[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76282-76295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29688]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 27 and 73
[GN Docket No. 12-268; ET Docket Nos. 13-26 and 14-14; FCC 14-157]
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Through Incentive Auctions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on proposed rules to govern the
interference relationship between broadcast television and wireless
service in the 600 MHz Band following the incentive auction. The
Commission anticipates that after the auction some broadcast television
stations may operate on channels in the 600 MHz Band as a result of
market variation. The Commission proposes to allow no harmful
interference from wireless operations to reception of television
service; the Commission proposes to require wireless licensees to use
proposed OET Bulletin No. 74 (OET-74) before deploying base stations;
and seeks comment on how the ISIX Methodology and inputs adopted in the
companion Second Report & Order can be adapted to predict inter-service
interference between wireless services and analog television stations
in Canada and Mexico, for purposes of identifying license impairments
during the auction. In addition, the Commission proposes not to permit
broadcast licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band to expand their
noise-limited or protected contours if doing so would increase the
potential for interference to a wireless licensee's service area.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 21, 2015, and reply
comments must be filed on or before February 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12-268
and ET Docket Nos. 13-26 and 14-14, by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Email: [Optional: Include the Email address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
[ssquf] Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM
[[Page 76283]]
submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office. Do not include
the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
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: Aspasia Paroutsas, Office of
Engineering and Technology, 202-418-7285, [email protected],
TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket
no. 12-268 and ET Docket No. 13-26 and 14-14; FCC 14-157, adopted
October 16, 2014, and released October 17, 2014. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
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).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 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.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
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).
Summary of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM), the
Commission seeks comment on proposed rules to govern the interference
relationship between broadcast television and wireless service in the
600 MHz Band following the incentive auction. As discussed in the
companion Second Report & Order, the Commission anticipates that after
the auction some broadcast television stations may operate on channels
in the 600 MHz Band as a result of market variation. The Commission
proposes to allow no harmful interference from wireless operations to
reception of television service. There are two scenarios that present
the potential for harmful interference to television stations,
depending on whether a station is assigned to the 600 MHz Band downlink
or uplink spectrum. First, if a station is located in the downlink
spectrum, we will need to protect against harmful interference from
wireless base stations to TV receivers (Case 3). Second, if a station
is located in the uplink spectrum, the Commission will need to consider
interference from wireless user equipment to TV receivers (Case 4). As
an initial matter, this FNPRM addresses the level of inter-service
interference to television stations in the 600 MHz Band that should be
permitted. The Commission also proposes a methodology for new 600 MHz
Band licensees to predict whether wireless operations will interfere
with television stations in the 600 MHz Band in order to identify the
``permitted boundaries'' of wireless license areas following the
auction. Specifically, for Case 3 scenarios, the Commission seeks
comment on requiring wireless licensees to use proposed OET Bulletin
No. 74 (OET-74). For Case 4 scenarios, the Commission proposes to adopt
the same fixed separation distances adopted in the companion Second
Report & Order for use in the incentive auction. In the event that
wireless operations actually cause harmful interference to television
reception in the 600 MHz Band where interference was not predicted to
occur, we also propose to require wireless providers to take action to
eliminate the interference.
2. The Commission also seeks comment in this FNPRM on procedures to
prevent inter-service interference following the incentive auction. It
proposes to require wireless providers to analyze potential
interference to any co-channel or adjacent channel television station
in the 600 MHz Band within a set distance using the methodology in OET-
74 before deploying base stations, regardless of whether the wireless
license area was identified as ``impaired'' in the auction. The
Commission also proposes to allow broadcast television stations in the
600 MHz Band to modify their facilities only to the degree that doing
so does not extend their contours in the direction of a co-channel or
adjacent-channel 600 MHz Band wireless license area within a set
distance.
3. This FNPRM also seeks comment on how the ISIX Methodology and
inputs adopted in the companion Second Report & Order for predicting
interference to wireless operations from television stations (Cases 1
and 2) should be modified to predict harmful interference that LPTV and
TV translator stations may cause to 600 MHz Band wireless service as it
is deployed following the auction. Further, the Commission proposes to
allow new 600 MHz Band wireless licensees that intend to deploy
facilities during the 39-month Post Auction Transition Period to use
the ISIX Methodology and inputs, as detailed in the proposed OET-74, to
determine whether there is any potential for harmful interference to a
television station that has not yet cleared its pre-auction channel in
the 600 MHz Band.
4. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how the ISIX
Methodology and inputs adopted in the companion Second Report & Order
can be adapted to predict inter-service interference between wireless
services and analog television stations in Canada and Mexico, for
purposes of identifying license impairments during the auction.
[[Page 76284]]
Protecting Television Stations in the 600 MHz Band From Inter-Service
Interference
Proposed Threshold for Interference From Wireless Operations to
Television Stations in the 600 MHz Band
5. The Commission proposes to establish a zero percent threshold
for harmful interference. Under this approach, 600 MHz Band wireless
licensees would not be permitted to cause harmful interference within
the service area of a full power station or the protected contour of a
Class A station, to the degree it affects population within that
service area or protected contour.
6. The Commission proposes this threshold for a number of reasons.
First, a different, more cautious approach may be warranted than in the
context of preventing harmful interference between television stations
because this will be the first time such proposed methodology is used.
Second, the Commission does not believe that a zero percent
interference threshold would undermine the goals for the incentive
auction. Third, the Commission is concerned that there is a potential
for significant aggregate new interference from wireless operations to
television stations if it set a de minimis threshold. The is no safety
valve measures available to address aggregate wireless interference
like they are in addressing aggregate television-to-television
interference, and the risk of significant levels of new aggregate
wireless interference is higher. Six megahertz channels in the
television bands are aligned, and only a limited number of television
stations can operate on the same or adjacent channels in nearby areas.
In contrast, varying degrees of spectral overlap between six-megahertz
television channels and five-megahertz wireless spectrum blocks in the
600 MHz Band, along with the different technical facilities employed by
television and wireless services, create the potential for multiple co-
and adjacent-channel relationships between television stations and
wireless operations in the 600 MHz Band in the same or nearby
geographic areas. Fourth, the Commission does not think that an
aggregate threshold for interference to television stations from
wireless operations would be either feasible or practical. For these
reasons, the Commission proposes a zero percent threshold for
interference from wireless operations to television stations following
the incentive auction.
