[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18981-18987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10498]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[PR Docket No. 93-61, FCC 96-115]
Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order on Reconsideration resolves issues raised by
petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's Report and Order in
PR Docket No. 93-61, which established rules governing the licensing of
the Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) in the 902-928 MHz band.
Specifically, the Order on Reconsideration resolves issues regarding
existing LMS licensees that are being afforded grandfathered status.
These issues involve interference testing, accommodation of secondary
uses in the 902-928 MHz band, emission masks, frequency tolerance, type
acceptance and site relocation, as well as extension of the
construction deadline for grandfathered licensees to September 1, 1996.
The actions taken in the Order on Reconsideration are needed to provide
such grandfathered licensees with certainty as they construct their
systems.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule is effective May 30, 1996, except that
Secs. 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d) became effective March 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hinckley Halprin, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division, (202) 418-
0620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration in PR Docket No. 93-61, adopted March 18, 1996, and
released March 21, 1996. The complete text of this Order on
Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,
D.C., (202) 857-3800.
Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration
I. Introduction and Background
1. LMS encompasses both the Automatic Vehicle Monitoring (AVM)
service established in 1974 and future advanced transportation-related
services. Existing AVM systems were authorized in the 903-912 and 918-
927 MHz bands, as well as in several bands below 512 MHz. Existing LMS
systems in these bands generally fall into one of two broad
technological categories: multilateration systems and non-
multilateration systems. Multilateration systems use spread-spectrum
technology to locate vehicles (and other moving objects) with great
accuracy throughout a wide geographic area. Non-multilateration systems
typically use narrowband technology to transmit data to and from
vehicles passing through a particular location.
2. LMS systems, both multilateration and non-multilateration, and
Part 15 devices will play an important role in providing many valuable
services to the public in the future. In Report and Order, PR Docket
No. 93-61, 10 FCC Rcd 4695 (1995), 60 FR 15248 (March 23, 1995) (LMS
Report and Order), the Commission developed a spectrum plan that is
designed to accommodate these service providers' requirements to the
extent possible. Aspects of the spectrum plan include: (1) continuing
to permit secondary operations by unlicensed Part 15 devices across the
entire band; (2) providing a ``safe harbor'' in which Part 15 devices
may operate, along with a testing requirement to determine questions of
interference from multilateration systems; (3) authorizing additional
spectrum in the 902-928 MHz band in order to enable non-multilateration
LMS systems to operate on spectrum separate from multilateration
systems; and (4) permitting only one new multilateration provider in
each sub-band of spectrum allocated for multilateration operations.
3. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission decided to stop
accepting applications for the operation of multilateration LMS systems
in the 904-912 and 918-926 MHz bands under our current rules as of
February 3, 1995. In addition, the Commission adopted certain
grandfathering provisions that allowed existing, operating
multilateration LMS systems until April 1, 1998, to complete the
transition to the rules adopted in the LMS Report and Order. These
grandfathering provisions were adopted to prevent any undue hardship on
existing, operating multilateration LMS systems. The Commission also
conferred grandfathered status on multilateration LMS licensees who had
not constructed their systems so that such licensees may construct and
operate their licensed stations under the rules adopted in the LMS
Report and Order. The Commission concluded, however, that such systems
must be constructed and
[[Page 18982]]
operational by April 1, 1996, and must comply with the rules adopted in
the LMS Report and Order by that date. The LMS Report and Order
directed existing licensees to file applications to modify their
licenses to reflect operations consistent with the new band plan for
multilateration systems.
4. In addition to adopting a new spectrum plan and grandfathering
provisions, the Commission resolved other technical issues in the LMS
Report and Order. The Commission established conditions under which
Part 15 operations would not be considered to cause interference to
multilateration licensees. It allowed multilateration licensees to
commence operations only after demonstrating efforts to minimize
interference with Part 15 operations.
5. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarifies its
decision in the LMS Report and Order regarding the treatment of
grandfathered LMS systems with respect to Part 15 interference testing.
In addition, it clarifies that the rule regarding non-interference by
Part 15 devices set out in Sec. 90.361 applies to grandfathered LMS
licensees that did not construct as of February 3, 1995, as well as
future LMS licensees. It also considers modification of various
technical rules, including emission mask specification, frequency
tolerance, and site relocation, and we clarify our rules regarding type
acceptance of LMS equipment. Any remaining issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration will be addressed in a later Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
6. The Order on Reconsideration also extends the build-out deadline
for grandfathered LMS licensees by five months, to September 1, 1996.
It also notes that because the 902-928 MHz frequency band is shared
with federal government users, LMS operators are required to coordinate
with the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) concerning
any proposed modifications to their systems. The Commission expresses
concern that if existing licensees must await the completion of such
frequency coordination process before commencing modifications to their
systems, licensees may not have sufficient time to complete their
system modifications by the build-out deadline. As a result, the
Commission concludes that these licensees should be permitted to begin
modifications to their systems provided they have initiated the
frequency coordination process with IRAC and on the condition that the
Commission's final approval of such modifications will be contingent
upon the successful completion of such frequency coordination.
7. In addition, On May 22, 1995, Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems
(SBMS) filed a request for waiver of Section 90.363 of the Commission's
Rules to grandfather SBMS applications that were pending as of the date
the LMS Report and Order was adopted. The Commission concludes that
pending LMS applications should not be eligible for grandfathering. The
Commission notes that its stated purpose in adopting grandfathering
provisions was ``[t]o ensure that our new licensing scheme does not
impose undue hardship on existing, operating multilateration [LMS]
systems,'' and to allow already-licensed systems the opportunity to
construct and operate pursuant to the LMS rules adopted in the LMS
Report and Order. LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4728. The
Commission concludes that if some licensees are warehousing spectrum,
as alleged by SBMS, then they will likely not construct in the time
allotted so as to attain grandfathered status. That spectrum will then
be available for competitive bidding by all prospective licensees,
including SBMS if they so choose.
8. Further, the Commission notes the argument of SBMS that in the
SMR context, the Commission adopted a grandfathering provision awarding
certain secondary sites in the 900 MHz SMR service primary status so as
to entitle them to full interference protection and decided to
grandfather pending applications for these secondary sites, concluding
that this would promote service to the public, that the additional
amount of protected spectrum would be de minimis and that such action
would be equitable in light of processing delays. The Commission
distinguishes the SMR situation from the case of pending LMS
applications in that the 900 MHz SMR secondary sites were extensions of
primary sites that were already licensed and constructed, while the LMS
facilities at issue are unbuilt. Thus, it is questionable how service
to the public would be facilitated by extending grandfathered status to
sites that have not even been licensed, much less constructed.
Moreover, grant of the pending applications could materially alter the
LMS landscape by adding a number of additional sites and would thus not
be a de minimis change. Accordingly, the Commission declines SBMS's
request and clarifies that LMS applications filed prior to February 3,
1995, will not be eligible for grandfathering. SBMS also asks for an
extension of the construction deadline for its pending applications.
Because the Commission is not affording SBMS grandfathered status with
respect to these applications, this issue is moot. In addition, SBMS
seeks a waiver to permit relocation of grandfathered sites by more than
two kilometers and to add sites within a 75-mile radius. This same
suggestion was made by petitioners for reconsideration and, for the
reasons discussed infra, the Commission denies SBMS's request.
II. Discussion
A. Multilateration System Operations (Part 15 Testing)
9. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission adopted a spectrum
band plan and established technical criteria for the operators of the
various systems designed to minimize the potential for interference and
provide a more conducive environment for sharing of the band by
disparate services. In an effort to ensure that the coexistence of the
various services in the band would be as successful as possible, the
Commission decided to condition the grant of each MTA multilateration
license on the licensee's ability to demonstrate through actual field
tests that their systems do not cause unacceptable levels of
interference to Part 15 devices.
