Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, 11490-11494 [2021-03437]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11490
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
New Tolerances for Non–Inerts
1. PP 0E8847. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–
0419). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide, fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3carbonitrile] in or on carrot, roots at 7
parts per million (ppm); celtuce at 15
ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.05
ppm; dragon fruit at 20 ppm; durian at
20 ppm; fennel, florence, fresh leaves
and stalk at 15 ppm; jackfruit at 20 ppm;
leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at
15 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4–16A at
30 ppm; mangosteen at 5 ppm;
persimmon, Japanese at 5 ppm;
sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.01 ppm;
tropical and subtropical, small fruit,
inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 20 ppm;
vegetable, legume, group 6, except bean,
dry and bean, succulent at 0.01 ppm;
vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B, except carrot and ginseng
at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous
and corm, subgroup 1C, except yam,
true, tuber at 6 ppm. Upon approval of
the aforementioned tolerances, it is
proposed that 40 CFR 180.516 be
amended to remove established
tolerances for the residues of
fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3carbonitrile] in or on the raw
agricultural commodities: Carrots at 7.0
ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05
ppm; dragon fruit at 1.0 ppm; leaf
petioles subgroup 4B at 15 ppm; leafy
greens subgroup 4A at 30 ppm; longan
at 20 ppm; lychee at 20 ppm; melon
subgroup 9A at 0.03 ppm; safflower,
seed at 0.01 ppm; Spanish lime at 20
ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.01 ppm;
vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.01 ppm;
vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 6.0
ppm. The analytical method uses
Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG–
597B. This method has passed an EPA
petition method validation for several
commodities, which is currently the
enforcement method for fludioxonil.
Contact: RD.
2. PP 0E8862. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–
0603). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR–4), Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to establish a tolerance
in 40 CFR part 180.677 for residues of
the insecticide cyflumetofen, 2methoxyethyl a-cyano-a-[4-(1,1dimethylethyl)phenyl]-b-oxo-2(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate in
or on Hop, dried cones at 30 parts per
million (ppm). The ‘‘Method for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 24, 2021
Jkt 253001
Determination of Residues of
Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and its
Metabolites in Plant Matrices Using LC–
MS/MS; BASF Analytical Method
Number: D1003; Dated: September 26,
2011’’ and ‘‘Independent Laboratory
Validation of BASF Method D1003 for
BAS 9210 I and B–1 in Hops using LC–
MS/MS; Author: Nadzeya Homazava, 13
June 2017.’’ BASF Doc ID 2017/1002961
are used to measure and evaluate the
chemical. Contact: RD.
3. PP 0F8853. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–
0375). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180 for residues of the
herbicide, bicyclopyrone in or on
banana at 0.01 parts per million (ppm);
broccoli at 0.01 ppm; garlic, bulb at 0.02
ppm; hops, dried cones at 0.04 ppm;
horseradish at 0.015 ppm; onion, bulb:
0.02 ppm, onion, green at 0.05 ppm;
papaya at 0.01 ppm; plantains at 0.01
ppm; strawberry at 0.01 ppm; sweet
potato, roots at 0.02 ppm; timothy,
forage at 0.9 ppm; timothy, hay at 1.5
ppm; and watermelon at 0.01 ppm. The
Analytical methods GRM030.05A,
GRM030.05B, GRM030.08A is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical
bicyclopyrone. Contact: RD.
4. PP 0F8855. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–
0607). Bayer CropScience, 800 N
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167
requests to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180.661 for residues of the
fungicide fluopyram (N-[2-[3-chloro-5(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) in or on
coffee at 0.03 parts per million (ppm).
High performance liquid
chromatography-electrospray
ionization/tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical fluopyram.
Contact: RD
5. PP 0F8858. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–
0020). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide, fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3carbonitrile] in or on tree nut crop group
14–12, except pistachios at 0.2 parts per
million (ppm) and almond hulls at 15
ppm. The analytical method uses
Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG–
597B. This method has passed an EPA
petition method validation for several
commodities, which is currently the
enforcement method for fludioxonil.
