[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23677-23686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10951]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 03-65; FCC 03-54]


Interference Immunity Performance Specifications for Radio 
Receivers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comment from the public on the 
possibility of incorporating receiver performance specifications into 
the Commission's spectrum policy on a broader basis. Such 
specifications could be in the form of incentives, guidelines or 
regulatory requirements (or a combination of these) in particular 
frequency bands, services or across bands and services. The Commission 
believes that incorporation of receiver performance specifications 
could serve to promote more efficient utilization of the spectrum and 
create opportunities for new and additional use of radio communications 
by the American public.

DATES: Written comments are due on or before July 21, 2003, and reply 
comments are due on or before August 18, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for filing 
instructions.

[[Page 23678]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 03-65, FCC 03-54, adopted March 13, 2003, and 
released March 24, 2003. The full text of this document is available 
for inspection and copying during regular 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, Qualex International, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may 
also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or 
call the FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 
(voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry

    1. By this action, the Commission begins consideration of 
incorporating receiver interference immunity performance specifications 
into our spectrum policy on a broader basis. Such specifications could 
be in the form of incentives, guidelines or regulatory requirements (or 
a combination of these) in particular frequency bands, services or 
across bands and services. We believe that incorporation of receiver 
performance specifications could serve to promote more efficient 
utilization of the spectrum and create opportunities for new and 
additional use of radio communications by the American public. From a 
technical standpoint, a radio receiver's susceptibility to interference 
is largely dependent on the interference immunity of the device, 
particularly with regard to its rejection of undesired radiofrequency 
(RF) energy and signals. If the receivers used in connection with a 
radio service are designed to provide a certain immunity or tolerance 
of undesired RF energy and signals, more efficient and predictable use 
of the spectrum resource can be achieved. Such receiver improvements 
could also provide greater opportunities for access to the spectrum. 
These opportunities will potentially lead to consumer benefits in the 
form of innovation, competition and choice among services and devices.
    2. Increasingly in recent years, the preemptive effect of minimally 
performing receivers has been demonstrated, as licensees seek 
protection for service predicated on the performance of receivers with 
little tolerance for other signals. Had the RF environment in which 
these services would be expected to operate in the future, or the 
expected performance characteristics of those receivers, been defined 
in some way, these services could have been developed with receivers 
that could better tolerate the introduction of newer services on the 
same or proximate frequencies. Accordingly, in this Inquiry we seek 
information, comment, and research on issues concerning the current 
receiver environment, i.e., the immunity performance and interference 
tolerance of existing receivers, the possibilities for improving the 
level of receiver immunity in the various radio services, and the 
potential positive and negative impacts of receiver standards on 
innovation and the marketplace. We also request comment on the possible 
approaches by which desired levels of receiver immunity or tolerances 
could be achieved, including incentives for improving performance, 
voluntary industry standards, mandatory standards, or a combination of 
these or other approaches. In this regard, it is not our intent at this 
time to implement a new regulatory regime that would generally subject 
all receivers to mandatory standards. Rather, we believe it is 
preferable to rely primarily on market incentives and voluntary 
industry programs that provide for flexibility in establishing and 
managing guidelines for receiver immunity, rather than formal mandatory 
standards incorporated into our rules. At the same time, we note that 
in the past the Commission has mandated various transmitter standards 
in order to control interference levels. As we recognize that receivers 
can contribute as much as transmitters to the existence of perceived 
interference, there may be benefits to the adoption of guidelines, 
labeling rules, or even mandatory standards for certain classes of 
receivers. This may be particularly relevant in situations where we 
continue to find that command and control spectrum management 
techniques are in the public interest [e.g., public safety] or in 
situations in which it is not possible for all the relevant industry 
and consumer parties to reach voluntary agreements.
    3. We further request information and comment on the considerations 
that should guide the Commission's approach to these matters in the 
various licensed radio services. This proceeding builds upon recent 
work of the Spectrum Policy Task Force (Task Force) to examine means 
for improving the management of the radio spectrum to increase the 
public benefits derived from use of the spectrum resource. In its 
Report, the Task Force concluded that the increases in demand for radio 
services in the limited amount of available spectrum and the rapid 
advances in radio system technologies, including new digital 
transmission systems, in recent years are necessitating that the 
Commission change its traditional model for managing the radio 
spectrum. The Task Force observed that greater opportunities for 
spectrum access would be facilitated if the minimum performance 
characteristics of the receiver were known and therefore recommended 
that we make receiver performance a more prominent part of our spectrum 
policy. In response to the Task Force report, a number of parties 
expressed their support for receiver standards and guidelines developed 
by industry standards groups. Several parties expressed support for 
Commission mandated requirements for certain receivers. Other parties 
oppose mandated receiver standards and guidelines.
    4. The principal limiting factor in the allocation and assignment 
of radio frequencies is interference to received signals. Radio 
interference can occur when RF energy other than a desired signal is 
present in a receiver. Such undesired energy can be present from the 
emissions of one or a combination of other sources generating RF energy 
or can be generated within the receiver itself. Interference occurs 
when undesired RF energy is manifested in a radio communication system 
as a performance degradation, misinterpretation, or loss of information 
that could be extracted from a desired signal in the absence of the 
unwanted energy. The adverse effects of undesired energy present in a 
receiver can be minimized by improved design of the receiver.
    5. The Commission's radio spectrum policies and rules, including 
its efforts to promote spectrum efficiency, traditionally have relied 
primarily on approaches that control the emissions and locations of 
transmitters and the frequencies used by specific types of radio 
operations. Under this model, the Commission has established 
operational parameters in given portions of the spectrum in which the 
pattern of radio signals, both geographically and technically, is well 
understood and generally predictable by equipment manufacturers and 
licensees.

