[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26777-26779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10840]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[ET Docket No. 13-101; DA 13-801]


Technological Advisory Council Recommendation for Improving 
Receiver Performance

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been tasked 
to study the role of receivers in ensuring the efficient use of 
spectrum and to provide recommendations on avoiding obstacles posed by 
receiver performance to making spectrum available for new services. 
Acting on this request, the TAC working group on Receivers and Spectrum 
provided actionable recommendations to the Chairman at the TAC's 
December 2012 meeting and has recently formalized these recommendations 
in a white paper for the Commission. The FCC's Office of Engineering 
and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC white paper and its 
recommendations to help determine what next steps may be appropriate.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 21, 2013, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 13-101, 
by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    [ssquf] Mail: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering and Technology, 
Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, Room 6-A420, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-0761, email [email protected], or Ronald 
Repasi, (202) 418-0768, TTY (202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, ET Docket No. 13-101, DA 13-801, released April 22, 2013. The 
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-
A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of 
this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
www.fcc.gov.
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail

[[Page 26778]]

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 
Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Summary of the Public Notice

    1. Early in 2012, Chairman Julius Genachowski tasked the FCC's 
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) to study the role of receivers in 
ensuring the efficient use of spectrum and to provide recommendations 
on avoiding obstacles posed by receiver performance to making spectrum 
available for new services. Acting on this request, the TAC working 
group on Receivers and Spectrum provided actionable recommendations to 
the Chairman at the TAC's December 2012 meeting and has recently 
formalized these recommendations in a white paper for the Commission to 
consider, titled, Interference Limits Policy--The use of harm claim 
thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems; 
at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaperTACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf (TAC white paper). The FCC's 
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC 
white paper and its recommendations to help determine what next steps 
may be appropriate.
    2. In addition to the work of the TAC, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) was tasked by Congress in the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to study spectrum efficiency 
and receiver performance. The GAO report, Further Consideration of 
Options to Improve Receiver Performance Needed, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652284.pdf, was recently published and makes reference to 
the TAC white paper. The report recommends the Commission consider 
small-scale pilot tests and other methods to collect information on the 
practical effects of various options for improving receiver 
performance.
    3. Also, in July 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on 
Science and Technology (PCAST) published a report, titled, Realizing 
the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth; 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf. This report noted 
the important role of receivers in spectrum policy and regulation, and 
recommended receiver interference limits be defined to specify the 
level of radio interference that receivers should be expected to 
tolerate without being able to make claims of harmful interference. The 
TAC white paper focuses on this definition of ``interference limits'' 
in making its policy proposals.
    4. The TAC white paper sets forth an interference limits policy 
approach, and suggests that steps should be taken to define the radio 
environment in which receivers are expected to operate. According to 
the paper, this approach would make it easier to determine which party 
bears responsibility for mitigating harmful interference when it 
occurs, by specifying signal power levels called ``harm claim 
thresholds'' that a service would be expected to tolerate from other 
services before a claim of harmful interference could be made. The TAC 
white paper asserts this approach would avoid the need to mandate that 
receivers be built, sold, or operated with specific performance 
characteristics. In addition, it could incentivize incumbent spectrum 
users to improve receivers to more efficiently use spectrum without 
stifling innovation and receiver design.
    5. OET seeks specific comment on the TAC white paper, which 
recommends multiple actions the Commission could take to implement an 
interference limits policy. We also seek comment on the overall 
interference limits policy approach proposed in that white paper and 
information on the practical effects of various options including the 
method used today relative to receiver standards and specifications, 
the use of multi-stakeholder organizations in the development of 
interference thresholds, and the role of the FCC.

Interference Limits Policy Approach

    6. Comments are requested on the viability of the overall 
interference limits policy approach presented in the TAC white paper. 
In particular, we invite parties to comment on the viability of the use 
of an interference limits policy approach among services operating in 
adjacent frequency bands. What are the costs and benefits associated 
with this approach? Are there specific frequency bands or services that 
would particularly benefit from this approach or where implementation 
is straightforward and would be appropriate for a trial? We request 
comment on any areas where additional technical analysis may be needed 
to implement an interference limits policy approach, such as the impact 
of various coding and modulation schemes on interference thresholds, 
propagation models that should be used in determining the interference 
thresholds, measurement methods for assessing compliance with the 
limits in cases of interference, and methods for determining the 
performance characteristics of currently deployed receivers and 
systems. In addition, we invite parties to discuss the key 
implementation issues of the proposed approach that would need to be 
addressed as the Commission focuses on making additional spectrum 
available for new mobile and fixed wireless broadband services. Would 
proactive attention to establishing interference limits create more 
certainty in the marketplace for spectrum (re)allocations?
    7. The TAC white paper makes note that an interference limits 
policy approach may not be appropriate in all cases. Are there other 
policy approaches that should be considered? Moreover, the GAO report 
identifies the lack of incentives for manufacturers or spectrum users 
to incur costs associated with using more robust receivers, and the 
difficulty of accommodating a changing spectrum environment, such as 
when spectrum is repurposed for a new use. Are the incentives in the 
TAC white paper recommendations for improving receiver robustness to 
interference sufficient? Are there other incentives not mentioned in 
the TAC white paper recommendations that should be considered? Should 
the Commission consider circumstances unique to each service, such as 
the diversity of devices available, the cost of replacement devices, 
typical replacement times, or sophistication of users that may impact 
the practicality, necessity, or sufficiency of such an approach? How 
should the technological evolution of components and receiver design 
influence the timeframe and evolution of interference limits? In light 
of these issues, are there other alternatives, or other options within 
an interference limits policy approach, that should be considered for 
further analysis and/or small-scale pilot tests? What are the cost and 
benefit tradeoffs of these alternatives?

