or an
existing base or fixed station is modified:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Allow a public safety licensee to advise the 746-757 or 776-787
MHz band licensee whether it believes a proposed base or fixed station
will generate unacceptable interference;
(2) Permit 746-757 and 776-787 MHz band licensees to make voluntary
changes in base or fixed station parameters when a public safety
licensee alerts them to possible interference; and,
* * * * *
(c) Public Safety Information Exchange. (1) Upon request by a 746-
757 or 776-787 MHz band licensee, public safety licensees authorized to
operate radio systems in the 758-775 and 788-805 MHz bands shall
provide the operating parameters of their radio system to the 746-757
or 776-787 MHz band licensee.
(2) Public safety licensees who perform the information exchange
described in this section must notify the appropriate 746-757 or 776-
787 MHz band licensees prior to any technical changes to their radio
system.
[FR Doc. 2013-28974 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P