[[Page 23679]]

Manufacturers could design and market products for designated services 
within these parameters and the predicted environment. In some 
services, licensees could choose the transmitter and receiver products 
that best meet their particular needs for the provision of radio 
communication services. In other services, including broadcast radio 
and television services, receiver products are designed and marketed 
for a mass consumer market, with the licensees having limited control 
or influence over their technical parameters and capabilities. 
Therefore, to some extent our existing rules, such as the TV allotment 
table, while limited to transmitting requirements, also assume certain 
levels of receiver performance.
    6. Generally, this model has served well to control interference 
and to facilitate effective use of the spectrum in environments in 
which the specific services and operating technology are stable and 
very well defined. However, as recognized in the Task Force Report, the 
dramatic increases in the overall demand for spectrum based services, 
rapid technical advances in radio systems, in particular the 
introduction of various advanced digital modulation technologies such 
as code division multiple access (CDMA), and the need for increased 
access to the limited supply of spectrum in recent years are straining 
the effectiveness of the Commission's longstanding spectrum policies. 
These changes are prompting the Commission to revisit its traditional 
model and evolve its spectrum policy toward more flexible and market-
oriented approaches that will provide incentives for users to migrate 
to more technologically innovative and economically efficient uses of 
the spectrum.
    7. We now need to provide opportunities for an ever increasing 
array of new digital radio technologies and services and to allow 
licensees the flexibility to implement and modify these new 
technologies and services in accordance with market forces. We also 
need to relieve equipment manufacturers and service providers from the 
delays inherent in our regulatory processes, in particular, those 
involving lengthy rule makings. To meet these needs, we have 
implemented new licensing schemes under which bands of spectrum are 
assigned to licensees on a geographic basis and those licensees are 
allowed the flexibility to determine the nature of the services that 
operate in that spectrum and the technologies used to provide those 
services. The only operating restrictions applied to these operations 
are those necessary to ensure that interference is not caused to 
services operating in adjacent geographic areas or on adjacent 
frequency bands. These restrictions typically take the form of limits 
on signal strength at the edge of a licensee's service area and limits 
on maximum transmitter power, antenna height and out-of-band emissions.
    8. It often is not possible to perform a reliable, comprehensive 
analysis to predict the strength of potential signal sources in a given 
frequency band and geographic area because licensees have discretion to 
select and modify transmitter locations, operating power, antenna 
directivity and type of transmissions. In addition, we observe that new 
digital technologies generally are inherently more robust, and 
resistant to interference, than analog systems. Our spectrum policies 
should account for this increased ability of digital signals to 
tolerate the presence of other signals. Further, with the increasingly 
intense use of the spectrum, there are now very few opportunities to 
allocate unused spectrum for new services and correspondingly, few 
bands in which there are not many users seeking to access the available 
frequencies. Thus, as indicated in the Task Force Report, interference 
management is now more difficult because of the greater density, 
mobility, and variability of transmitters and our flexible use policy 
that allows users the flexibility to determine how and where to operate 
in their assigned spectrum.
    9. As part of our effort to revise our spectrum management policies 
to address the changes in RF operations and environments that have 
occurred in recent years, we are now beginning to investigate 
alternative approaches for managing interference. Consistent with the 
recommendations of the Task Force, we believe it will be necessary to 
shift our current paradigm for assessing interference from approaches 
based primarily on transmitter operations towards new approaches that 
focus on the actual RF environment and interaction between transmitters 
and receivers, such as the interference temperature metric. Such new 
approaches would better allow the Commission to anticipate and enable 
future users of the spectrum while providing a greater degree of 
certainty to incumbents regarding the RF environment they will continue 
to operate in.
    10. In many cases, the effects of RF interference can be mitigated 
or eliminated through attention to receiver hardware design and signal 
processing software. There are many attributes of receiver performance 
that can be varied to increase a device's immunity to undesired 
emissions, and standards could be established for minimum performance 
requirements. Improving the general level of receiver performance with 
respect to interference immunity would allow increased operation of 
radio services on adjacent channels and frequency bands and thereby 
promote spectrum sharing and radio system interoperability that would 
permit more efficient use of the spectrum. In addition, more robust 
receiver performance would help to facilitate more flexible use of the 
spectrum. Such robust performance would allow receivers to tolerate 
changes in operating systems, services and frequency loading that are 
expected to occur under flexible use of the spectrum. At the same time, 
however, we recognize that improvements in receiver performance almost 
always increase production costs, and so there are trade-offs in costs 
and performance that must be balanced. In addition, we need to address 
how the benefits of upgraded receiver performance would be distributed 
among users. For example, improved receiver immunity may permit 
government operations over wider areas or at higher powers without 
causing interference.
    11. In this proceeding, we seek additional information on the broad 
range of issues relating to the possible incorporation of receiver 
performance incentives, guidelines or standards. As discussed below, we 
invite interested parties to submit information, research, and comment 
on subjects including: potential receiver performance parameters, the 
manner in which receiver immunity performance capabilities should be 
incorporated into our spectrum policies and rules, including the scope 
of our authority to establish mandatory receiver standards by rule; 
possibilities for use of receiver interference immunity performance 
guidelines and standards in specific radio services; the impact of 
receiver minimum immunity performance requirements on innovation and 
the marketplace; the current receiver environment; and transition 
issues such as the treatment of legacy receivers.