10. On reconsideration, Part 15 users requested that grandfathered
multilateration LMS systems be required to demonstrate through testing
that their systems will not cause unacceptable interference to Part 15
devices. Further, some Part 15 petitioners suggested that the
Commission establish uniform guidelines for the testing of LMS systems
and the demonstration of non-interference to Part 15 devices. Some LMS
providers, on the other hand, argues that testing of LMS systems is not
necessary. Further, some parties contended that the testing requirement
violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because testing
procedures were not contemplated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
in this proceeding, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PR Docket No. 93-
61, 8 FCC Rcd 2502 (1993), 58 FR 21276 (April 20, 1993), and/or because
testing requirements materially alter the Part 15 rules, which was not
previously proposed.
11. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarifies that
as a condition of grandfathering, it will require all multilateration
LMS operators who did not construct stations prior to February 3, 1995,
to demonstrate through testing that their LMS systems will not cause
unacceptable interference to Part 15
[[Page 18983]]
devices. The Commission reiterates that multilateration licensees may
employ any one of a number of technical refinements, i.e., limiting
duty cycle, pulse duration power, etc., to facilitate band sharing and
minimize interference to Part 15 operations. Further, the Commission
seeks to ensure not only that Part 15 operators refrain from causing
harmful interference to LMS systems, but also that LMS systems are not
operated in such a manner as to degrade, obstruct or interrupt Part 15
devices to such an extent that Part 15 operations will be negatively
affected.
12. The Order on Reconsideration declines to establish specific
guidelines for Part 15 testing at this time. The Commission states that
it recognizes that LMS systems employ different methods to provide
location and monitoring that are constantly changing to keep up with
consumer demand. Moreover, the Part 15 industry has an even greater
array of technologies that fluctuate in response to the needs of the
public. It thus concludes that it would be inappropriate to apply
uniform testing parameters to those varied technologies, as no one
testing method would adequately address the needs of either LMS or Part
15 operations. Instead, the Commission believes that the more prudent
course of action would be for LMS and Part 15 operators to work closely
together to reach consensus on testing guidelines that satisfy their
respective requirements.
13. Further, the Commission does not agree that its adoption of the
testing requirement violated the APA. The Commission believes that the
testing requirement was a logical outgrowth of the Notice of Proposed
Rule Making in this proceeding, which sought comment on ways to
accommodate the various users of the 902-928 MHz band. Moreover, it
concludes that the rules adopted in the LMS Report and Order do not
modify our Part 15 rules by elevating the status of Part 15 providers,
as alleged by some petitioners. Part 15 operation remain secondary; the
testing requirement is merely an attempt to achieve the most efficient
coexistence possible among the various users of the band.
B. Accommodation of Secondary Users in the 902-928 MHz Band
14. The LMS Report and Order affirmed that unlicensed Part 15
devices in the 902-928 MHz band are secondary and, as in other bands,
may not cause harmful interference to and must accept interference from
all other operations in the band. To accommodate the concerns of Part
15 users about their secondary status in light of multilateration LMS
and our authorizing LMS to use the additional 8 MHz of the band (902-
903, 912-918 and 927-928 MHz), however, the Commission in the LMS
Report and Order adopted rules that describe a ``safe harbor'' within
which a Part 15 operation would be deemed not to cause interference to
a multilateration LMS system.
15. On reconsideration, many petitioners agreed that a safe harbor
provision is necessary to provide Part 15 technologies protection
against claims of interference from existing LMS licensees. On the
other hand, most LMS petitioners argued that they should be able to
rebut any presumption of non-interference by Part 15 operators. If not,
they argued, a large class of Part 15 devices will be immune from
complaints of interference to multilateration licensees. They also
contended that such a result would be contrary to the secondary status
of Part 15 devices.
16. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarifies that
if Part 15 devices operate within the ``safe harbor'' provision they
will be deemed not to cause harmful interference to LMS operators. In
addition, this provision applies to all LMS licensees, including
existing and grandfathered licensees. The Commission notes that in the
LMS Report and Order, it stated that a definition of what shall
constitute harmful interference from amateur operations or unlicensed
Part 15 devices to multilateration LMS systems would promote the
cooperative use of the 902-928 MHz band. It also noted that this ``safe
harbor'' approach would promote effective use of the 902-928 MHz band
by the various services through establishing the parameters under which
such devices may operate without risk of receiving complaints of
interference from service providers with a higher allocation status.
Based on the technical diversity of the numerous existing LMS systems
and the multiplicity of Part 15 devices that eventually will be placed
in operation, the Commission concluded in the LMS Report and Order that
some interference problems would remain unresolved. As a result, the
Commission determined that by providing multilateration LMS system
operators a means of recourse by way of complaint to the Commission
only when a Part 15 device is not operating in the ``safe harbor,'' the
vast majority of equipment and services would be able to operate
successfully in this band. The Commission concludes in the Order on
Reconsideration that although the multilateration LMS system operators
will not be able to file a complaint with the Commission where the Part
15 user has satisfied the ``safe harbor'' provisions, the Commission
encourages LMS operators to resolve the interference by modifying their
systems or by obtaining the voluntary cooperation of the Part 15 user.
The Commission disagrees that such a result is inconsistent with the
secondary status of Part 15 devices under our Rules and believes that
its approach will assure the efficient and equitable use of the 902-928
MHz band.
C. Technical Issues
1. Emission Mask Specification
In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission required that
licensees' emissions be attenuated by at least 55 + 10 log(P) dB at the
edges of the specified LMS subbands. The band edges for multilateration
systems where emissions must be attenuated are 904, 909.75, 919.75,
921.75, 927.50, 927.75 and 928 MHz. If the 919.75-921.75 and 921.75-
927.25 MHz subbands were aggregated by a single licensee, the emission
mask limitations at the band edges at 921.75 and 927.50 MHz may be
ignored. The band edges for non-multilateration systems where emissions
must be attenuated are 902, 904, 909.75 and 921.75 MHz.
18. On reconsideration, a group of LMS providers contended that the
emission mask adopted in the LMS Report and Order is flawed. They
propose a modification of the emission mask specification that they
believe should not inhibit the operation of non-multilateration
systems, and the emission levels outside of the multilateration LMS
sub-bands would be below the field strength levels permitted under Part
15 of the Commission's Rules for operation within the 902-928 MHz band.
The proposed emission mask specification is as follows:
For LMS wideband emissions, operating in the 902-928 MHz band,
in any 100 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from
the center of authorized sub-band(s) by more than 50 percent up to
and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: The mean
power of emissions shall be attenuated below the maximum permitted
output power, as specified by the following equation but in no case
less than 31dB:
A=16+0.4 (P-50)+10logB (attenuation greater than 66dB is not
required)
Where:
A=attenuation (in decibels) below the maximum permitted output power
level
P=percent removed from the center of the authorized sub-band(s)
B=authorized bandwidth in megahertz
19. On the other hand, CellNet, a Part 15 operator, objected to the
relaxation of the emission mask specification,
[[Page 18984]]
contending that the potential for interference to Part 15 devices will
be increased if the emission mask requirements are relaxed. Hughes
contended that the attenuation used in the formula proposed by the LMS
Providers would be insufficient to protect adequately against
interference in the portion of the spectrum band set aside for non-
multilateration systems. Thus, Hughes proposed a variation of the LMS
multilateration parties' formula that requires greater attenuation. The
Part 15 Coalition contended that there is no justification for relaxing
the emission mask standard. TIA opposed the justification used by the
LMS Providers to modify the emission mask specification. TIA pointed
out that the LMS Providers' proposal is very similar to Sections
21.106(a)(2) and 94.71(c)(2) of our rules, which specify emission
limits for the Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services and Private
Operational Fixed Microwave Service, respectively. Further, TIA
contended that in fixed services, the emission is but one of several
ways to prevent interference, while in mobile services emission masks
and power limits are the primary forms of interference control. It
contended that while it may be appropriate to base the limits of LMS
wideband emissions on the limits that apply to high-speed digital
microwave transmissions, it is not reasonable that the LMS
specification should be less strict than the fixed microwave
specification.
20. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission finds that the
LMS providers have shown that the single emission mask adopted in the
LMS Report and Order to cover all LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz
band is not appropriate for multilateration LMS systems. It notes that
the LMS providers stated that none of their various multilateration
systems, either existing or proposed, can comply with the existing mask
and still achieve a commercially marketable level of locating accuracy.
Additionally, the Commission states that it is persuaded by the LMS
providers that an emission mask similar to the one applicable to
narrowband PCS channels is more appropriate for narrowband forward link
equipment operating in the spectrum between 927.250 MHz and 928 MHz.
21. Therefore, the Commission states that it will not apply the
existing mask to equipment used for wideband multilateration links,
either forward or reverse, in the three subbands 904-909.75 MHz,
921.75-927.25 MHz and 919.75-921.75 MHz, or to equipment used for
narrowband forward links in the spectrum between 927.25 and 928 MHz.
Instead, it will adopt two additional emission masks, both essentially
the same as proposed by the LMS providers, that will apply to this
equipment. All other equipment to operate in the LMS will remain
subject to the emission mask adopted in the Report and Order.
22. Although these new emission masks are less stringent than the
one adopted in the Report and Order, they do require a greater
attenuation of out-of-band emissions than was considered to be required
for multilateration systems operating under the interim rules. The
Commission states its belief that these masks are adequate to prevent
interference to non-multilateration systems. The Commission indicates
that while TIA is correct that these new masks are less stringent than
those for fixed microwave links, it does not agree with TIA that the
masks for LMS multilateration systems must necessarily be more strict
than for fixed microwave links. These two services are very different
and the expectations of potential interference must also be
considerably different--one is a highly coordinated fixed microwave
service in exclusively allocated spectrum and the other is a mobile
multilateration system operating in spectrum shared with a multitude of
other users. Also, the Commission states that it is not persuaded that
the refinement suggested by Hughes (increasing the slope of the
wideband mask) is necessary to prevent interference, and that adopting
it might unnecessarily preclude the use of some technologies or favor
one type of system over another.
2. Frequency Tolerance
23. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission adopted a frequency
tolerance of 0.00025 percent (2.5 parts per million (ppm)) for both
multilateration and non-multilateration systems. It noted that tighter
frequency tolerances were justified to help reduce the potential for
interference to systems operating on adjacent frequencies.
24. On reconsideration, Hughes, TI/MFS, and AMTECH requested that
the Commission relax the frequency tolerance. Hughes argued that the
0.00025 percent frequency tolerance is overly restrictive for non-
multilateration systems. It contended that a frequency tolerance of 2.5
ppm does not add significantly to existing means of avoiding
interference between non-multilateration systems within designated
subbands. Hughes submitted that since non-multilateration systems
operate over relatively short ranges, the instances of coverage overlap
between facilities on adjacent channels will be rare.
25. Hughes further alleged that the present frequency tolerance
level would necessitate a significant and expensive design modification
for their Vehicle to Roadside Communications (VRC) system readers. In
addition, they contended that equipment changes required to conform
their VRC mobile transponders to the present frequency tolerance level
would be economically prohibitive. If the Commission decides to
maintain the present frequency tolerance level for non-multilateration
systems, Hughes requested that the Commission apply the frequency
tolerance level only to the reader transmitters and not to the mobile
transponders, which are designed to transmit with extremely low power
and only while passing in close proximity to a reader.