7. In the event that interference is predicted between television
stations assigned in the 600 MHz Band, the Commission proposes to treat
that interference as ``masking interference'' in evaluating wireless
interference to a television station. That is, in a grid cell where
masking interference to one television station from another is
predicted to occur, the Commission proposes to ignore the inter-service
interference from the wireless operations. This approach would be
consistent with the treatment of interference between television
stations under the rules. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
Proposed Methodology and Inputs for Predicting Interference to
Television Stations in the 600 MHz Band From Wireless Operations
Case 3: Interference From Wireless Base Stations to Television Stations
Assigned to the 600 MHz Downlink Spectrum
8. If television stations are assigned to the 600 MHz Band downlink
spectrum, the Commission proposes to (1) prohibit a wireless licensee
from operating base stations within the contour of a co-channel or
adjacent-channel DTV station and (2) require the wireless licensee to
use the proposed OET-74 to predict interference to such station's
service prior to deploying wireless base stations within a specified
culling distance of the station's contour. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. The culling distances proposed are based on the
spectral overlap between wireless operations and broadcast television
operations, and the power and antenna height of wireless base stations.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the specific
distances proposed in OET-74. Because there is the potential for
impairments in any license that is co-channel or adjacent channel with
a broadcast television station, the Commission proposes to apply these
requirements to all wireless operations within the culling distance
that are co-channel or adjacent channel to a broadcast television
station, regardless of whether the wireless licensee's spectrum block
was identified as ``impaired'' in the auction.
9. The proposed methodology and input values for predicting
interference from a wireless base station into DTV service are set
forth in detail in the proposed OET-74. The OET-74 methodology is
similar to the ISIX Methodology for Case 3 adopted in the companion
Second Report & Order, but instead of a placement of hypothetical
wireless base stations and the associated technical parameters,
wireless providers would be required to use the actual technical
parameters of their base stations. The Commission proposes to require
wireless providers planning co-channel or adjacent-channel operations
with any television stations in the 600 MHz Band downlink spectrum to
apply the OET-74 methodology using the actual location, HAAT, ERP, and
antenna pattern and orientation of their base stations prior to
deployment of such facilities within the specified culling distance of
a television station's contour. To provide wireless providers with
additional flexibility, the Commission also proposes to allow them to
elect to use omnidirectional patterns in their analyses rather than
actual antenna patterns, either in azimuth or elevation. The Commission
requests comment on this proposal.
10. The Commission proposes to incorporate the root sum square
(RSS) method into OET-74 to predict the potential for aggregate
interference to a television station from multiple wireless base
stations. As noted, broadcasters raise concerns with regard to the
potential for interfering LTE signals to combine at the point of DTV
signal reception, resulting in additional interference. In the Second
Report & Order, the Commission declined to apply the RSS method during
the auction because the predictions of inter-service interference will
be based on a hypothetical network deployment. In contrast, because
proposed OET-74 would be based on real-world network deployments, the
Commission believes that its accuracy would be improved by application
of RSS method. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to aggregate the
interfering field strength at the DTV receiver from the actual wireless
base stations to be deployed post-auction using the RSS method.
11. The Commission proposes to specify in OET-74 the same D/U and
OFR ratios adopted in the Second Report & Order for predicting
interference from wireless base stations to DTV reception during the
auction. For the reasons stated in the Second Report & Order, the
Commission believes the same values adopted there are appropriate to
use as the thresholds for predicting interference in the post-auction
environment. The Commission requests comment on this proposal.
12. The Commission proposes to require that a 600 MHz Band wireless
licensee perform an interference analysis using the methodology in OET-
74 prior to deploying a base station for co-channel or adjacent-channel
operations with the televisions stations within the set culling
distance. The Commission anticipates that wireless providers will use
their own network planning software to process the OET-
[[Page 76285]]
74 studies, but the Commission's TVStudy software would be made
available for this purpose as well. Before deploying a new base station
or making changes to existing base stations located within the
specified OET-74 culling distances for co-channel or adjacent-channel
operations with a television station, a wireless licensee would have to
update its interference analysis to ensure that the RSS evaluations are
up-to-date and accurate. The wireless licensee would be required to
retain the latest copy of its interference analysis for each co-channel
or adjacent-channel Partial Economic Area (PEA) license area where any
of its base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances
and make the analysis available to the Commission or a subject
television station upon request in cases where there are complaints of
interference either from the subject television station, a station
viewer or the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
Case 4: Interference From Wireless User Equipment to Broadcast
Television Stations Assigned to the 600 MHz Uplink Spectrum
13. If broadcast television stations are assigned to channels in
the 600 MHz Band uplink spectrum, the Commission proposes to restrict
wireless user equipment (i.e. mobile and portable devices) operating on
co-channel or adjacent-channel frequencies to areas outside the
separation distances from the DTV station contours adopted in the
Second Report & Order. First, for co-channel operations, the Commission
proposes to not allow wireless user equipment to operate within the
television station's contour and within five kilometers of that
contour. Second, for adjacent channel operations, the Commission
proposes to restrict user equipment operation within the contour of the
television station and within one-half kilometer of that contour. The
Commission proposes to limit the one-half kilometer restriction to the
first-adjacent channel; thus, wireless user equipment could be operated
anywhere within the contour of a broadcast television station if there
is a frequency separation of six megahertz or more between the wireless
spectrum block edge and a TV channel edge. The Commission seeks comment
on the proposals for protecting DTV service from harmful interference
caused by wireless user equipment. Wireless providers may meet the
distance requirements by limiting their coverage area to areas that are
at least five kilometers if co-channel with a broadcast television
station or one-half kilometer if they are adjacent channel outside the
noise-limited or protected contours of the broadcast television
station. Interested parties are also invited to submit suggestions for
alternative approaches for providing protection to broadcast television
service that would rely on methods other than pre-calculated separation
distances. Parties submitting such approaches should include technical
analyses and information describing how their suggested method would
adequately protect broadcast television services.