Receiver Performance Parameters

    12. A radio receiver's immunity to interference is dependent on a 
number of factors in its technical design and, in addition, the 
characteristics of the signals it receives. These factors may be 
closely related and in many cases interdependent, and a receiver's 
performance in one factor may often affect its performance in others. 
The factors determining receiver immunity

[[Page 23680]]

performance generally include selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic range, 
automatic RF gain control, shielding, modulation method, and signal 
processing. Receiver selectivity is the ability to isolate and acquire 
the desired signal from all of the undesired signals that may be 
present on other channels. Selectivity is a central factor in the 
control of adjacent channel interference. Sensitivity is the measure of 
a receiver's ability to receive signals of low strength. More 
sensitivity means a receiver can pick up lower level signals. Dynamic 
range is the range of the highest and lowest received signal strength 
levels over which the receiver can satisfactorily operate. The upper 
side of a receiver's dynamic range determines how strong a received 
signal can be before failure due to overloading occurs. Automatic RF 
gain control allows a receiver to adjust the level of a received signal 
as it appears at the unit's signal processing and demodulation 
sections. It can also be used to improve a unit's dynamic range and 
provide protection against overload. Shielding can consist of metal 
boxes, foil or other materials that isolate sections of a receiver from 
undesired RF energy.
    13. Signal processing provides increased ability to isolate a 
desired signal from other RF energy, including another (undesired) 
transmitted signal. The degree to which interference immunity can be 
achieved through signal processing depends on the modulation method 
used for the transmitted signal. For example, the CDMA digital 
modulation system allows multiple signals to be transmitted and 
received simultaneously on the same frequency in the same area without 
intra-system interference. The analog FM modulation system provides for 
a ``capture effect'' from processing gain that allows a receiver to 
demodulate only the strongest signal present. Finally, in digital 
systems, trade-offs can be made between signal strength and data rates. 
In order to receive signals with higher data rates, it is generally 
necessary to have higher levels of signal-to-interference ratio (S/I 
ratio). Thus, in the presence of interfering signals the data rate 
could be adjusted to provide satisfactory reception. The interference 
immunity provided by signal processing and modulation systems is due to 
radio system design and signal architecture, rather than specific 
receiver attributes such as filtering. However, because proper use of 
these system factors can provide improvements in interference immunity, 
we are including them in the subjects to be investigated in this 
proceeding for inclusion in our spectrum policies.
    14. We request comment and information on the factors or 
combination of factors and their interaction that we need to consider 
in developing receiver interference immunity performance guidelines and 
standards, as well as the costs and benefits of such guidelines and 
standards. We specifically request comment on the factors affecting 
interference immunity we have identified above and their relative 
importance. We also invite parties to identify additional factors that 
we should consider in establishing and applying receiver immunity 
standards. We also seek comment and information in response to the 
following questions:

--Are there any special hardware designs, software methodologies, or 
new technologies available that would significantly enhance receiver 
immunity performance?
--How are these performance factors related to frequency and operating 
power, and influenced by the nature of the RF environment?
--To what extent, and in what way, are some factors affecting 
interference immunity relatively more important than others across 
receivers used with different services or across devices that receive 
signals transmitted using different modulation methods?
--Are there factors that must be considered as a group and not 
independently due to their cross-interactions or relationships with 
other factors?
--Are some factors less important in providing interference immunity in 
certain modulation systems or receiver designs?
--How should any such differences be treated in specifying receiver 
immunity guidelines or standards?
--Can receiver interference immunity parameters be ranked in accordance 
with their level of importance to performance? What procedures or 
criteria should be used to determine how to trade off the level of 
receiver performance with the practical issues of cost and 
implementation?
--Should system characteristics such as signal processing gain and 
modulation methods that facilitate immunity from interference in 
receivers be considered germane to the process of establishing receiver 
performance guidelines or standards?
--Do new and emerging advanced radio systems, including those employing 
digital modulation, offer potential for significantly improving 
receiver immunity to interfering signals? What are the inherent 
performance limitations of these technologies?

    15. The interference environment in which a receiver operates can 
be highly variable and its characteristics may often be strongly 
service related. That environment must first be identified and 
characterized to allow, at least in principle, the development of 
emission criteria that provide for quantitative comparisons of receiver 
performance. We request comment on the following questions concerning 
the interference environment in which receivers operate:

--What are the characteristics of the RF environment in which existing 
receivers or groups of receivers operate?
--If studies were to be carried out, what would be an efficient way to 
capture any relevant data or pertinent events given the dynamic 
changing nature of the environment over time?
--Should different receiver specifications or approaches be taken based 
on the environment in which the receiver is expected to operate (for 
example, high-powered or lower-powered frequency bands).

    16. Another approach to describing the interference environment 
would be to develop a generic environment in which all receivers would 
be expected to perform adequately. Once the environment was identified, 
criteria directly related to receiver performance in that environment 
could be established. One way to measure performance would be to look 
at the signal to noise levels (S/N) of analog systems and the bit error 
rate (BER) of digital systems. These metrics are quantifiable, but 
specific levels or ranges would have to be developed. Another approach 
to receiver performance quantification would be to use generally 
agreeable criteria that have come about over years of development and 
interaction with equipment and the marketplace. For example, the 55 dB 
attenuation standard for adjacent channel protection by cable 
compatible consumer electronics equipment in Section 15.118(c)(1) was 
set based on manufacturers' experience with such equipment and their 
knowledge of the tolerance of equipment suppliers for that level of 
performance. We request responses to the following questions relating 
to the establishment of a generic receiver environment and 
possibilities for measuring receiver performance there under:

--If a generic environment were employed, how many conditions would 
have to be considered to cover the variability of the natural 
environments, (i.e., narrow band,

[[Page 23681]]

wide band, closest frequency separation for interferer and carrier, 
etc.)?
--What measures of performance translate into good, acceptable, or poor 
operational metrics?
--Could manufacturers agree on performance categories and could 
quantifiable ranges be established for these categories? How many 
categories would be needed and where should the threshold for 
acceptable performance be set among those categories?