Contact: RD.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: February 12, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and
Resources Management Division, Office of
Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021–03714 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 20–36; FCC 20–156; FRS
17403]
Unlicensed White Space Device
Operations in the Television Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on the use
of a terrain-based propagation model
such as Longley-Rice for determining
white space channel availability and
seeks to develop a record on whether or
not to implement such a model. In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the effect use of such a
model would have on availability of
channels for white space devices, how
a terrain-based model such as LongleyRice could be implemented within the
current white space device framework,
the technical parameters necessary to
use such a model for identifying
available spectrum while protecting
incumbents from harmful interference,
and various database and device
implementation issues.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
March 29, 2021; reply comments are
due on or before April 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ET Docket No. 20–36, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, 202–418–7506,
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
This is a
summary of the Commission’s further
notice of proposed rulemaking
(FNPRM), in ET Docket No. 20–36, FCC
20–156, adopted on October 27, 2020,
and released on October 28, 2020. The
full text of this document is available for
public inspection and can be
downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/
document/fcc-increases-unlicensedwireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0 or
by using the search function for ET
Docket No. 20–36 on the Commission’s
ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis
1. Discussion. The Commission
addresses Dynamic Spectrum Alliance,
Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA), and Public
Interest Spectrum Coalition arguments
that the Commission should determine
white space channel availability using a
terrain-based model, such as the
Longley-Rice Irregular Terrain Model
(Longley-Rice model), which they assert
will determine channel availability
more accurately than the current
contour-based model used by the
Commission. For example, a terrainbased model could permit a white space
device to deploy at a location where the
television signal is shielded by a large
hill or mountain, whereas the existing
methodology does not account for such
shielding. National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) and Sennheiser,
however, oppose using the Longley-Rice
model due to concerns about its
accuracy in protecting TV receivers and
because it may slow operation of the
white space database.
2. Current protection model. Under
current rules, white space devices must
generally operate outside the defined
co-channel and adjacent channel
television station protected contours.
The rules provide a table of separation
distances beyond the protected contour
that white space devices must meet that
is based on the white space device’s
equivalent isotropic radiated power
(EIRP) and height above average terrain
(HAAT). These distances are based on a
desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio
of 23 dB at the edge of the protected
contour for co-channel operation, and
¥33 dB at the edge of the protected
contour for adjacent channel operation,
with a 14 dB allowance for TV receive
antenna front-to-back ratio. The
distances were calculated using the
F(50,10) curves for separation distances
of greater than 15 kilometers, the
F(50,50) curves for separation distances
of 1.5 to 15 kilometers, and the TM–91–
1 model for separation distances of less
than 1.5 kilometers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 24, 2021
Jkt 253001
3. Longley-Rice model. The LongleyRice model is used to make predictions
of radio signal field strength using the
median attenuation calculated as a
function of distance and the signal
variability in time and space. The model
can be run in point-to-point mode
where it examines a specific radio signal
path between a transmitter and a
receiver, or in area mode in which it
predicts field strength at many
geographic points within a specified
area. Each operational mode uses a
terrain elevation profile in making
predictions; in the point-to-point mode
path-specific parameters can be
determined from the terrain profile
between the transmitter and receiver,
and in area mode the elevation profile
between the transmitter and each
specific reception point is examined.
The model may require a large number
of reception points to be individually
examined. It also requires a large set of
input parameters encompassing system
parameters (e.g., frequency,
polarization, antenna heights),
environmental parameters (e.g., terrain
irregularity, electrical ground constants,
surface refractivity, climate
information), deployment parameters,
and statistical parameters (e.g.,
reliability and confidence level). Based
on the predicted radio signal
attenuation and using additional factors
such as transmitter power and antenna
directivity, the D/U signal ratio can be
estimated and compared against the 23
dB co-channel and ¥33 dB adjacent
channel standards used as the basis
when developing the white space device
rules to predict whether harmful
interference is likely to occur to
television reception.