26. According to TI/MFS there are no current LMS non-
multilateration systems in operation that conform to the 2.5 ppm
frequency tolerance. They noted that most of the non-multilateration
technology operates at frequency tolerance levels no greater than 50
ppm. TI/MFS stated its belief that the imposition of the present
frequency tolerance level will have the negative effect of decreasing
both available technology and potential players in the market.
27. In response to the concerns raised by the non-multilateration
system operators, the Commission in the Order on Reconsideration
imposes the present frequency tolerance level of 2.5 ppm on high power
fixed reader transmitters operating near the band edges, but not on
mobile transponders or hand-held portable readers. The Commission is
persuaded that the significant cost of tightening the frequency
tolerance for mobile transponders and hand-held readers could severely
raise the cost of the devices beyond the realm of economic feasibility.
The Commission is not changing the tolerance requirement for other non-
multilateration LMS systems or for multilateration LMS systems.
3. Type Acceptance
28. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission determined that the
mobile nature of most LMS transmitters and the new advanced technology
that will be employed by this equipment justified strict regulatory
oversight of having equipment type accepted rather than continuing to
use the notification procedure. Therefore, it decided that all LMS
equipment imported or marketed after April 1, 1996, including the
``transmitting tags'' used in certain non-
[[Page 18985]]
multilateration systems, must be type accepted for use under Part 90.
If, however, these units met the requirements under Part 15, they may
have been authorized under that part and do not need to be type
accepted.
29. On reconsideration, the LMS providers requested that for
systems constructed after February 3, 1995, that the type acceptance
requirement for multilateration LMS be extended from the current date
of April 1, 1996, until 12 months after any rule on reconsideration
concerning the emission mask (the ``1996 Effective Date''). They also
requested that all LMS transmitters imported or manufactured
domestically prior to the 1996 Effective Date be exempt from type
acceptance regardless of whether they are used before or after the 1996
Effective Date. In addition, they asked the Commission to clarify that
LMS providers may indefinitely continue to use equipment deployed prior
to the 1996 Effective Date provided that it is not marketed after that
date (whether the deadline is April 1, 1996 or a later date), unless
the equipment is first type accepted.
30. The LMS providers further requested that for systems
constructed before February 3, 1995, the installation of non-type
accepted multilateration LMS transmitters imported or manufactured
domestically on or before the 1996 Effective Date should be permitted
through April 1, 1998. They urged that such equipment need not be type-
accepted at any time unless such a step is necessary in order to
resolve interference problems that cannot otherwise be accommodated,
but that such equipment must comply with the emission mask requirements
by April 1, 1998. In addition, for systems constructed and placed into
operation before February 3, 1995, the LMS providers would mandate that
transmitters imported or manufactured after the 1996 Effective Date
must be type accepted. Similarly, AMTECH requests that the Commission
delay the type-acceptance date at least until 12 months after final
technical requirements have been adopted.
31. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission states its
belief that the type acceptance requirements it adopted in the LMS
Report and Order are necessary to ensure efficient deployment of LMS to
the public without causing significant interference. The Commission
provides that it recognizes the concern of multilateration LMS
operators that they may experience difficulty in meeting the
construction deadline if they must comply with type acceptance
requirements. To alleviate this concern, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology has committed to process type acceptance
applications within 40 days of receipt. Further, the Commission notes
that it has extended the construction deadline. The Commission
therefore concludes that compliance with these type acceptance
requirements should not impede a licensee's efforts to meet the build-
out deadline. It also notes that constructed multilateration LMS
systems must also meet type acceptance requirements after September 1,
1996.
32. The Commission further notes that non-multilateration systems
contain a substantial amount of embedded equipment with numerous users,
particularly state and local governments. Thus, non-multilateration
system operators will be able to continue operation of current
equipment until replacement is needed. However, if non-multilateration
system operators decide either to build new systems or replace existing
equipment on or after September 1, 1996, the Commission states, the new
equipment must comply with type acceptance by April 1, 1998.