    17. Digital technologies, in particular, provide flexibility for 
controlling almost all aspects of transceiver performance. Many 
receiver parameters can be software controlled, perhaps in response to 
specific interference in the signal environment. One example is 
frequency agile transceivers with automated transmitter power and 
frequency control. The design of the systems that these transceivers 
are used with provides for control of the frequency and signal strength 
used for operation. Advanced antenna technology coupled with system 
design techniques such as diversity, in terms of space, angle, 
frequency and time could also be used to enhance reception. We seek 
comments on whether and how system design elements that would enhance 
radio receiver performance should be incorporated into our receiver 
guidelines/standards program. In particular we seek comment on the 
elements of system design that should be included in receiver 
guidelines/standards and how we could limit the impact of receiver 
guidelines/standards on system design flexibility.

Incorporation of Receiver Interference Immunity Performance Guidelines 
and Standards Into Spectrum Policy

    18. We seek information and comment on how best to incorporate 
receiver interference immunity performance specification into our 
paradigm for management of the radio spectrum. Initially, we envision 
that there could be three principal approaches for implementing 
measures for improving receiver performance: Voluntary industry 
standards; guidelines promulgated by the Commission, either in 
technical publications or as advisories in the rules; and mandatory 
standards adopted into the rules. As a general matter, we would prefer 
to rely primarily on voluntary programs that are supported and managed 
by industry, in conjunction with user groups as appropriate, to 
establish and maintain guidelines and standards for receiver immunity 
performance, rather than formally incorporate them into our regulatory 
programs. We believe that this approach provides the greatest 
flexibility for those developing and producing products to modify and 
update technical guidelines and standards in response to changes in 
technology, consumer desires, and economic conditions. We also believe 
that spectrum users have an incentive to reach voluntary agreements 
that provide for additional spectrum use. For example, the PCS industry 
has developed more rigorous standards than the Commission has imposed. 
On the other hand, we recognize that under a voluntary approach, if 
owners of non-conforming receivers experience interference, this might 
produce an incumbency problem that may limit efficient use of the 
spectrum. We seek comment on these issues.
    19. At the same time, we will need to maintain a cooperative 
relationship with those managing voluntary standards to ensure that 
they provide the performance levels necessary to support more efficient 
use of the radio spectrum. There may also be instances where for 
various reasons it might be necessary or desirable for the Commission 
to exercise a greater role in the development and management of 
guidelines or standards. In such cases we would prefer an approach by 
which the Commission would maintain the specified guidelines or 
standards in either an FCC technical publication, such as the ``OET 
Bulletin'' series or an advisory in the rules. Finally, there may be 
some cases where it will be necessary to incorporate the specifications 
of the standard into our rules. We request comment on the following 
questions with regard to the manner in which to incorporate receiver 
guidelines and standards into our rules:

--What approaches should the Commission use for implementing receiver 
immunity performance into its spectrum policies? Commenting parties are 
specifically invited to submit additional measures to augment the three 
approaches suggested above or to suggest completely different plans.
--What benchmarks should the Commission use in determining the approach 
it should use in implementing specific receiver interference immunity 
performance guidelines or standards into its spectrum policies?
--With what organizations should the Commission work with to develop 
receiver performance requirements?
--How should standards or guidelines be implemented for services in 
which licensees have control over the receivers that are used, such as 
the cellular and PCS services, and in which they do not have control 
over the receivers, such as broadcast services?
--What are the cost implications of the various options for approaches 
for incorporating receiver interference immunity into our spectrum 
policies in terms of both cost of equipment and flexibility for users/
system designers?
--We also seek comment on how to enforce any receiver standards.

    20. We also request comment on the criteria that should be used in 
determining how to specify the form of immunity guidelines or 
standards. Guidelines/standards can be in the form of performance 
criteria that apply to the functional capabilities of a device or of 
design specifications for the manufacture of portions of a device. In 
general, we believe it is desirable to continue the Commission's 
traditional preference to specify guidelines/standards as performance 
criteria, and to make such guidelines/standards voluntary rather than 
mandatory. This approach gives manufacturers freedom to design the 
internal configurations of their products to compete on both price and 
functionality. However, there may be instances where it would be more 
appropriate to specify guidelines/standards for the design of some or 
all of the features of a device that affect interference immunity. We 
request comment on the forms in which we should specify receiver 
interference immunity performance guidelines/standards and invite 
commenting parties to submit suggestions for alternative forms of 
specifying receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/
standards. We also request comment on the circumstances under which any 
given form should be employed. Finally, we ask how should the public be 
informed of the interference immunity performance of receivers and the 
relevant guidelines for specific types of radio operation, i.e., how 
would consumers know about receiver performance in order to make 
informed decisions?
    21. We also seek comment on the relationship between the 
appropriateness of receiver standards and models used to manage the 
spectrum. Limiting transmitter in-band power and spill-over into 
adjacent bands and areas, together with the definition of assigned 
frequency bands and areas, provide substantial definition to the 
interference environment in which licensees must design their

[[Page 23682]]

systems. Given these rules, would the costs and benefits of improved 
receiver interference performance be internal to licensees, and would 
they thus make efficient decisions regarding receiver performance? 
Would there be a need for receiver standards under a fully implemented 
property rights model, where markets allocate exhaustively and 
exclusively defined spectrum usage rights? How would such rules affect 
licensees, such as broadcasters, who do not have a decisional role in 
the performance of consumer receivers?
    22. We believe that the Commission has the necessary statutory 
authority to promulgate receiver immunity guidelines and standards 
under Sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f), and (r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. We request comment on this 
assessment of our authority.

