U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. remanded for further explanation part of...
U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. remanded for further explanation part of FCC order allowing AirCell to operate airborne cellular system (CD Oct 3 p11). Court denied most of arguments by petitioners AT&T Wireless, Cingular and Verizon Wireless against AirCell authorization.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
However, it said FCC should provide more explanation on interference threshold Commission used to determine that AirCell wouldn’t interfere with terrestrial cell operations. In decision written by Judge Judith Rogers, court questioned FCC’s lack of justification for dismissing study by opposing carriers that showed existence of harmful interference. FCC had said study was based on “unrealistically low interference threshold.” Rogers said “this may be so and the court would otherwise defer to the Commission’s expertise.” However, it said, FCC’s “succinct statement fails to provide a reasoned justification for rejecting the minus 124 dBm threshold [used by opposing study], much less a defense of the minus 117 dBm threshold that the Commission viewed as being ‘more realistic.'” Court said FCC’s explanation for concluding in AirCell’s favor on that issue “may be relatively simple.” However, “because there is too much evidence in the record suggesting a contrary conclusion, the court is unable to discern why the Commission considered one interference threshold preferable to another.” Court also questioned how Commission could use July 10, 1997, test data to “extrapolate… in the absence of a probability study” that AirCell never would cause “significant level of harmful interference.” Judges David Tatel and Harry Edwards also were on panel.