4. The Longley-Rice model can be
implemented using a variety of
methodologies. For example, the area
subject to calculation can be divided
into rectangular cells, e.g., a 1-by-1
kilometer grid, and the field strength
predictions are calculated at a point in
each cell, such as the geographic center
or the population centroid. The
Commission notes that as computing
power has increased over the years, it is
most common to execute the model in
point-to-point mode and use a batch
process to evaluate each grid cell within
a specified area. Nevertheless, the
Commission seeks comment on various
implementations for white space device
evaluation which include both area and
point to point mode as it is concerned
about the available processing power,
capabilities and time requirements to
run many simultaneous batch processes
to evaluate a large number of white
space devices that may query the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11491
database for available channel
information at the same time. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should specify a specific operational
mode and how the model should be
implemented under a specific mode or
both operational modes.
5. As a threshold matter, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
using a terrain-based model, and in
particular the Longley-Rice model,
would better serve the white space
device community as well as television
broadcasters and other protected entities
in the television bands. Commenters
should specify the pros and cons of
their preferred approach as it relates
either to the Commission’s existing
contour method or other terrain-based
propagation models. The Commission
seeks comment on how the LongleyRice model could be used to determine
available white space channels. Would
it be used only to determine if a white
space device at a specific geographic
location and power level meets the coand adjacent channel D/U ratios? Or
should the propagation model be used
for wider applicability such as for
determining separation distances
necessary to ensure other protected
entities such as licensed wireless
microphones, television translator
receive sites, cable headends, and land
mobile stations do not experience
harmful interference? In such cases,
what criteria should be used to
determine the protection distances?
Should D/U ratios be used here too, or
some other metric such as an
interference-to-noise ratio? Commenters
should provide detailed technical
reasoning regarding how the metric they
support achieves the necessary
protection levels. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the propagation model can be used to
determine which areas are ‘‘less
congested’’ and thus subject to more
flexible rules. In this case, what criteria
should be used as the basis for
determining a ‘‘less congested’’ area as
it relates to use of the propagation
model? Could using the Longley-Rice
propagation model for this purpose
permit additional areas to be designated
as ‘‘less congested’’ to provide more
flexibility for white space devices?
Similarly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the propagation
model can be applied not only to fixed
white space devices, but also to
personal/portable, mobile and
narrowband IoT white space devices. In
each context, are there specific
provisions required for how the model
is implemented to account for the
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
11492
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
different white space device operational
modes and use cases?
6. What mode—point-to-point or
area—is appropriate for each situation?
For fixed white space devices, it would
seem intuitive to use the point-to-point
mode to examine a specific radio path
to the television station contour.
However, the Commission seeks
comment on what specific path should
be examined—the shortest path to the
contour or possibly a different path
where the white space device and
television contour are further apart, but
due to terrain shielding effects, may
have less attenuation. How would each
path be determined and how many
specific paths would need to be
evaluated before a determination can be
made as to whether a channel is
available for white space device use? Or
would it be better to run the propagation
model in area mode to determine the
points along the television contour with
the highest co- and adjacent channel D/
U ratios and then run the model again
in point-to-point mode for those specific
transmission paths? Should a D/U
threshold be set to determine which
paths need further examination? If so,
how close to the 23 dB co-channel and
¥33 dB adjacent channel thresholds do
they need to be? And if an initial area
mode calculation must be performed,
what grid size is appropriate and what
point within each grid cell should be
used for analysis purposes? Using
similar logic, how could the model be
applied to determine ‘‘less congested’’
areas and operating locations for
personal/portable, mobile or
narrowband white space devices?
Should it be run only in area mode or
must additional point-to-point
calculations also be performed?
Commenters should provide detail
regarding how the model can be applied
to each of the situations likely to be
encountered for various white space
device types.
7. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Longley-Rice
model would always determine the
same or shorter separation distances
from a TV contour than the current
model, or whether there are cases where
it could require greater separation
distances, and therefore reduce white
space device channel availability. How
justified are the concerns expressed by
the NAB regarding the use of the
Longley-Rice model to protect television
reception? NAB argues that the LongleyRice model requires transmitter and
receiver locations to be known with
precision, while television receiver
locations are not reflected in any
database and cannot be passively
detected, and that current television
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 24, 2021
Jkt 253001
receiver protection requirements for
white space devices are not overly
conservative or based on worst-case
assumptions. The Commission seeks
comment on NAB’s assertions.
Commenters that favor use of the
Longley-Rice model should provide
specific reasons regarding how NAB’s
concerns can be addressed.