Use of Receiver Interference Immunity Performance Guidelines and 
Standards in Specific Radio Services

    23. The receiver interference environment and demands placed on 
receiver performance are, to a large degree, dependent on the specific 
service supported by the equipment and the services provided on 
neighboring frequency bands. For example, mobile services that operate 
on relatively narrow channels with no guard bands or separation between 
communications channels need to use relatively high quality receivers 
that are sensitive to low level signals, provide good selectivity, and 
are resistant to overloading. Similarly, a service which involves 
safety of life generally needs to use equipment that is more robust in 
tolerating potentially interfering signals, to provide added assurances 
of dependable, reliable operation in environments where such signals 
are present. On the other hand, the signals of the terrestrial 
broadcast services, such as AM radio, can be received with relatively 
low cost receivers that may be less sensitive to low level signals, 
less selective, and more susceptible to overloading. As a result of 
such differences, we intend to explore operational environments and 
characteristics of the different types of services as they affect 
minimum receiver performance needs, as part of our investigation in 
this proceeding. As observed by the Task Force, the types of operations 
and services occupying neighboring frequency bands are a significant 
factor in the environment in which a receiver operates, and so we seek 
information on receiver performance issues of specific types of service 
and operations relating to both the in-band and out-of-band 
environments.
    24. Given the large number of communication services, it appears 
more tractable to consider grouping the service related receivers 
immunity performance parameters that would most directly impact the 
development of receiver metrics. One grouping by service would include: 
(1) Public safety services, (2) satellite services, (3) mobile 
services, (4) fixed terrestrial services, and (5) broadcast services. 
Another grouping by area of use could consider services functioning in 
metropolitan and rural areas. Neither grouping is meant to be 
exclusive, but simply to isolate major performance and environment 
factors that could be considered for the development of receiver 
interference immunity performance standards. We seek comment on the 
types of groupings of services that would simplify the development of 
robust receiver performance, recognizing that, whenever appropriate, we 
have granted broad flexibility for licensees to offer different 
services in the same frequency band in order to respond to ever-
changing marketplace needs. With the large number of communications 
services that are currently in operation, a program to study and define 
minimum receiver performance specifications across all radio services 
will be a substantial undertaking. We request comment and suggestions 
on how to plan for and manage such a program should we decide to 
undertake it. In particular, we request comment and suggestions 
regarding the services and/or receiver types with which to begin and 
how we should organize the process for defining immunity specification. 
We intend to closely involve industry and other interested parties that 
have expertise and interest in these matters in the specification 
process and request comment on how that involvement should be arranged. 
In this same context, we request comment on the parties that should be 
included in the work on developing standards for receivers use in the 
various services and/or service groupings. The specification of minimum 
receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/standards will 
involve tradeoffs in costs and perhaps other factors. We therefore ask 
for information on the cost implications of the various options for 
minimum immunity specifications for receivers used with the various 
radio services. We seek comment on issues relating to receiver immunity 
performance and guidelines/standards in our suggested service groupings 
as discussed below. We also seek comment on whether these groupings are 
appropriate, or whether grouping by other factors such as frequency 
band or operating bandwidth are more appropriate.
    25. Public safety services--Public safety communications systems 
are used by organizations such as police, fire and emergency medical 
services whose mission often involves safety of life. These 
organizations need and, indeed, demand that their communications 
systems provide a very high degree of reliability. Thus, the operating 
requirements of public safety communications systems would seem to 
warrant or even necessitate the use of receiver immunity performance 
guidelines/standards that are tighter than those for general 
communication services. This could be affected perhaps by requiring 
that the guidelines/standards for public safety receivers be set higher 
than those for other equipment. We ask the following questions in this 
regard:

--Should we adopt an approach that would subject public safety 
communications systems to higher requirements for receiver interference 
immunity performance than other classes of receivers?
--What parameters of public safety system performance should be subject 
to minimum guidelines/standards for immunity to interference and how 
should we establish such guidelines/standards?
--What values should be specified for the parameters of public safety 
receiver interference performance?
--Are the reliability needs of public safety systems used for different 
types of operation, such as dispatch, personal location/identification, 
video/audio monitoring, telemetry, etc. different and if so, how should 
these differences be treated in establishing minimum performance 
guideline/standards?
--In cases where a general communication service can be used in a 
safety of life or property mode (such as E911 and VHF marine), should 
receivers used with such services be subject to guidelines/standards 
for interference immunity similar to those for public safety of 
receivers when operating in a safety mode?
    26. As an illustration of a current approach on receiver standards 
for public safety services, the Public Safety National Coordination 
Committee (hereinafter the ``NCC'') has identified technical standards 
for radio receivers operating on the interoperability channels in the 
700 MHz public safety band. It has also proposed that these standards 
be incorporated into the

[[Page 23683]]

equipment certification requirements of Part 90, Subpart R of our 
rules, 47 CFR part 90, Subpart R. In developing these proposals, the 
NCC considered recommending a metropolitan statistical area 
interference environment and a less stringent rural service area 
interference environment. However, it concluded that all of the 
receivers operating on the interoperability channels of the newly 
allocated 700 MHz public safety band should meet the metropolitan 
environment standard partly because of their public safety nature, and 
partly because of the inherent difficulty of enforcing a rule that 
specifies that certain radios can be used only in certain geographic 
areas. The NCC also decided not to specify receiver standards for 
radios operating on the non-interoperability channels in the 700 MHz 
public safety band since the technologies to be used in that portion of 
the band are not fully known. It deferred to the marketplace on that 
issue. We request comment on the possible use of similar approaches, 
including the reliance on a national committee process for development 
of receiver immunity standards for other public safety bands.
    27. Satellite services--Satellite receivers must be very sensitive 
to low level received signals and therefore can be adversely affected 
by communications systems in adjacent bands. They can also experience 
interference from low level ambient noise sources that are below the 
minimum sensitivity level of receivers used in other types of radio 
services. Satellite communications systems are currently used for 
radionavigation, mobile communications, broadcast video and audio 
services, and fixed services. Each of these types of service has its 
own operating considerations and some are much more robust with respect 
to interfering signals than others. For example, fixed satellite 
systems that operate with geo-stationary orbit (GSO) satellites may use 
high gain antennas that provide high levels of signal, thus mitigating 
the relatively low level of the received signal. Fixed receivers used 
with direct broadcast satellite services also use dish antennas that 
provide considerable gain. However, mobile satellite receivers and 
mobile satellite radionavigation receivers use antennas that provide 
relatively low gain and thus must have very high levels of sensitivity 
to provide service. In the fixed satellite services, the use of high 
gain directional antennas provides a form of increased system 
selectivity because potentially interfering sources not located in the 
main beam of the antenna are attenuated. We seek information on a 
number of issues concerning interference immunity guidelines/standards 
for satellite services, as follows.