4. Site Relocation
33. In the LMS Report and Order, the Commission allowed LMS
licensees to modify their applications to comply with the new band
plan, and stated that an alternate site must be within two kilometers
(km) of the site specified in the original license. On reconsideration,
the LMS providers contended that the two kilometer restriction is
unworkable due to the upcoming April 1, 1996, deadline for preserving
grandfathered status. They argued that competition for wireless
facilities has caused many sites to become unavailable or unsuitable
for LMS use. They also noted that site surveys and negotiations are
time-consuming and in many cases replacements within the 2 km radius
either do not exist or are unavailable. Thus, the LMS providers
proposed that the Commission instead allow replacement sites within a
ten-mile radius.
34. The Commission declines to modify the site relocation
restriction in the Order on Reconsideration. It notes that the Third
Report and Order in GN Docket No. 93-252 utilized two kilometers as the
benchmark for determining whether an application for a site change of a
CMRS facility is to be treated as a modification application or an
``initial'' application for the purpose of determining eligibility for
competitive bidding procedures. Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332
of the Communications Act--Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services,
Third Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93-252, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 59 FR
59945 (Nov. 21, 1994) (CMRS Third Report and Order). The Commission
concludes that the LMS providers have failed to demonstrate adequately
that a different benchmark should apply in the LMS context and that it
will continue to place a 2 km restriction on replacement sites for LMS
systems.
III. Procedural Matters and Ordering Clauses
35. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required by
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 604 is as follows:
36. Need and Purpose of this Action: The rules adopted herein will
enhance use of the 902-928 MHz band for location and monitoring
systems. The new rules create a more stable environment for LMS system
licensees and provides much needed flexibility for operators of such
systems.
37. Issues Raised in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis: There were no comments submitted in response to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
38. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected: All
significant alternatives regarding grandfathering issues are discussed
in this Order on Reconsideration. Other issues raised on
reconsideration will be addressed in a forthcoming Memorandum Opinion
and Order.
39. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i),
302, 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a), the rule
changes specified below are adopted.
40. It is further ordered that the rule changes set forth below
will become effective May 30, 1996, except for Secs. 90.203(b)(7) and
90.363(d). Sections 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d) were effective March 18,
1996.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sections 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d) extend the type
acceptance and construction deadlines, respectively, from April 1,
1996, to September 1, 1996. As such, these rules relieve a
restriction and are not subject to the 30 days' notice requirement
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Moreover, the Commission finds good cause to make these rules
effective on less than 30 days' notice to prevent the former type
acceptance and construction deadline of April 1, 1996, from taking
effect. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. It is further ordered that the petitions for reconsideration
filed by the parties listed in the attachment below are granted to the
extent discussed herein, and denied to the extent discussed herein.
Those issues not resolved by this Order on
[[Page 18986]]
Reconsideration will addressed in a future Memorandum Opinion and
Order.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 90 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read
as follows:
Sec. 90.203 Type acceptance required.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Transmitters imported and marketed prior to September 1, 1996
for use by LMS systems.
* * * * *
3. Section 90.210 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.210 Emission masks.
* * * * *
(k) Emission Mask K. (1) Wideband multilateration transmitters. For
transmitters authorized under Subpart M to provide forward or reverse
links in a multilateration system in the subbands 904-909.75 MHz,
921.75-927.25 MHz and 919.75-921.75 MHz, and which transmit an emission
occupying more than 50 kHz bandwidth: in any 100 kHz band, the center
frequency of which is removed from the center of authorized sub-band(s)
by more than 50 percent of the authorized bandwidth, the power of
emissions shall be attenuated below the transmitter output power, as
specified by the following equation, but in no case less than 31 dB:
A=16+0.4 (D-50)+10 log B (attenuation greater than 66 dB is not
required)
Where:
A=attenuation (in decibels) below the maximum permitted output power
level
D=displacement of the center frequency of the measurement bandwidth
from the center frequency of the authorized sub-band, expressed as a
percentage of the authorized bandwidth B
B=authorized bandwidth in megahertz.