8. The Commission further seeks
comment on whether the Longley-Rice
model should be the exclusive means of
determining white space channel
availability, or whether it should be an
optional alternative to the current
protection model. As an alternative
model, would it be more appropriate to
use the Longley-Rice model in
combination with other propagation
models in some circumstances such as
the Commission requires for 6 GHz
unlicensed devices, where different
propagation models are specified at
different distances? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Longley-Rice model can or should
be used for modeling the TV coverage
itself, and therefore possibly allowing
white space device operation within a
TV protected contour as calculated
using the F(50,90) curves so long as the
minimum D/U ratios are met.
9. The Commission also seeks
comment on the technical requirements
that need to be specified if the
Commission permits the use of the
Longley-Rice model. What inputs are
necessary for using the model in either
point-to-point mode or area mode for
each white space device type, potential
use situation as well as for determining
‘‘less congested’’ areas and protection
distances for each type of protected
entity? Which of these inputs should be
specified by rule and which can be
determined either by the white space
device operator or the database?
Commenters should be as specific as
possible regarding their preference for
input parameters and provide
engineering justification for those
preferences. What grid size and which
location within each grid cell should be
used for determining white space
channel availability?
10. The Commission further seeks
comment on the terrain database that
should be used with the Longley-Rice
model or any alternative terrain-based
model that the Commission specifies.
Should the Commission require the use
of a particular terrain database, such as
one based on 3-arc second data or 1-arc
second data? Should the Commission
instead simply specify some minimum
criteria for a terrain database, e.g.,
granularity, and allow the use of any
terrain database that meets or exceeds
that criteria?
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11. Model Implementation. The
Commission seeks comment on the
various implementation factors that
must be considered if the Commission
adopts rules to allow the use of the
Longley-Rice model or another terrainbased propagation model. As an initial
matter, the white space database
administrator would need time to
implement this change to its system.
How long should the Commission
provide for the database administrator
to implement these necessary changes?
What type of testing should be
performed to ensure that a white space
database using a terrain-based model
provides accurate results? Should the
Commission perform its own testing or
should it require public testing as it did
when initially designating white space
database administrators? The
Commission also seeks comment on any
effect that these changes might have on
database and network performance. If
the amount of overhead data necessary
to use the Longley-Rice model
significantly increases over what is
necessary under the existing rules,
would the result be slower response
times as Sennheiser suggests? If so,
would this detrimentally affect the
utility of white space devices? Would
such changes affect the capacity of the
database to handle large numbers of
white space devices simultaneously?
12. Are changes needed to white
space devices if the database is modified
to base channel availability on the
Longley-Rice model? Does the
information sent from white space
devices to the database need to change
from the data set currently sent? If so,
could all existing devices be updated? If
not, how should the database deal with
devices that can send the necessary data
and those that cannot? Should the
Commission require that devices be
updated within a specific time period?
What should that time period be?
Would any of the needed changes to a
white space device affect its emissions
and necessitate a change to its
equipment authorization records?
13. How would the database using the
Longley-Rice model account for any
device location uncertainty? What
actions should be taken if the
propagation model determines that an
existing operational white space device
on a specific channel based on current
protection distances no longer meets the
D/U ratios after performing the required
calculations? Should that device no
longer be permitted to operate on that
channel at its current power level or
could the existing separation distances
specified in the rules be considered a
safe harbor for operations?
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
14. The operational changes and
effects of implementing the LongleyRice model for determining white space
device channel availability range from
technical and modelling considerations
to specific model implementation
factors to database and device matters.
The Commission asks that commenters
comprehensively examine all aspects of
the rule changes that would be needed
and the effect they would have if it were
to modify the white space device rules
to specify use of the Longley-Rice model
rather than the current contour-based
method of protecting television stations
and other protected entities in the TV
bands.
Procedural Matters
15. Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis. This document contains new
or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or
modified information collection
requirements contained in this
proceeding. In addition, the
Commission note that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific
comment on how the Commission might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities of
the proposals addressed in this FNPRM.