--How should satellite receiver interference immunity performance 
guidelines/standards provide protection against interference to low 
received signal levels?
--In the fixed satellite services, should antenna directionality be 
considered integral to any receiver interference immunity performance 
guidelines/standards?
--What parameters of satellite receiver performance should be subject 
to minimum guidelines/standards for immunity to interference and how 
should we establish such guidelines/standards?
--What values should be specified for the parameters of satellite 
receiver interference immunity performance?
--To what extent are the reliability needs of the various types of 
satellite services different and how should these differences be 
treated in establishing minimum performance guideline/standards? In 
addition are there any differences in specifications that are needed 
due to differences between fixed and mobile satellite services, and are 
different specifications needed for receivers used with low-Earth orbit 
(LEO) satellite systems than for receivers needed for GSO systems?

    28. Mobile services--Mobile radio services include a broad range of 
systems operating on the land, the seas, and in the air. Specific 
services range from the mobile systems of the Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services, to business radios and ``push to talk'' operations, to 
maritime safety and communications systems, and to aviation 
communications systems for commercial and private air traffic. While 
these systems vary in their sophistication and operating ranges, all 
mobile receivers typically experience varying signal levels throughout 
their service area. For example, where a mobile unit is close to its 
base station, both the mobile and base station can operate with signal 
levels high enough to support operation. At the other extreme, when a 
mobile unit is operating near the edge of its operating range, both the 
mobile unit and its base station will receive relatively weaker 
signals. Mobile receivers also face operating complications such as 
reflected signals, or ``multipath,'' and varying levels of undesired 
and potentially interfering signals that vary depending on their 
location and operating frequency. In addition to these operating 
challenges, mobile handsets designers must place a large premium on 
light weight and small size. Thus, mobile systems, and handset units in 
particular, constitute one of the most demanding challenges in 
minimizing interference.
    29. We believe it is appropriate to examine mobile receiver 
immunity performance in the light of our changing spectrum management 
policies, and particularly to determine whether the operation of these 
devices and spectrum efficiency could be enhanced by development of 
minimum receiver performance specifications. We request comment on the 
need for mobile radio immunity guidelines/standards and responses to 
the following questions on this issue:

--What minimum interference immunity performance would be appropriate 
for mobile service receivers and how those minimums compare to the 
performance of existing mobile service receivers?
--Should mobile receivers be subjected to more stringent minimum 
performance requirements than receivers for other communications 
services, given the higher variation in operating environment 
conditions experienced in the course of mobile operation? Would the 
specifications established under such an approach have an impact on the 
practical requirements of mobile equipment for small size and light 
weight?
--To what extent are the reliability needs of the various types of 
mobile radio services different and how should these differences be 
treated in establishing minimum performance guidelines/standards?

    30. Fixed terrestrial services--Fixed terrestrial services include 
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint facilities. Point-to-point 
operations usually use highly directional transmit and receive antennas 
in order to minimize the potential for receiving interference and 
causing interference to others. Such operations are typically used for 
private or common carrier communications links, often as part of a bi-
directional system with a transmitter and receiver at each end of the 
link. Point-to-multipoint operations sometimes use sectorized antennas 
that transmit in a broadcast-like mode to receivers used at fixed 
locations. The fixed receivers use highly directional antennas that are 
pointed at the transmitting antenna. Point-to-multipoint operations are 
generally used for one-way distribution of communications, including, 
for

[[Page 23684]]

example, data and video programming, but two-way voice and data 
operation are also being developed and used. Fixed services are 
generally exposed to a constant fixed interference environment 
characterized by the location of specific operations. We request 
comment on the need for interference immunity guidelines/standards for 
fixed terrestrial receivers in light of our changing approach to 
spectrum management, particularly with regard to licensing of 
frequencies on a geographic basis. We seek comment and information on 
the following questions concerning minimum interference immunity 
guidelines/standards for fixed terrestrial facilities:

--We recognize that in many cases, fixed terrestrial facilities, 
particularly those used for point-to-point operations, are designed for 
high reliability. Do existing design features for ensuring high 
reliability include measures for immunity to interference?
--We also recognize that certain terrestrial point-to-point and point-
to-multipoint receivers are designed to accommodate a wide bandwidth 
(e.g. Cable Television Relay Stations that deliver 80 video channels or 
more.) The receivers of such systems, by design, have little 
interference immunity. Should immunity guidelines/standards apply to 
such receivers?
--Should fixed terrestrial receivers be subjected to less stringent 
minimum interference immunity performance requirements than receivers 
used with other types of services, given the lesser variation in 
operating environment conditions generally experienced in the course of 
fixed operation?
--If minimum interference immunity performance guidelines/standards 
would be appropriate for fixed terrestrial service receivers, what 
minimum parameter values should be specified and how would those 
minimums compare to the performance of existing equipment used with 
these services?