Proposed Obligation of Wireless Licensees To Eliminate Actual
Interference to Television Stations in the 600 MHz Band
14. While the Commission proposes to use a predictive model to
prevent inter-service interference to television stations based on
wireless base station deployments, it also proposes to require a
wireless licensee to eliminate any actual harmful interference to
television service in the 600 MHz Band, even if no harmful interference
is predicted. This proposed requirement will ensure that television
stations assigned to the 600 MHz Band are not detrimentally affected by
being co-channel or adjacent channel to wireless operations.
15. If a television station operating in the 600 MHz Band
experiences harmful interference, the Commission proposes that the
television station be required to contact the co-channel or adjacent-
channel wireless provider thought to be causing the interference to
resolve the issue. In the event of such contact, the Commission
proposes to require that the wireless licensee provide the television
station with the results of its OET-74 analysis demonstrating that no
harmful interference was predicted to occur in the specific geographic
area at issue. In the event that the parties do not reach resolution,
they can submit a claim of harmful interference to the Commission. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
Proposed Procedures To Prevent Inter-Service Interference
General Wireless Licensee Obligations
16. Given the proposed rules set forth in the FNPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on appropriate wireless licensee obligations, both with
respect to technical requirements and service rules. Specifically,
consistent with the guidance set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O,
the Commission proposes that a 600 MHz Band licensee will hold a
license for its entire PEA service area, but operations will be limited
to the portions of the license where the licensee will not cause
harmful interference to broadcast television stations assigned to the
600 MHz Band. Under this proposal, a wireless licensee will be allowed
to operate base stations at the power and out-of-band emission (OOBE)
limits authorized by the technical rules only within the areas where it
can demonstrate using the proposed OET-74 methodology and inputs that
it will not cause harmful interference to a television station, even if
the actual boundaries of the license area extend further (i.e., it may
not operate in ``restricted'' areas). As the Commission stated in the
Incentive Auction R&O, nothing in the rules prevents a wireless
provider from operating in a part of its service area in which it may
receive interference from broadcast operations (i.e., in an
``infringed'' area). The Commission seeks comment on the obligations of
600 MHz Band wireless licensees in operating in areas of their PEAs
with impairments.
17. As discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, 600 MHz Band
wireless licensees will be required to meet the 600 MHz Band interim
and final build-out requirements, except that they may show they are
unable to operate in areas where they may cause harmful interference to
the broadcast television stations that remain in the 600 MHz Band due
to market variation. The areas where a wireless licensee may operate
without causing harmful interference are the ``permitted boundaries''
of a license area. If a licensee is not able to serve its entire
license area, when it files its construction notification within 15
days of the relevant milestone certifying that it has met the
applicable performance benchmark within its permitted boundaries, the
licensee must demonstrate why certain areas are excluded from its
service area due to impairments. The Commission proposes to require
that wireless licensees use the ISIX Methodology adopted in the Second
Report & Order for prediction of interference in Cases 1, 2 and 4 and
the methodology in proposed OET Bulletin 74 for Case 3 to demonstrate
they cannot serve their entire PEA service area, among other evidence.
Further, as discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O, if the impairing
television station ceases to operate, the wireless licensee will be
permitted to use the entire license area, and will be obligated to
serve the area that was previously restricted in demonstrating that it
has met its buildout requirements.
18. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on any additional or
modified service rules that should be
[[Page 76286]]
applied to 600 MHz Band licensees to address the potential for inter-
service interference.
Broadcasters in the 600 MHz Band
19. Consistent with the guidance in the Incentive Auction R&O, the
Commission proposes not to permit broadcast licensees who operate in
the 600 MHz Band to expand their noise-limited or protected contours if
doing so would increase the potential for interference to a wireless
licensee's service area. At the same time, the Commission tentatively
concludes that broadcast television stations should be allowed to
demonstrate non-interference to a wireless licensee's service area by
showing that a proposed modification will not expand its contour in the
direction of a co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee. This
approach will ensure that wireless providers that acquire spectrum
through the forward auction can rely on the information available at
the time of the auction as to the existence and contours of a co-
channel or adjacent television station, and rely on their modeling
using OET Bulletin 74 for as long as the such television station is
operating. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
20. The contours of broadcast television stations that will be
reassigned to new channels in the 600 MHz Band as a result of the
repacking process will be specified in the Channel Reassignment PN. For
such stations to be able to engineer their modified facilities and
quickly transition to their new channels, in the Incentive Auction R&O
the Commission granted them a window filing priority to propose
transmission facilities in their initial construction permit
applications with up to a one percent coverage contour increase if
necessary to achieve the contour coverage specified in the Channel
Reassignment PN or to address loss of coverage area resulting from
their new channel assignment. Consistent with that decision, for
purposes of the proposal set forth immediately above, the Commission
proposes that the contours of such stations be deemed to be those
described in their initial construction permit for their new channel.
The impact on a wireless licensee of allowing stations reassigned to
channels in the 600 MHz Band such flexibility would be negligible
because a one percent increase is de minimis the increase may not be in
the direction of the wireless licensee, and the initial construction
applications must be filed within three months of release of the
Channel Reassignment PN. The Commission does not propose, however, that
these stations be permitted to file for further expanded facilities on
their new channels, unless they can demonstrate that the proposed
expanded facility will not increase their contour in the direction of a
wireless license area. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
Predicting Inter-Service Interference During the Post-Auction
Transition Period
Predicting Interference to New 600 MHz Band Licensees From LPTV
Stations and TV Translators for Notification Purposes
21. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission stated that during
the Post-Auction Transition Period new 600 MHz Band wireless licensees
intending to commences operations in areas of their licenses where
there is a likelihood of receiving harmful interference from an LPTV or
TV translator station, based ``on the methodology the Commission
adopted to prevent inter-service interference,'' must provide LPTV and
TV translator stations with advance notification that they will be
displaced. In the Second Report & Order, the Commission adopted the
ISIX Methodology and input values to predict interference from full
power and Class A television stations to wireless services during the
course of the auction.
22. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate modifications to
the ISIX Methodology to predict interference to 600 MHz Band wireless
operations from LPTV and TV Translators. First, the Commission seeks
comment on use of the field strength values below for predicting such
interference. The interference potential of LPTV and TV Translators
that have migrated their operations to digital is evaluated differently
from that of full power DTV stations under the rules. In particular,
the rules specify different values for the adjacent channel emissions
and elevation patterns of low power and full power DTV stations. The
Commission examined the effect of the different LPTV/TV translator
emission masks, however, and found that the field strength thresholds
of these masks and the full power television mask is no more than 1dB.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to use the same field strength
values as full power television for the interference thresholds of co-
channel and adjacent channel emissions for LPTV and TV translators to
wireless service in the ISIX Methodology. Those thresholds are based on
technical assumptions regarding the wireless receivers (both base
stations and user equipment) that appear respectively in Tables 5 and 6
in the ISIX PN, as well as Tables 3 and 4 in the Technical Appendix of
the Second Report and Order.
23. In addition, the Commission proposes to use the same elevation
patterns for LPTV and TV translators as those patterns appear in the
Consolidated Database System (CDBS). In the event the CDBS does not
include elevation pattern values for a given low power station, it
proposes to use the elevation patterns of LPTV and TV translators as
they are defined in Sec. 74.793(d) of the Commission's rules.
24. In the event a potentially interfering LPTV or TV translator
station is operating an analog signal, the Commission invites comment
on additional modifications to the methodology for predicting inter-
service interference that may be appropriate. One potential approach is
to use TVStudy's capability to ``replicate'' an analog signal as an
equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it were
operating in digital. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and
on any other potential approaches. In the event it uses the TVStudy
approach, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should treat the
interfering field strength of an analog television signal the same as
an interfering digital television signal.
Wireless Operations Prior to Broadcast Television Station Relocation
25. As set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O, wireless providers
may commence operations prior to the end of the 39-month Post-Auction
Transition Period, as soon as their licensed frequencies are vacated by
any full power or Class A television stations that occupied those
frequencies prior to the incentive auction. Because television stations
transitioning to new channels or going off the air may be operating on
different timetables under the rules established in the Incentive
Auction R&O, there is a potential for inter-service interference
between wireless providers that commence operations on frequencies that
have been vacated by a broadcast television station in their license
area or in part of their license area and broadcast television stations
in nearby markets that have not transitioned yet.
26. Accordingly, in the event that a wireless provider seeks to
commence operations prior to the end of the 39-month Post-Auction
Transition Period and there are co-channel or adjacent-channel
broadcast television stations in the wireless licensee's downlink
spectrum within the culling distances
[[Page 76287]]
specified in OET-74, the Commission proposes to require the wireless
provider to use OET-74 to predict whether wireless operations in its
license area or part of its license area will cause harmful
interference to the subject television stations. The wireless licensees
would be required to retain the latest copy of the OET-74 study for
each co-channel or adjacent-channel PEA license area where any of their
base stations fall within the specified OET-74 culling distances and
make it available to the Commission and to a subject television station
upon request if there are complaints of interference either from a
subject television station, a member of the public or the Commission.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
27. If there are co-channel or adjacent channel broadcast
television stations in the wireless licensee's uplink spectrum that
have not cleared their pre-auction channels, the Commission proposes to
require the wireless providers to ensure that their user equipment does
not operate in the contours and within five kilometers of the contour
when co-channel or within a half kilometer when adjacent channel. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Using the ISIX Methodology To Assess Interference From and to
International Broadcast Television Stations During the Auction
28. The Commission has engaged in extensive discussions with Canada
and Mexico to determine interference protection along the border areas.
At this time, both Canada and Mexico are transitioning their broadcast
services into digital in line with their regulatory requirements.
Because the timing of these transitions is under the control of the
administration of the respective countries, the Commission seeks
comment on using the ISIX Methodology and input values to identify
impairments to wireless spectrum along the international borders during
the auction.
29. As noted, the ISIX Methodology adopted in the companion Second
Report & Order item is not designed for analog signals. As Canada and
Mexico have not completed their digital transitions, the Commission
also seeks comment on implementing an approach similar to that proposed
above for predicting interference from analog LPTV to wireless service.
Specifically, in predicting interference to and from foreign analog
broadcast television stations along the international borders, it
proposes to use TVStudy's capability to ``replicate'' an analog signal
as an equivalent digital signal and analyze the station as though it
was operating as digital.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page
of this FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\2\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601--612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
31. The FNPRM addresses issues that arise from the Incentive
Auction R&O to repurpose a portion of the broadcast spectrum for new
wireless services and proposes rules governing the interference in the
600 MHz Band following the incentive auction.\4\ In the Incentive
Auction R&O, the Commission adopted a flexible band plan framework that
accommodates market variation.\5\ Market variation occurs where
broadcast stations remain on spectrum that is repurposed for wireless
broadband under the 600 MHz Band Plan.\6\ The FNPRM proposes rules for
the protection of broadcast services from wireless operations in the
600 MHz Band when co-channel or adjacent channel and for the protection
of wireless license areas from broadcast television stations seeking to
expand their contours. It proposes a methodology in OET Bulletin No. 74
for predicting when a wireless base station will cause interference to
a broadcast station. It proposes to require wireless user equipment to
operate outside of certain separation distances from the broadcast
station contours to avoid interference to television reception. In the
event that wireless operations actually cause harmful interference to
television reception in the 600 MHz Band where interference was not
predicted to occur, the FNPRM proposes to require wireless providers to
take action to eliminate the interference. The FNPRM seeks comment on
appropriate wireless licensee obligations, both with respect to
technical requirements and service rules. The FNPRM also proposes to
adopt the ISIX Methodology to predict whether LPTV or TV Translators
will cause interference to a wireless system in the 600 MHz Band. The
FNPRM also proposes use of the ISIX Methodology and inputs, as detailed
in the proposed OET-74, for ensuring that wireless services that are
deployed during the 39-month transition period do not cause
interference to broadcast television stations that have not yet
transitioned to their final channel assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, Report
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014) (Incentive Auction R&O).
\5\ Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6605, para. 82
(discussing how the 600 MHz Band Plan can accommodate market
variation to avoid restricting the amount of repurposed spectrum
that is available in most areas nationwide).
\6\ See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6604-6607, paras.
81-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Legal Basis
32. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 6403, 6404, and 6407
of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law
112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309,
310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 1404, 1452, and 1454.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
33. 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 proposed rules, if adopted.\7\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' \8\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\9\ A small
[[Page 76288]]
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 SBA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\10\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound. These establishments operate television
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.'' \11\ The SBA has created the
following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting
firms: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.\12\ The
Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,388.\13\ In addition, according to Commission staff
review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television
Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial
television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $38.5
million or less.\14\ We therefore estimate that the majority of
commercial television broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 515120
Television Broadcasting, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515120&search=2012 (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
\12\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated for inflation
in 2010).
