[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 147 (Monday, July 31, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46681-46683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19035]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 21 and 74

[MM Docket 97-217; FCC 00-244]


MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Previously, the Commission adopted a series of legal and 
technical rule changes to enhance the ability of Multipoint 
Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Instructional Television Fixed 
Service (``ITFS'') licensees to provide non-video services, including 
transmission of high speed computer data applications such as Internet 
access. We later expanded the streamlined application processing system 
to cover all major modifications of ITFS facilities, modified certain 
rules related to interference issues, modified certain other rules 
related to the obligations of ITFS licensees and clarified certain 
other rules. The FCC is taking two actions. The first action, a rule, 
which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
modifies rules related to ITFS leases, modifies some technical rules 
and clarifies other rules. The second action, which is described in 
detail below, is the proposed rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking is 
limited to addressing the issue of possible Gaussian noise interference 
that can occur in certain limited circumstances.

DATES: Comments due on or before August 21, 2000. Reply comments are 
due on or before August 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Roberts (202) 418-1600, Video 
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (``Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking''), MM 
Docket, 97-217, FCC 00-244, adopted July 7,

[[Page 46682]]

2000 and released July 20, 2000. The full text of this Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Room, Room CY-A257, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Services, Inc. (``ITS''), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted by the 
Commission after receiving petitions for further reconsideration of its 
Reconsideration Order, 64 FR 63727 (November 22, 1999), in this docket. 
Previously, the Two-Way Order, 63 FR 65087 (November 25, 1998), was 
issued following a notice of proposed rulemaking, which arose from a 
petition for rulemaking filed by a group of 111 educators and 
participants in the wireless cable industry (collectively, 
``Petitioners''), comprised of MDS and ITFS licensees, wireless cable 
operators, equipment manufacturers, and industry consultants and 
associations. In the Two-Way Order, the Commission amended parts 21 and 
74 of our rules to provide MDS and ITFS licensees with substantially 
increased operational and technical flexibility. Traditionally, the MDS 
service traditionally functioned as a one-way point-to-multipoint video 
transmission service that is often referred to as ``wireless cable,'' 
whereas ITFS licensees ordinarily used their frequencies for one-way 
transmission of educational and instructional material to students.
    2. The Two-Way Order (1) Permitted both MDS and ITFS licensees to 
provide two-way services on a regular basis; (2) permitted increased 
flexibility on permissible modulation types; (3) permitted increased 
flexibility in spectrum use and channelization, including combining 
multiple channels to accommodate wider bandwidths, dividing 6 MHz 
channels into smaller bandwidths, and channel swapping; (4) adopted a 
number of technical parameters to mitigate the potential for 
interference among service providers and to ensure interference 
protection to existing MDS and ITFS services; (5) simplified and 
streamlined the licensing process for stations used in cellularized 
systems; and (6) modified the ITFS programming requirements in a 
digital environment. Following the release of the Two-Way Order, we 
received petitions for reconsideration which focused primarily on 
requests that we expand our new streamlined processing system to cover 
all ITFS modifications; formalize an interference complaint process; 
modify some rules regarding ITFS leased capacity and make certain 
technical clarifications to our rules. In the Reconsideration Order, we 
expanded on some of our MDS/ITFS rules and clarified others. In 
response to that decision, we received further petitions for 
reconsideration, asking that we: (1) Permit certain lease provisions; 
(2) review the treatment of boosters stations and receive sites; and 
(3) further refine our technical rules. The Further Reconsideration 
section of this document is published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. The Further Reconsideration section makes additional 
modifications and clarifications to our MDS/ITFS rules in order to 
facilitate further the provision of these services to the public. This 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is limited to addressing the 
issue of possible Gaussian noise interference that can occur in certain 
limited circumstances.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    3. The Wireless Communications Association (``WCA'') raises a 
concern that there may be some uncertainty with respect to the proper 
interpretation of Secs. 21.909(m) and 74.939(o), in particular the 
meaning of a phrase common to those sections which states that 
``Radiation of an unmodulated carrier and other unnecessary 
transmissions are forbidden.'' WCA asks that the Commission clarify the 
meaning of this language so that it requires that a response station's 
transmitter ``must be biased off so that no RF Gaussian noise will be 
emitted when the station is not engaged in communications.'' WCA argues 
that this interpretation is needed in order to assure that ``the noise 
floor of adjacent channel and adjacent market licensees is protected 
against unnecessary emissions from transceivers.'' In an ex parte 
filing, WCA proposed to set the permissible level of Gaussian noise at 
the following levels: (1) 10 microvolts/meter per 1 MHz bandwidth at a 
distance of 3 meters for response stations utilizing antennas with 6 dB 
or less gain over isotropic; and, (2) 10 microvolts/meter  x  
10exp[(antenna gain -6 dB)/20] per 1 MHz bandwidth at a distance of 3 
meters for stations utilizing antennas with more than 6 dB gain over 
isotropic.
    4. We agree with WCA that a clarification of this issue is needed, 
however, because of the importance and potential impact of such a 
clarification, we believe that all interested parties should be given 
an opportunity to submit comments and replies. We request that 
commenting parties address, at a minimum, the following issues:
    (1) Should we establish a numerical standard for the maximum 
permissible radiation level of a response station transmitter which is 
in the ``off'' state, i.e., when it is powered up but not in the act of 
transmitting a signal to the response hub?
    (2) If there should be a maximum off-state radiation level, what 
should that level be and how should it be defined? Should it be defined 
in terms of the transmitter power output into the antenna, or in terms 
of the radiated field strength? Should it be a function of antenna gain 
and/or antenna height?
    (3) To what extent, and how, should a maximum off-state radiation 
level take into account the number of response station transmitters 
likely to be active in a 2-way system? Should the off-state radiation 
levels for multiple transmitters be directly additive or are there 
alternative ways to apportion among the response stations the total 
amount of permissible off-state radiation from a 2-way system?
    (4) What degree of protection from off-state radiation should be 
afforded to neighboring systems? Should hub station receiver noise 
floors receive the same, more, or less protection from off-state 
radiation than from co-and adjacent channel interference as currently 
provided in the rules?
    We also ask that parties include where possible an analysis of the 
relative costs and benefits of their proposals.