The Full IRFA is found in Appendix D
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccincreases-unlicensed-wirelessoperations-tv-white-spaces-0. Written
public comments are requested on the
IRFA. These comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM,
and they should have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA. The
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of
this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
17. The Commission requests written
public comment on the IRFA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 24, 2021
Jkt 253001
Comments must be filed in accordance
with the same filing deadlines as
comments filed in response to the
FNPRM and must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA. The
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of
this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
18. Ex Parte Presentations. The
proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall
be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
19. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to
§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11493
comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
20. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
Ordering Clauses
21. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201, 302, and
303 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a,
303, that this further notice of proposed
rulemaking is hereby adopted.
22. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this further notice of proposed
rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
11494
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–03437 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Feb 24, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11490-11494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03437]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 20-36; FCC 20-156; FRS 17403]
Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the use of a
terrain-based propagation model such as Longley-Rice for determining
white space channel availability and seeks to develop a record on
whether or not to implement such a model. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the effect use of such a model would have on
availability of channels for white space devices, how a terrain-based
model such as Longley-Rice could be implemented within the current
white space device framework, the technical parameters necessary to use
such a model for identifying available spectrum while protecting
incumbents from harmful interference, and various database and device
implementation issues.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 29, 2021; reply comments are
due on or before April 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 20-36,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, 202-418-7506, [email protected].
[[Page 11491]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), in ET Docket No. 20-36,
FCC 20-156, adopted on October 27, 2020, and released on October 28,
2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
and can be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-increases-unlicensed-wireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0 or by using the search
function for ET Docket No. 20-36 on the Commission's ECFS web page at
www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Synopsis
1. Discussion. The Commission addresses Dynamic Spectrum Alliance,
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), and Public
Interest Spectrum Coalition arguments that the Commission should
determine white space channel availability using a terrain-based model,
such as the Longley-Rice Irregular Terrain Model (Longley-Rice model),
which they assert will determine channel availability more accurately
than the current contour-based model used by the Commission. For
example, a terrain-based model could permit a white space device to
deploy at a location where the television signal is shielded by a large
hill or mountain, whereas the existing methodology does not account for
such shielding. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and
Sennheiser, however, oppose using the Longley-Rice model due to
concerns about its accuracy in protecting TV receivers and because it
may slow operation of the white space database.
2. Current protection model. Under current rules, white space
devices must generally operate outside the defined co-channel and
adjacent channel television station protected contours. The rules
provide a table of separation distances beyond the protected contour
that white space devices must meet that is based on the white space
device's equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and height above
average terrain (HAAT). These distances are based on a desired-to-
undesired (D/U) signal ratio of 23 dB at the edge of the protected
contour for co-channel operation, and -33 dB at the edge of the
protected contour for adjacent channel operation, with a 14 dB
allowance for TV receive antenna front-to-back ratio. The distances
were calculated using the F(50,10) curves for separation distances of
greater than 15 kilometers, the F(50,50) curves for separation
distances of 1.5 to 15 kilometers, and the TM-91-1 model for separation
distances of less than 1.5 kilometers.
3. Longley-Rice model. The Longley-Rice model is used to make
predictions of radio signal field strength using the median attenuation
calculated as a function of distance and the signal variability in time
and space. The model can be run in point-to-point mode where it
examines a specific radio signal path between a transmitter and a
receiver, or in area mode in which it predicts field strength at many
geographic points within a specified area. Each operational mode uses a
terrain elevation profile in making predictions; in the point-to-point
mode path-specific parameters can be determined from the terrain
profile between the transmitter and receiver, and in area mode the
elevation profile between the transmitter and each specific reception
point is examined. The model may require a large number of reception
points to be individually examined. It also requires a large set of
input parameters encompassing system parameters (e.g., frequency,
polarization, antenna heights), environmental parameters (e.g., terrain
irregularity, electrical ground constants, surface refractivity,
climate information), deployment parameters, and statistical parameters
(e.g., reliability and confidence level). Based on the predicted radio
signal attenuation and using additional factors such as transmitter
power and antenna directivity, the D/U signal ratio can be estimated
and compared against the 23 dB co-channel and -33 dB adjacent channel
standards used as the basis when developing the white space device
rules to predict whether harmful interference is likely to occur to
television reception.