\13\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2013 (rel. Jan. 8, 2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf.
\14\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the
FCC total given the information provided above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included.\15\ Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one
concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third
party or parties controls or has the power to control both.'' 13 CFR
121.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed noncommercial educational (``NCE'') television stations to be
395.\16\ These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be
small entities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2013 (rel. Jan. 8, 2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf.
\17\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations,
and 4,046 TV translator stations.\18\ Given the nature of these
services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category 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. Of this total, 912 had less than 500
employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under that size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
39. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The SBA has classified
the manufacturing of audio and video equipment under in NAICS Codes
classification scheme as an industry in which a manufacturer is small
if it has less than 750 employees. Data contained in the 2007 U.S.
Census indicate that 492 establishments operated in that industry for
all or part of that year. In that year, 488 establishments had fewer
than 500 employees; and only 1 had more than 1000 employees. Thus,
under the applicable size standard, a majority of manufacturers of
audio and video equipment may be considered small.
40. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry
comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.'' \19\
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size
standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees.\20\ For this category, census data for 2007 show
that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\21\ Of
this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15
had employment of 1000 employees or more.\22\ Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, PCS, and
Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') Telephony services.\23\ Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees.\24\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 517210 Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012
(last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
\20\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517210).
\21\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 (NAICS code 517210), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5.
\22\ Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with
1000 employees or more.
\23\ See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
\24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
41. This FNPRM proposes to establish the following reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. All wireless providers that
hold licenses to
[[Page 76289]]
operate co-channel or adjacent channel to a television station would
perform an interference analysis using the methodology in OET-74 prior
to deploying a base station within the set culling distance. The rule
proposes that wireless licensees retain the latest copy of its
interference analysis for each co-channel or adjacent channel Partial
Economic Area (PEA) license area where any of its base stations fall
within the specified OET-74 culling distances and make the analysis
available to the Commission or a subject television station upon
request in cases where there are complaints of interference from either
the subject television station, a station viewer or the Commission. In
addition, in the event that a television station and a 600 MHz Band
wireless licensee do not reach resolution of an interference complaint,
this FNPRM proposes that they can submit a claim of harmful
interference to the Commission. This FNPRM also proposes that when a
600 MHz Band wireless licensee files a construction notification, it
use the ISIX Methodology for certain interference cases and the
methodology in proposed OET Bulletin 74 in another interference case to
demonstrate that it cannot serve its entire PEA service area, among
other evidence. This FNPRM also tentatively concludes that broadcast
licensees who operate in the 600 MHz Band can demonstrate non-
interference to a wireless licensee's service area by showing that a
proposed modification will not expand its contour in the direction of a
co-channel or adjacent channel wireless licensee. This FNPRM also
proposes that, in the event that a wireless provider seeks to commence
operations prior to the end of the 39-month transition period and there
are co-channel or adjacent-channel broadcast television stations in the
wireless licensee's downlink spectrum within the culling distances
specified in OET-74, the wireless provider will use OET-74 to predict
whether its operations will cause harmful interference to the subject
television stations. This FNPRM proposes to require the wireless
licensee to retain the latest copy of the OET-74 study and make it
available to the Commission and to a subject television station upon
request if there are complaints of interference either from a subject
television station, a member of the public, or the Commission.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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 or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small
entities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. The proposed reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements will apply to all entities in the same manner. The
Commission believes that applying the same rules equally to all
entities in this context promotes fairness. The Commission does not
believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with
the rules will unduly burden small entities. Wireless providers may use
either the Commission's TVStudy software available for free online at
http://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/OET-69/ or their own
network planning software in which they can incorporate the Longley-
Rice Fortran Code included with the TVStudy source code, to perform the
OET-74 analysis.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
44. None.
Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
45. This FNPRM contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Ordering Clauses
46. Pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 301, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and sections 6004, 6402, 6403, 6404, and 6407 of
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-
96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310,
316, 319, 332, 4031404, 1452, and 1454, and 1.2 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
47. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No.
12-268, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 27 and 73
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 27 and 73 as
follows:
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation of part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452 unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 27.1310 is added to read as follows:
Subpart N--600 MHz Band
Sec. 27.1310 Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the 600
MHz Band from Wireless Operations.
(a) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 600
MHz band must cause no harmful interference to public reception of the
signal of broadcast television stations transmitting co-channel or on
the adjacent channel.
(1) Such wireless operations must comply with the D/U ratios in
Tables 7-13 in OET Bulletin No. 74. Copies of OET Bulletin No. 74 may
be inspected during normal business hours at the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Reference Information Center (Room CY
A257), Washington, DC 20554. This document is also available through
the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://www.fcc.gov.
[[Page 76290]]
(2) If the 600 MHz band licensee causes harmful interference to the
public reception of a signal of a broadcast television station that is
operating co-channel or on an adjacent channel, that licensee must
eliminate the harmful interference.
(b) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 600
MHz band:
(1) Are not permitted to deploy wireless base stations within
noise-limited service contour or protected contour of a broadcast
television station licensed on a co-channel or adjacent channel in the
600 MHz Band, and
(2) Are required to perform studies to evaluate the potential for
their operations to cause harmful interference to public reception of
the signal of such broadcast television station using the methodology
in OET Bulletin No. 74 when they intend to deploy wireless base
stations within the culling distances from the noise-limited contour or
protected contour of a broadcast television station licensed on a co-
channel or adjacent channel in the 600 MHz band specified in OET
Bulletin No. 74. Licensees shall maintain records of those studies and
make them available for inspection upon a claim of harmful interference
to the requesting broadcasting television station or the Commission.
(c) Mobile and portable devices that operate in the 600 MHz band
shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel broadcast
television stations in the following manner:
(1) By maintaining a minimum distance of 5 kilometers (3 miles)
from co-channel broadcast television station noise-limited service or
protected contours.
(2) By maintaining a minimum distance of 500 meters from adjacent-
channel broadcast television station noise-limited service or protected
contours (3) by not operating within the contours of a broadcast
television station that is operating co-channel or adjacent channel.