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. 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 as set forth in paragraph 44 of the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy 
of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

[[Page 46683]]

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register. Id.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    6. The goal of the rulemaking aspect of this proceeding is to 
clarify the meaning of the language contained in two Commission rules 
which states, ``Radiation of an unmodulated carrier and other 
unnecessary transmissions are forbidden.'' Wireless Communications 
Association (``WCA'') proposes that the Commission require that a 
response station's transmitter ``must be biased off so that no RF 
Gaussian noise will be emitted when the station is not engaged in 
communications.'' The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks 
comments on WCA's proposal and requests responses to a number of 
questions related to the proposal. The overall intent of this inquiry 
is to clear up ambiguities surrounding the Commission's rules and 
improve the effectiveness of the service.
B. Legal Basis
    7. Authority for actions proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking may be found in: Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 
303(h), 303(r), 308(b), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(h), 
303(j), 308(b), 403, and 405.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    8. The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small business concern.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act (``SBA''). A small business 
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    9. The Commission has defined ``small entity'' for the auction of 
MDS as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross 
annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding 
three calendar years. 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). This definition of a small 
entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. The 
Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for authorizations 
in 493 basic trading areas. Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as 
small entities. One of these small entities, O'ahu Wireless Cable, 
Inc., was subsequently acquired by GTE Media Ventures, Inc., which did 
not qualify as a small entity for purposes of the MDS auction.
    10. MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction. The SBA has developed a definition of 
small entities for pay television services, which includes all such 
companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 
121.201. This definition includes multipoint distribution systems, and 
thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators which did 
not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us 
indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that do 
not generate revenue in excess of $11 million annually. Therefore, for 
purposes of this IRFA, we find there are approximately 892 small MDS 
providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules, and 
some of these providers may be affected by the proposed change to our 
rules.
    11. There are presently 2032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these 
licenses are held by educational institutions (these 100 fall in the 
MDS category, above). Educational institutions may be included in the 
definition of a small entity. See 5 U.S.C. 601 (3)-(5). ITFS is a non-
pay, non-commercial broadcast service that, depending on SBA 
categorization, has, as small entities, entities generating either 
$10.5 million or less, or $11.0 million or less, in annual receipts. 
See 13 CFR 121.210 (SIC 4833, 4841, and 4899). However, we do not 
collect, nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data 
for ITFS licensees. Thus, we find that up to 1932 of these educational 
institutions are small entities that may be affected by the proposed 
change to our rules.
D. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    12. None.
E. Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and 
Consistent With Stated Objectives
    13. 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: (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 party thereof, for small 
entities.
    14. The Commission expects that the proposed rule amendments will 
have a minimal impact on small entities. Moreover, the Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking does not propose any reporting requirements 
applicable to small entities. We tentatively conclude that our 
proposals in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would impose 
minimum burdens on small entities. We encourage comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
F. Federal Rules that Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed 
Rules:
    15. None.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Ordering Clauses

    16. Notice is Hereby Given and Comment is Sought on the proposed 
clarification described in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    17. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations 
Division, Shall Send a copy of this Report and Order on Further 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Supplemental Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 21

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Television.

47 CFR Part 74

    Communications equipment, Education, Reporting and Recordkeeping 
requirements, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-19035 Filed 7-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P