4. The Longley-Rice model can be implemented using a variety of
methodologies. For example, the area subject to calculation can be
divided into rectangular cells, e.g., a 1-by-1 kilometer grid, and the
field strength predictions are calculated at a point in each cell, such
as the geographic center or the population centroid. The Commission
notes that as computing power has increased over the years, it is most
common to execute the model in point-to-point mode and use a batch
process to evaluate each grid cell within a specified area.
Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on various implementations
for white space device evaluation which include both area and point to
point mode as it is concerned about the available processing power,
capabilities and time requirements to run many simultaneous batch
processes to evaluate a large number of white space devices that may
query the database for available channel information at the same time.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should specify a specific
operational mode and how the model should be implemented under a
specific mode or both operational modes.
5. As a threshold matter, the Commission seeks comment on whether
using a terrain-based model, and in particular the Longley-Rice model,
would better serve the white space device community as well as
television broadcasters and other protected entities in the television
bands. Commenters should specify the pros and cons of their preferred
approach as it relates either to the Commission's existing contour
method or other terrain-based propagation models. The Commission seeks
comment on how the Longley-Rice model could be used to determine
available white space channels. Would it be used only to determine if a
white space device at a specific geographic location and power level
meets the co- and adjacent channel D/U ratios? Or should the
propagation model be used for wider applicability such as for
determining separation distances necessary to ensure other protected
entities such as licensed wireless microphones, television translator
receive sites, cable headends, and land mobile stations do not
experience harmful interference? In such cases, what criteria should be
used to determine the protection distances? Should D/U ratios be used
here too, or some other metric such as an interference-to-noise ratio?
Commenters should provide detailed technical reasoning regarding how
the metric they support achieves the necessary protection levels. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the propagation model
can be used to determine which areas are ``less congested'' and thus
subject to more flexible rules. In this case, what criteria should be
used as the basis for determining a ``less congested'' area as it
relates to use of the propagation model? Could using the Longley-Rice
propagation model for this purpose permit additional areas to be
designated as ``less congested'' to provide more flexibility for white
space devices? Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
propagation model can be applied not only to fixed white space devices,
but also to personal/portable, mobile and narrowband IoT white space
devices. In each context, are there specific provisions required for
how the model is implemented to account for the
[[Page 11492]]
different white space device operational modes and use cases?
6. What mode--point-to-point or area--is appropriate for each
situation? For fixed white space devices, it would seem intuitive to
use the point-to-point mode to examine a specific radio path to the
television station contour. However, the Commission seeks comment on
what specific path should be examined--the shortest path to the contour
or possibly a different path where the white space device and
television contour are further apart, but due to terrain shielding
effects, may have less attenuation. How would each path be determined
and how many specific paths would need to be evaluated before a
determination can be made as to whether a channel is available for
white space device use? Or would it be better to run the propagation
model in area mode to determine the points along the television contour
with the highest co- and adjacent channel D/U ratios and then run the
model again in point-to-point mode for those specific transmission
paths? Should a D/U threshold be set to determine which paths need
further examination? If so, how close to the 23 dB co-channel and -33
dB adjacent channel thresholds do they need to be? And if an initial
area mode calculation must be performed, what grid size is appropriate
and what point within each grid cell should be used for analysis
purposes? Using similar logic, how could the model be applied to
determine ``less congested'' areas and operating locations for
personal/portable, mobile or narrowband white space devices? Should it
be run only in area mode or must additional point-to-point calculations
also be performed? Commenters should provide detail regarding how the
model can be applied to each of the situations likely to be encountered
for various white space device types.
7. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice
model would always determine the same or shorter separation distances
from a TV contour than the current model, or whether there are cases
where it could require greater separation distances, and therefore
reduce white space device channel availability. How justified are the
concerns expressed by the NAB regarding the use of the Longley-Rice
model to protect television reception? NAB argues that the Longley-Rice
model requires transmitter and receiver locations to be known with
precision, while television receiver locations are not reflected in any
database and cannot be passively detected, and that current television
receiver protection requirements for white space devices are not overly
conservative or based on worst-case assumptions. The Commission seeks
comment on NAB's assertions. Commenters that favor use of the Longley-
Rice model should provide specific reasons regarding how NAB's concerns
can be addressed.