(3) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 600
MHz band may meet the requirements of this subparagraph by limiting
their coverage to areas at least the distance prescribed by paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) outside all noise-limited service or protected
contours from co-channel or adjacent broadcast television stations.
(d) For purposes of this section, broadcast television station is
defined pursuant to Sec. 73.3700(a)(1) of this chapter.
(e) For purposes of this section, co-channel operations in the 600
MHz band are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and
wireless services where their assigned channels spectrally overlap.
Adjacent channel operations are defined as operations of broadcast
television stations and wireless services where their assigned channels
spectrally abut each other or are separated by up to 5 MHz.
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
3. The authority citation of part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
0
4. Sections 73.3700 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.3700 Post-incentive auction aicensing and operation.
* * * * *
(i) A broadcast television station licensed in the 600 MHz band, as
that is defined in Sec. 27.57(l),
(1) Shall not be permitted to modify its facilities, if such
modification will expand the noise limited service contour of a full
power station or the protected contour of a Class A station in the
direction of a wireless license area which is co-channel or adjacent
channel to the broadcast television station;
(2) May request a waiver of paragraph (a), if
(i) A modification of the facilities is caused by extraordinary
circumstances outside the broadcast television station's control, or
(ii) The broadcast television station cannot replicate its service
area on the reassigned channel following the publication of the Channel
Reassignment Public Notice.
Proposed OET Bulletin No. 74; Longley-Rice Methodology for Predicting
Inter-Service Interference to Broadcast Television From Mobile Wireless
Broadband Services in the UHF Band
I. Introduction
This Bulletin provides the methodology for prediction of
interference from fixed wireless base stations in the 600 MHz downlink
spectrum to digital full-power and Class A television service areas
that operate co-channel or adjacent-channel to mobile wireless
broadband operations. The methodology provides guidance on the
implementation and use of the NTIA Institute for Telecommunications
Science's Longley-Rice radio propagation model for predicting inter-
service interference (ISIX) to broadcast television from mobile
wireless broadband services. For broadcast television, this methodology
assumes use of the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC)
Digital Television (DTV) Standard, although it is possible, especially
across U.S. international borders, that the National Television Systems
Committee (NTSC) analog Television (TV) standard may also be used.
Consideration of interference predictions from fixed wireless base
stations to analog television service areas is outside of the scope of
this Bulletin.
The methodology uses the Longley-Rice model for predicting field
strength at receive points based on the elevation profile of terrain
between the transmitter and each specific reception point. The
methodology described in this Bulletin generates predictions over large
areas using the broadcast mode. For practical reasons, a computer is
needed to make these predictions because of the large amount of data
required for each calculation. Computer code for Version 1.2.2 of the
Longley-Rice radio propagation model (Longley-Rice model) is available
at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/resources/radio-propagation-software/itm/itm.aspx.
II. Evaluation of Service
The service areas subject to interference calculation are defined
in the FCC rules for both digital full-power and Class A television
stations; the rules also specify standards for determining interference
to DTV service. Because wireless services are expected to be noise-like
and studies have shown that noise-like signals have interference
potential nearly identical to DTV, interference protection criteria
similar to those currently used for DTV-to-DTV can generally be applied
with some adjustments as discussed below.
For digital full-power television stations, service is evaluated
inside the noise-limited contour defined in 47 CFR 73.622(e) with the
exception that the defining field strength threshold for UHF channels
is modified by subtracting a frequency-dependent dipole antenna
adjustment factor. Thus, the area subject to interference calculation
for digital full-power TV stations consists of the area within the
contours described by the geographic points at which the field strength
predicted for 50% of locations and 90% of the time by FCC curves is at
least as great as 41--20log10[615/(channel mid-frequency in
MHz)].
For digital Class A TV stations, service is protected only inside
the ``protected contour'' defined in 47 CFR 73.6010(c), with the
exception that the defining field strength threshold for UHF channels
is modified by subtracting a frequency-dependent dipole antenna
adjustment factor. Thus,
[[Page 76291]]
the area subject to interference calculation for digital Class A TV
stations consists of the area within the contours described by the
geographic points at which the field strength predicted for 50% of
locations and 90% of time by FCC curves is at least as great as 51--
20log10[615/(channel mid-frequency in MHz)].
The service area subject to interference calculation is divided
into trapezoidal cells approximately 2 kilometers on a side across a
global grid. The Longley-Rice propagation model Version 1.2.2 is
applied between the DTV transmitter site and a point in each cell to
determine whether the predicted desired field strength is above the
values identified above, for each digital full-power or Class A TV
station, respectively, based on the TV station's operating channel. For
cells with population, the point chosen is the population centroid, as
determined using the method implemented in the FCC's TVStudy software
implementing the Longley-Rice model--otherwise the point chosen is the
geometric center of the cell and the point so determined represents the
entire cell in all subsequent service and interference calculations.
The station's directional transmitting antenna patterns (azimuth and
elevation), if applicable, are taken into account in determining the
effective radiated power (ERP) in the direction of each cell.
Longley-Rice parameter settings for the calculations specified in
this Bulletin are shown in table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Value Meaning/comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPS........................... 15.0............. Relative permittivity
of ground.
SGM (S/m)..................... 0.005............ Ground conductivity.
ZSYS.......................... 0.0.............. General System
Elevation.
Coordinated with
setting of EN0.
EN0 (ppm)..................... 301.0............ Surface refractivity
in N-units.
IPOL.......................... 0................ Denotes horizontal
polarization.
MDVAR......................... 3................ Calculation Mode
(Broadcast).
KLIM.......................... 5................ Climate Code
(Continental
Temperate).
XI (km)....................... 0.1.............. Terrain sampling
interval.
HG(1) (m)..................... 30............... Height of the
radiation center
above ground.
HG(2) (m)..................... 10............... Height of DTV
receiver above
ground.
Time variability (desired 90%
signal).
Time variability (undesired 10%
signal).