    31. Broadcast services--The broadcast AM, FM, and television 
services operate much like fixed point-to-multipoint services, in that 
many consumer radios and television sets receive one-way communications 
from one or more fixed transmitter sites. However, the technical 
quality of service provided by different models of radio and television 
receivers varies to some extent, depending on the design of the device. 
These variations generally reflect manufacturers' perceptions of user 
demand balanced against cost/pricing factors. For example, the research 
conducted in response to the low power FM radio proceeding indicated 
that lower cost FM receivers may provide more limited service 
capabilities. Generally, allowing manufacturers to determine the 
performance capabilities of broadcast receivers, including the 
performance of their tuning/signal acquisition sections, historically 
has yielded product models that provide satisfactory service for 
consumers at attractive price levels.
    32. Recognizing the factors, we request comment on the desirability 
of developing minimum interference immunity performance specifications 
for broadcast receivers. In considering minimum immunity specifications 
for broadcast receivers, it is not our intent to reverse our 
longstanding practice of allowing the market to determine the 
performance of broadcast receivers, with the Commission stepping in 
only where obvious deficiencies appear that could disrupt the general 
reception of service. Rather, we believe that guidelines, applied on a 
voluntary basis, could perhaps lead to the marketing of product models 
with high interference immunity that consumers could purchase to meet 
their performance needs. Such models might be particularly desirable 
for consumers to receive quality services.
    33. Recently, the Commission selected in-band-on-channel (IBOC) as 
the technological approach for terrestrial digital audio broadcasting 
and permitted AM and FM radio broadcasters to commence digital 
operations on an interim basis using the hybrid IBOC systems developed 
by iBiquity Digital Corporation. It is expected that hybrid analog and 
digital audio broadcasting will continue for at least a decade. In 
light of this, we ask the following questions about AM and FM 
receivers:

--What minimum interference immunity parameters should be established 
for analog and analog/digital (hybrid) AM and FM receivers?
--What would be the additional costs to consumers of radio receivers 
that would provide interference immunity based on such established 
guidelines?
--What protection, if any, should be afforded the millions of analog 
radio receivers now in use and available for sale?
--How should consumers be informed of differences in radio receiver 
immunity performance? Would a recognizable label or symbol on a 
receiver assist consumers in identifying equipment with improved 
performance?

    34. We request comment on the following questions relating to the 
development and implementation of minimum interference immunity 
guidelines for broadcast television receivers:

--What minimum interference immunity parameter values should be 
specified for DTV broadcast receivers and how would those minimums 
compare to the performance of existing equipment used in this service?
--What would be the additional costs to consumers of DTV receivers that 
would provide interference immunity as specified in established 
guidelines?
--How should consumers be informed of differences in broadcast receiver 
interference immunity performance?

    35. We also ask for comment on an approach that would provide a 
fast-track for the development and implementation of voluntary receiver 
performance standards for broadcast DTV receivers. Television broadcast 
industry representatives, including the National Association of 
Broadcasters (NAB), the Association for Maximum Service Television 
(MSTV), and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair), have requested 
that we impose minimum performance thresholds on DTV receivers with 
respect to receiver sensitivity (noise figure and carrier-to-noise 
ratio), selectivity (co-channel and adjacent channel desired-to-
undesired signal ratios), dynamic range, and multipath tolerance 
(adaptive equalizer performance). While we have denied these requests 
in the context of mandatory performance standards, and are herein 
dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in this regard from Sinclair, 
we do believe that it is important that we continue to encourage 
manufacturers to provide adequate tuning capability for broadcast DTV 
signals, to monitor the performance of DTV receivers as they are 
introduced to the market, and to intervene if performance is found 
lacking in specific areas. We also believe that DTV receiver 
specifications may be useful in this effort as voluntary standards.
    36. In this regard, we believe there could be benefit to an 
approach that would encourage the development of minimum performance 
guidelines for DTV receivers and enable manufacturers to market a 
special category of receivers that meet such guidelines. Under the 
approach we are suggesting, industry parties representing broadcasters, 
consumer electronics manufacturers, consumers, and others as 
appropriate, would identify the relevant DTV receiver performance 
parameters,

[[Page 23685]]

develop appropriate minimum performance specifications for those 
parameters, and publish them. Receivers that meet these specifications 
could then be clearly marked with a recognizable label or symbol to 
identify them as complying with industry accepted standards for quality 
reception. Such identification would allow consumers to easily identify 
high performance products and manufacturers/retailers to emphasize the 
features of those products to encourage consumers to purchase them. As 
part of this approach, the Commission could include reference to the 
minimum performance standards in its rules and provide that only models 
that comply with these voluntary standards could be marketed as 
complying with the industry standards for performance quality or other 
terminology as might be defined through our rule making process. We 
request comment on this approach and suggestions for alternative 
approaches that would provide for implementation of minimum performance 
specifications for DTV receivers on a voluntary basis. We also request 
comment on the timeframes that would be required for an industry group 
to develop recommendations for improved receiver performance. We 
recognize that digital broadcast tuners will soon become mandatory in 
many television receivers and the corresponding need to move 
expeditiously if these standards are to be available in a timely 
fashion. We request comment on whether an industry group tasked with 
developing receiver guidelines could be convened within a three month 
period, and whether recommendations could be developed within six to 
nine months after that. We will also continue to encourage the 
inclusion of adequate reception quality in DTV receivers and to monitor 
the performance of DTV receivers in this regard through efforts to be 
conducted by our DTV Task Force, Media Bureau, and Office of 
Engineering and Technology.