Receiver Standards

    8. Industry standards for receiver performance exist for certain 
federal and non-federal wireless services and technologies. There are 
also wireless services for which there are no industry guidelines or 
standards for receiver performance. Where industry standards

[[Page 26779]]

exist for receivers, what is the relationship between these standards 
and the method for determining appropriate harm claim thresholds for 
receivers? How do actual receivers perform in relation to existing 
performance standards? How are receivers evaluated in meeting those 
industry standards? Where there are industry standards, how are such 
standards enforced? To the extent standards are voluntary, how do users 
of receivers know whether equipment meets or exceeds such standards? 
Where there are no industry standards for receiver performance, how 
should acceptable thresholds of receiver performance be developed and 
validated? What are the technical and performance issues among diverse 
wireless services that need to be understood and analyzed between 
different stakeholder groups, especially the developers of wireless 
transmitters, receivers and components? What are the cost and 
performance trends of key receiver components that determine practical 
thresholds of system performance?
    9. The TAC recommends that the FCC implement a Web accessible 
repository (e.g., through the FCC spectrum dashboard) of existing 
receiver standards, and a voluntary repository of receiver 
specifications for existing receivers. This, the TAC contends, would 
facilitate technical information sharing among diverse stakeholder 
groups of wireless system developers who need to know and understand 
the specifications of systems other than their own. How effective would 
this method of information sharing be for product developers? What are 
the source documents that would be appropriate for such a repository? 
Are there additional and/or more effective methods, perhaps industry-
led, to share receiver technical standards and specifications between 
stakeholder groups that traditionally do not work together in the same 
industry groups (e.g., standards organizations)? Given the increasing 
number of devices developed for international use, would an industry-
led approach be more effective than a US-specific repository?

Multi-Stakeholder Organizations

    10. The TAC recommends that the Commission encourage the formation 
of one or more multi-stakeholder groups to investigate interference 
limits policy at suitable high-value inter-service boundaries. We seek 
comment on such a multi-stakeholder process and solicit interest from 
candidate participants. What frequency bands would be most appropriate 
for considering the formation of a multi-stakeholder organization to 
develop technical parameters and methods for implementing an 
interference limits policy? Are there more effective methods of 
organizing a diverse group of stakeholders for developing such 
technical parameters?
    11. What is the best way to initiate the formation of a multi-
stakeholder group? We invite comment and recommendations on applicable 
governance, issue resolution, and enforcement methods, including but 
not limited to how stakeholders can coordinate across industry 
segments, such as those where voluntary standards are needed and/or 
developed. Also, recognizing that service boundaries and spectrum 
sharing often involve both non-federal and federal spectrum users, we 
seek comment on the costs and benefits of a comprehensive approach 
between the FCC and NTIA to incorporate receiver performance into 
spectrum management practices. How should the FCC and NTIA coordinate 
with government agencies and other stakeholders to address situations 
where large numbers of users are impacted by changes to adjacent 
spectrum licenses? Should the FCC and NTIA perform band assessments to 
determine where possible future repurposing in a band might impact 
adjacent bands and develop plans and processes to ensure proper 
protections?

Role of the FCC

    12. We seek general comment on whether and how the Commission 
should implement a policy that incentivizes improved interference 
tolerance of wireless systems. Specifically, should the FCC adopt a 
policy of employing interference limits in certain cases of neighboring 
bands and services? Should the FCC adopt specific rules for 
establishing interference limits that are recommended by one or more 
multi-stakeholder groups? Should the FCC develop a compliance model 
similar to the one used in the context of CALEA, in which there is 
industry-led establishment of standards and solutions and the 
Commission would get involved only via special petition? We envision 
that the FCC could be a facilitator in a non-directive role with 
convening stakeholders. Also, the GAO recommends consideration of 
small-scale pilot tests of options for improving receiver performance. 
What should be the scope of an appropriate pilot test? What role should 
the FCC play in encouraging and initiating industry action? Are there 
existing FCC proceedings where incentives to improve the interference 
tolerance of wireless systems should be applied?

Federal Communications Commission.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-10840 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P