Location variability.......... 50%
Confidence variability........ 50%.............. (Also called
situational
variability)
Error Code (KWX = 3).......... Ignore........... Accept the path loss
value that is
returned by Longley-
Rice code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: HG(1) is the height of the wireless transmitting antenna radiation
center above ground at its specific geographic coordinates, which may
be determined by subtracting the ground elevation above mean sea level
(AMSL) at the transmitter location from the height of the antenna
radiation center AMSL. However, if ground elevation is retrieved from
the terrain elevation database as a function of the transmitter site
coordinates, then bilinear interpolation between the surrounding data
points in the terrain database shall be used to determine the ground
elevation. Care should be used to ensure that consistent horizontal
and vertical datums are employed among all data sets.
III. Evaluation of Interference
A. Application of the Longley-Rice Model To Determine Interfering
Signal Strength
The presence or absence of interference in each grid cell of the
area subject to calculation is determined by further application of the
Longley-Rice model. Radio paths between undesired transmitters and each
global 2-kilometer grid point inside the service area are examined. The
undesired transmitters included in the analysis of each cell are those
which are possible sources of interference at that cell, considering
their distance from the cell and frequency relationships. For each such
radio path, the Longley-Rice model is applied for median situations
(that is, confidence 50%), for 50% of locations, 10% of the time for
the prediction of potential interference to TV receivers. In those
cases that error code 3 occurs, the predicted interfering field
strength nevertheless is to be accepted in determining whether there is
interference at that location.
B. Areas of Potential Interference
To determine whether the placement of a wireless base station at a
particular location would cause interference to any TV station,
information about each site in a planned wireless base station
deployment is required. Specifically, actual values are required for:
Effective radiated power (ERP),
geographic location, and
antenna height above average terrain (HAAT)
The wireless transmit antennas may conservatively be assumed to be
non-directional in both the azimuth and elevation directions, as these
may be simpler to implement. However, actual antenna azimuth and
elevation patterns for each planned wireless base station site may be
used for increased accuracy by importing these patterns into the
software implementing the Longley-Rice model and setting the azimuth
orientation (N [deg] E, T) on a site-by-site basis.
The interference analysis for TV reception examines only those
cells across the global 2-kilometer grid within the area subject to
calculation that have already been determined to have a desired field
strength above the threshold for reception referenced above in Section
II, as appropriate. A cell on the global 2-kilometer grid is counted as
receiving interference to TV if the ratio of the desired field to that
of the square root of the sum of the squares (root-sum-square, or RSS)
of all of an individual wireless licensee's undesired wireless
interference sources within the appropriate culling distances, defined
below, is less than the minimum D/U threshold value for the
corresponding spectral overlap between the TV and wireless channels.
The comparison is made after applying the discrimination effect of the
receiving TV antenna.
C. DTV D/U Ratios for Co-Channel and Adjacent Channel Operations
Thresholds of interference using the ratio of desired to undesired
field strength to protect DTV reception from wireless co-channel
interference are computed from the following formula:
[[Page 76292]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE14.000
Because a 5 MHz wireless channel and a 6 MHz DTV channel may not
always fully overlap, the total wireless power in the TV channel is a
function of the degree of spectral overlap, expressed in integer
megahertz (MHz). In Table 1, a fully co-channel scenario would
correspond to 5 MHz of transmitter/receiver overlap, while a first-
adjacent situation would correspond to 0 MHz of overlap. Partial co-
channel overlaps correspond to values of 1, 2, 3, and 4 MHz. Negative
overlap values define the amount of frequency separation between
channel edges in the adjacent-channel cases. The co-channel values at 5
MHz may be used where there is more than 5 MHz of overlap. Wireless
operations with frequency separations more than 5 MHz between channel
edges or distance separations greater than the culling distances beyond
a DTV station's noise-limited or protected contour, for full-power and
Class A stations, respectively, are not evaluated for interference
because the probability of interference beyond those values for each
height and/or power combination specified in Table 3 through Table 9
below is unlikely.
Table 1--Calculated Off-Frequency Rejection (OFR) Values for Wireless Base Station Into DTV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlap in MHz OFR (dB) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downlink into DTV.............. 0 0.9 2.2 3.9 6.7 17.0 33 33 33 33 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values for off-frequency rejection (OFR) were derived using
NTIA's MSAM FDR computer program using FCC's emission limits, and DTV
receiver performance standards published by ATSC for the first-adjacent
channel.
To protect DTV reception from wireless downlink interference at
various degrees of spectral overlap, the minimum threshold D/U ratios
are shown in Table 2. These were derived using Equation 1 and the OFR
values from Table 1. Values of [alpha] vary for each cell and are
determined by the predicted desired field strength in each cell, the
DTV planning factors, and the S/N of Equation 2.
Table 2--Threshold Interfering D/U Ratios for Wireless Base Station Into DTV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectral Overlap (MHz) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 to -5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downlink into DTV D/U Required 16.0 + [alpha] 15.1 + [alpha] 13.8 + [alpha] 12.1 + [alpha] 9.3 + [alpha] -2.0 + [alpha] -18 + [alpha]
(dB)............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. DTV Planning Factors
The field strength values identified in Section II define the area
subject to interference calculations for full-power and Class A UHF DTV
stations, respectively. These field strengths are based on the DTV
planning factors for UHF provided in OET Bulletin No. 69, which are
assumed to characterize the equipment, including antenna systems, used
for consumer reception at fixed locations. They determine the minimum
field strength for DTV reception in the UHF band.
For UHF, the dipole adjustment factor, Ka =
20log10[615/(channel mid-frequency in MHz)], is added to
Kd in each case to account for the fact that field strength
requirements are greater for UHF channels above the geometric mean
frequency of the historically defined UHF TV band (i.e., channels 14-
69) and smaller for UHF channels below that mean frequency. The
geometric mean frequency, 615 MHz, is approximately the mid-frequency
of TV channel 38. By applying the planning factors and using the
Longley-Rice model to predict the desired field strength ``E,'' the
predicted signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is then calculated from the
formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE14.001
The predicted S/N value associated with the field strength of the
desired signal in each cell is used, based on the TV station's
operating channel, to determine the applicable interference threshold
using Table 2 and the planning factors.