The Impact of Minimum Performance Specifications for Receiver Immunity 
on Innovation and the Marketplace

    37. Receiver interference immunity performance specifications have 
the potential to impact receiver markets in various ways depending on 
how they are implemented. At the mildest level of impact, any 
performance specifications may create product differentiation that is 
generally desirable for consumers/users. For example, voluntary 
industry guidelines that imply, or define, that compliant products are 
better or more desirable than those that are not compliant would create 
product differentiation. At the same time, the cost of producing 
compliant devices might be higher than the cost of producing non-
compliant devices, resulting in higher prices for compliant products. 
Consumers/users would ultimately determine whether the compliant 
products are successful, based on whether they would be willing to pay 
any higher prices that might be charged for the enhanced performance of 
those products. At the highest level of impact, mandatory standards 
with which all products must comply could be expected to result in 
better, presumably more desirable, products that again might cost more 
to produce. However, mandatory standards could also stifle innovation 
by restricting the introduction of products with otherwise desirable 
new features that are inconsistent with the standards. The time and 
expense associated with changing mandatory standards can also tend to 
stifle innovation. The purchasers of products subject to mandatory 
standards would decide whether the devices succeed or fail in the 
market. For example, if prices were too high or other features were 
adversely affected, consumers/users might shift to an alternative 
communications service. We request comment on the impacts of receiver 
immunity performance specifications on innovation and markets for 
receiver equipment. Commenting parties are specifically asked to 
respond to the following questions:

--What effects would interference immunity performance specifications, 
in the form of either voluntary guidelines or mandatory standards, have 
on innovation in equipment design, performance (especially with regard 
to performance not addressed by specifications) and features?
--What effects would such specifications, again in the form of either 
voluntary guidelines or mandatory standards, have on receiver markets 
in terms of cost of production, price and availability of equipment, 
and user demand?
--What aspects of specifications would have the greatest impacts on 
innovation and markets and what steps could be taken to minimize or 
mitigate their impacts.
--To what extent should assessments of the impact on innovation and 
markets be a factor in the processes that define guidelines and 
standards?

The Current Receiver Environment

    38. The current population of radio receivers generally is subject 
only to rules limiting the amount of unintentional emissions they may 
radiate. Thus, existing receivers are, for the most part, built to 
provide levels of interference immunity as determined necessary by 
their designer/manufacturer to provide satisfactory service. This has, 
of course, resulted in a wide range of immunity performance across 
products used within the same services and across services. We seek to 
develop information describing the interference immunity 
characteristics of receivers used in the various radio services. We ask 
for comment and information in response to these specific questions:

--How do existing receivers used with the various radio services 
perform with regard to each of the immunity attributes discussed above?
--How many units with these capabilities are currently in service?
--What is the expected remaining service life of existing receivers?

Treatment of Existing Receivers

    39. There are literally billions of receivers currently in use with 
the various radio services. Depending on the extent to which new 
receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/standards might 
become central to particular spectrum policies, these existing 
receivers could pose impacts to our new spectrum management policies 
ranging from none to significant. There are a range of possible 
approaches that could be adopted for treatment of existing receivers, 
and the appropriate approach to apply would depend on a variety of 
circumstances. For example, if we were to adopt the guidelines approach 
for quality DTV receivers discussed and did not change pertinent 
channel allotment or other technical criteria, existing DTV receivers 
and new units of these same or similarly performing models would pose 
no impact on our spectrum policies. On the other hand, if we were to 
find it necessary to reclaim a portion of the spectrum used by a 
service, as we have done in the case of the broadcast auxiliary service 
at 1990-2110 MHz, and needed to support the same number of operations 
in the remaining spectrum, it might be necessary to require or provide 
incentives to users to switch to a new technology or more efficient 
receiver design that complies with minimum interference guidelines/
standards and to cease using existing equipment.
    40. Looking at this subject more generically, we observe that in 
situations where we adopted spectrum policies that assumed receivers 
performed in accordance with a given set of interference immunity

[[Page 23686]]

specifications, it is likely that many of the existing receivers could 
continue to provide satisfactory service. That is, the interference 
conditions that would necessitate the use of receivers meeting the 
applicable guidelines/standards would not be present everywhere, and in 
locations where potentially interfering signals were not present or 
were present at levels within the capabilities of existing receivers, 
those units could provide satisfactory service. Accordingly, one 
approach would be to simply allow users to change to new receivers as 
they encountered interference. Of course, where the service would be of 
more critical importance, it might be necessary to require replacement 
of receivers, and ``middle ground'' approaches that provided for a 
transition to mandatory use of new receivers are possible also. We 
request comment and suggestions on the matter of how to treat existing 
receivers that do not comply with any new receiver minimum interference 
immunity specifications that may be developed, and how the size of the 
installed receiver base should affect the development of receiver 
interference immunity performance guidelines/standards. We specifically 
ask that interested parties address the criteria that we should use in 
making determinations to take actions that would involve the 
involuntary replacement of receivers, either on a rapid or transitional 
basis, for example, in the case of public safety, other services 
involving safety-of-life or property, or services involving security of 
the public or national security. In the event such an action were 
determined to be necessary, what would be an appropriate phase-in time 
period?
    41. This is an exempt notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex 
parte presentations are permitted, except during any Sunshine Agenda 
period. See generally 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1203, and 1.1204(b).
    42. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments 
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one 
copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or 
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, 
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each 
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in 
reply.
    43. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene 
H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    44. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Hugh L. 
Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications 
Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 7-A162, 
Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch 
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for Windows 
or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover 
letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette 
should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding 
(including the lead docket number, in this case ET Docket No. 03-65, 
type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and 
the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also 
include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each 
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a 
single electronic file.
    45. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the Reference Information 
Center (Room CY-A257) of the Federal Communications Commission, The 
Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Copies of 
comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's 
duplicating contractor.
    46. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (TTY).''

Ordering Clauses

    47. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 
307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this Notice of Inquiry is 
hereby adopted.
    48. Pursuant to Sec.  1.429(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.429(i), the Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and 
Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 00-39 
submitted by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is dismissed as repetitive 
for the reasons indicated in the Notice of Inquiry.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-10951 Filed 5-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P