8. The Commission further seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice
model should be the exclusive means of determining white space channel
availability, or whether it should be an optional alternative to the
current protection model. As an alternative model, would it be more
appropriate to use the Longley-Rice model in combination with other
propagation models in some circumstances such as the Commission
requires for 6 GHz unlicensed devices, where different propagation
models are specified at different distances? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the Longley-Rice model can or should be used
for modeling the TV coverage itself, and therefore possibly allowing
white space device operation within a TV protected contour as
calculated using the F(50,90) curves so long as the minimum D/U ratios
are met.
9. The Commission also seeks comment on the technical requirements
that need to be specified if the Commission permits the use of the
Longley-Rice model. What inputs are necessary for using the model in
either point-to-point mode or area mode for each white space device
type, potential use situation as well as for determining ``less
congested'' areas and protection distances for each type of protected
entity? Which of these inputs should be specified by rule and which can
be determined either by the white space device operator or the
database? Commenters should be as specific as possible regarding their
preference for input parameters and provide engineering justification
for those preferences. What grid size and which location within each
grid cell should be used for determining white space channel
availability?
10. The Commission further seeks comment on the terrain database
that should be used with the Longley-Rice model or any alternative
terrain-based model that the Commission specifies. Should the
Commission require the use of a particular terrain database, such as
one based on 3-arc second data or 1-arc second data? Should the
Commission instead simply specify some minimum criteria for a terrain
database, e.g., granularity, and allow the use of any terrain database
that meets or exceeds that criteria?
11. Model Implementation. The Commission seeks comment on the
various implementation factors that must be considered if the
Commission adopts rules to allow the use of the Longley-Rice model or
another terrain-based propagation model. As an initial matter, the
white space database administrator would need time to implement this
change to its system. How long should the Commission provide for the
database administrator to implement these necessary changes? What type
of testing should be performed to ensure that a white space database
using a terrain-based model provides accurate results? Should the
Commission perform its own testing or should it require public testing
as it did when initially designating white space database
administrators? The Commission also seeks comment on any effect that
these changes might have on database and network performance. If the
amount of overhead data necessary to use the Longley-Rice model
significantly increases over what is necessary under the existing
rules, would the result be slower response times as Sennheiser
suggests? If so, would this detrimentally affect the utility of white
space devices? Would such changes affect the capacity of the database
to handle large numbers of white space devices simultaneously?
12. Are changes needed to white space devices if the database is
modified to base channel availability on the Longley-Rice model? Does
the information sent from white space devices to the database need to
change from the data set currently sent? If so, could all existing
devices be updated? If not, how should the database deal with devices
that can send the necessary data and those that cannot? Should the
Commission require that devices be updated within a specific time
period? What should that time period be? Would any of the needed
changes to a white space device affect its emissions and necessitate a
change to its equipment authorization records?
13. How would the database using the Longley-Rice model account for
any device location uncertainty? What actions should be taken if the
propagation model determines that an existing operational white space
device on a specific channel based on current protection distances no
longer meets the D/U ratios after performing the required calculations?
Should that device no longer be permitted to operate on that channel at
its current power level or could the existing separation distances
specified in the rules be considered a safe harbor for operations?
[[Page 11493]]
14. The operational changes and effects of implementing the
Longley-Rice model for determining white space device channel
availability range from technical and modelling considerations to
specific model implementation factors to database and device matters.
The Commission asks that commenters comprehensively examine all aspects
of the rule changes that would be needed and the effect they would have
if it were to modify the white space device rules to specify use of the
Longley-Rice model rather than the current contour-based method of
protecting television stations and other protected entities in the TV
bands.
Procedural Matters
15. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section
3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies
will be invited to comment on the new or modified information
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the
Commission note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the
proposals addressed in this FNPRM. The Full IRFA is found in Appendix D
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-increases-unlicensed-wireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
17. The Commission requests written public comment on the IRFA.
Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
comments filed in response to the FNPRM and must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
18. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
19. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
20. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Ordering Clauses
21. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201,
302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 201, 302a, 303, that this further notice of proposed rulemaking
is hereby adopted.
22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the
[[Page 11494]]
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03437 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