E. DTV Receiving Antenna Pattern
The TV receiving antenna is assumed to have a directional gain
pattern which tends to discriminate against off-axis undesired
stations. This pattern is a planning factor affecting the receiver's
susceptibility to interference. A working group of the FCC Advisory
Committee for Advanced Television Service chose
[[Page 76293]]
the specific form of this pattern. The discrimination, in relative
field, provided by the assumed TV receiving pattern is a fourth-power
cosine function of the angle between the lines joining the desired and
undesired stations to the reception point. One of these lines goes
directly to the desired station, the other goes to the undesired
station. The discrimination is calculated as the fourth power of the
cosine of the angle between these lines but never more than represented
by the front-to-back ratio of 14 dB for UHF. When both desired and
undesired stations are on the receive antenna's boresight, the angle is
0.0 giving a cosine of unity so that there is no discrimination. When
the undesired station is somewhat off-axis, the cosine will be slightly
less than unity and the resulting interference field strength is
reduced accordingly by this value (while the desired field strength
remains unchanged); when the undesired station is far off-axis, the
maximum discrimination given by the 14 dB front-to-back ratio is
attained, and the resulting interference field strength is reduced by
14 (while the desired field strength still remains unchanged).
F. Identification of Potentially Interfering Stations
Potential sources of interference are identified as a function of
distance for the given ERP, HAAT, and frequency relationship in terms
of spectral overlap of each site in a planned wireless deployment.
Spectral overlap is defined as the frequency separation between channel
edges of a wireless block and DTV channel. For wireless bandwidths
larger or smaller than 5 MHz, interference evaluations need only
consider the separation between the occupied portions of each 5 MHz
block.
The interference analysis is performed independently for each cell
in the DTV service area subject to calculation. Only those wireless
base stations with transmitter sites at distances less than the culling
distance (corresponding to the wireless base station ERP, HAAT, and
spectral overlap) from the edge of a DTV station noise-limited or
protected contour are to be considered in the interference analysis.
Table 3 through Table 9 specify these culling distances, which were
derived based on the distance to the UHF F(50,10) {OFR (dB) + 18{time}
dB[micro]V/m contour, depending on the OFR for each spectral overlap
case.
Table 3--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
(spectral overlap >= 5 MHz)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 209 204 196 186 169 163 153 136 115
200.................................................. 197 191 183 174 158 151 141 125 104
150.................................................. 190 184 178 168 152 145 135 119 98
100.................................................. 183 178 171 160 144 137 127 111 91
80................................................... 180 174 166 156 140 133 123 107 86
65................................................... 176 170 163 153 137 130 120 104 83
50................................................... 172 167 159 150 133 126 117 100 80
35................................................... 168 162 155 145 129 122 113 97 76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap = 4 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 205 199 192 181 166 159 148 132 111
200.................................................. 192 186 179 169 153 146 137 121 100
150.................................................. 185 180 173 164 147 140 131 115 94
100.................................................. 179 173 166 156 139 132 123 107 86
80................................................... 175 169 162 152 136 128 119 103 82
65................................................... 171 166 158 149 132 125 116 99 79
50................................................... 168 162 155 146 129 122 112 96 76
35................................................... 163 158 151 141 125 118 108 92 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap = 3 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 197 191 183 173 158 150 141 124 104
200.................................................. 183 178 171 162 146 139 129 113 93
150.................................................. 178 172 166 156 140 133 123 108 87
100.................................................. 171 165 158 149 131 124 116 100 79
80................................................... 167 161 154 145 127 121 112 96 75
65................................................... 163 158 151 142 125 118 108 92 73
50................................................... 159 154 148 138 121 114 105 89 70
35................................................... 155 150 143 133 117 110 101 85 66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76294]]
Table 6--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap = 2 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 187 181 174 166 148 141 132 116 97
200.................................................. 174 170 163 153 137 130 121 105 86
150.................................................. 169 164 157 147 131 124 115 99 80
100.................................................. 161 156 149 140 123 116 107 91 73
80................................................... 157 152 146 136 119 112 103 87 69
65................................................... 154 149 143 132 116 109 100 84 66
50................................................... 151 146 139 129 112 105 96 81 63
35................................................... 146 141 134 125 108 102 92 77 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap = 1 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 171 166 160 149 133 126 116 102 87
200.................................................. 159 154 147 138 121 115 105 91 75
150.................................................. 153 148 141 131 116 109 100 85 69
100.................................................. 146 140 133 123 108 101 92 77 63
80................................................... 142 136 129 120 104 97 88 73 60
65................................................... 139 133 126 116 100 94 84 71 57
50................................................... 135 130 123 113 97 90 81 67 54
35................................................... 131 125 119 109 93 87 78 64 51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap = 0 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 115 110 104 97 86 82 76 68 59
200.................................................. 104 99 93 85 73 70 65 59 52
150.................................................. 98 93 87 79 68 65 61 55 48
100.................................................. 90 85 79 72 62 59 55 49 42
80................................................... 86 81 75 69 59 56 52 46 38
65................................................... 83 78 73 66 56 53 49 43 36
50................................................... 80 75 70 62 53 50 46 40 33
35................................................... 76 72 66 59 50 46 42 35 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Culling Distances (in km) From DTV Noise-Limited or Protected Contour
[spectral overlap <0, >=-5 MHz]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERP (kW) per 5 MHz block:
HAAT (m): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 4 3 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305.................................................. 61 59 57 53 48 46 43 37 31
200.................................................. 53 52 50 47 42 39 37 32 26
150.................................................. 49 48 46 42 37 35 32 28 23
100.................................................. 43 42 39 37 32 30 27 23 18
80................................................... 40 38 36 33 29 27 25 21 16
65................................................... 37 36 34 31 26 25 22 18 14
50................................................... 34 33 30 28 23 22 19 15 12
35................................................... 29 28 26 23 19 17 15 13 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Engineering Databases
DTV Engineering Data. Engineering data for TV stations in the U.S.
(including full-power DTV and Class A) is available from the FCC. Data
for individual stations can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html, and consolidated data for all authorized stations can be
found at ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/MB/Databases/cdbs/. Where more
than one authorization exists for a particular station, the record
associated with the facility actually operating shall be used. Where
specific elevation pattern data are not provided in the engineering
data, a generic elevation pattern may be used as
[[Page 76295]]
described generally in OET Bulletin No. 69 or in the rules. The generic
elevation pattern should, however, be offset by the amount of
electrical beam tilt specified in the CDBS.
[FR Doc. 2014-29688 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P