(2) Narrowband forward link transmitters. For LMS multilateration
narrowband forward link transmitters operating in the 927.25-928 MHz
frequency band the power of any emission shall be attenuated below the
transmitter output power (P) in accordance with following schedule:
On any frequency outside the authorized sub-band and removed from
the edge of the authorized sub-band by a displacement frequency
(fd in kHz): at least 116 log ((fd+10)/6.1) dB or 50 + 10 log
(P) dB or 70 dB, whichever is the lesser attenuation.
(3) Other transmitters. For all other transmitters authorized under
Subpart M, the peak power of any emission shall be attenuated below the
power of the highest emission contained within the authorized channel
bandwidth in accordance with the following schedule:
(i) On any frequency within the authorized bandwidth: Zero dB;
(ii) On any frequency outside of the authorized bandwidth:
55+10log(P) dB where (P) is the highest emission (watts) of the
transmitter inside the authorized bandwidth.
(4) The resolution bandwidth of the instrumentation used to measure
the emission power shall be 100 kHz, except that, in regard to
paragraph (2) of this section, a minimum spectrum analyzer resolution
bandwidth of 300 Hz shall be used for measurement center frequencies
within 1 MHz of the edge of the authorized subband. If a video filter
is used, its bandwidth shall not be less than the resolution bandwidth.
(5) Emission power shall be measured in peak values.
4. Section 90.213 is amended by revising the entry for the 902-928
MHz band and adding footnote 13 to the table in paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 90.213 Frequency stability.
(a) * * *
Minimum Frequency Stability
[Parts per million (ppm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile stations
Fixed and -------------------------
Frequency range (MHz) base Over 2W 2W or less
stations output output
power power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
* *
902-928 \13\..................... 2.5 2.5 2.5
* * * * *
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Fixed non-multilateration transmitters operating within 40 kHz from
the band edge, intermittently operated hand-held readers, and mobile
transponders are not subject to frequency tolerance restrictions.
* * * * *
5. Section 90.363 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.363 Grandfathering provisions for existing AVM Licensees.
* * * * *
(d) Multilateration AVM licensees for stations that were not
constructed and placed in operation on or before February 3, 1995 must
construct their LMS systems and place them in operation on the spectrum
identified in their LMS system license on or before September 1, 1996,
or their licenses will cancel automatically (see Section 90.155 (e)).
Also, these licenses will cancel automatically on July 1, 1996 unless
timely modification applications are filed on or before this date (see
paragraph (a) of this section).
* * * * *
Attachment--Petitions for Reconsideration
Note: This attachment will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition (Ad Hoc Gas)
2. AirTouch Teletrac (Teletrac)
[[Page 18987]]
3. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL)
4. AMTECH Corporation (AMTECH)
5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet)
6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition
7. Hughes Transportation Management Systems (Hughes)
8. Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA)
9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California Edison Company (Metricom/
SCE)
10. MobileVision, L.P. (MobileVision)
11. The New Jersey Highway Authority, the New Jersey Turnpike
Authority, the New York State Thruway Authority, the Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Bridges and Tunnels, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
the South Jersey Transportation Authority and the Delaware River
Port Authority (``the Interagency Group'').
12. The Part 15 Coalition (Part 15 Coalition)
13. Pinpoint Communications (Pinpoint)
14. Rand McNally & Company (Rand McNally)
15. Safetran Systems Corporation (Safetran)
16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS)
17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/
MFS)
18. Uniplex Corporation (Uniplex)
19. UTC
20. Wireless Transactions Corporation (Wireless Transactions)
[FR Doc. 96-10498 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P