[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42011-42015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14930]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 03-201; FCC 07-117]


Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on recommendations for a spectrum 
etiquette in a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further NPRM) in 
this proceeding. Specifically, the Further NPRM seeks comment on a 
specific spectrum etiquette for unlicensed transmitters that operate in 
the 915 MHz band. The goal is to ensure that the different types of 
unlicensed devices that operate in a band have an opportunity for 
spectrum access.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before October 15, 2007, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before November 14, 2007.

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 03-201, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you 
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket 
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper, 
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office. 
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 07-
117, adopted June 19, 2007, and released June 22, 2007. 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: http://www.fcc.gov.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. 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, 
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the

[[Page 42012]]

following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form 
and directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: 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, 
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 (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should 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 e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the Further NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
there is a need to require unlicensed transmitters operating in the 915 
MHz band under Sec. Sec.  15.247 and 15.249 of the rules to comply with 
a spectrum etiquette requirement, and the impact that requiring an 
etiquette would have on the development and operation of unlicensed 915 
MHz devices operating under those rule sections. The Commission also 
seeks comment on the particular etiquette suggested by Cellnet that 
would require digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters 
operating in the 915 MHz band under Sec.  15.247 of the rules to 
operate at less than the 1 Watt maximum power if they are continuously 
silent less than 90% of the time within a 0.4 second interval. This 
etiquette would require that the maximum permitted power level decrease 
in accordance with a specified formula as the silent interval between 
transmission decreases. The Commission further seeks comment on 
alternatives to the etiquette suggested by Cellnet.
    2. The Commission concluded in the Report and Order, 69 FR 54027, 
September 7, 2004, that design flexibility has helped industry to 
develop efficient sharing and modulation schemes and that the existing 
regulations with no etiquette requirements have resulted in very 
efficient use of available unlicensed spectrum. However, the Commission 
notes Cellnet's observations regarding emerging products and its 
concern that digitally modulated 915 MHz devices operating under Sec.  
15.247 have no duty cycle limitation and may therefore transmit 
continuously at the maximum power permitted by the rules. Additionally, 
the Commission observes that there is no limitation on the maximum 
transmit bandwidth for digitally modulated 915 MHz devices other than 
the requirement to maintain the fundamental emissions within the 
authorized band of operation. Thus, there appears to be a potential for 
a digitally modulated device or a group of digitally modulated devices 
to essentially occupy the entire 915 MHz band, leaving little or no 
opportunity for other devices to gain access to the spectrum. The 
Commission believes that this has not been a problem in the past 
because the majority of spread spectrum devices operate at less than 
the maximum output power permitted in the rules to conserve battery 
power or because higher power is not necessary in many applications. 
Also, most spread spectrum devices that have been on the market in this 
band do not occupy the entire band simultaneously. However, as Cellnet 
and Itron observe, recently there has been increased use of the 
unlicensed 915 MHz band by parties providing wireless broadband 
services. These applications require operation at higher power and 
greater bandwidth than other unlicensed devices to provide service to 
users. While the Commission encourages the provision of wireless 
broadband service to all Americans, it recognizes that there is the 
potential under our rules for some unlicensed devices to preclude the 
operation of other unlicensed devices. The Commission believes it is 
now appropriate for it to consider whether there is a need for a 
spectrum etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 915 MHz band. 
However, it recognizes concerns about the potential for a spectrum 
etiquette to limit design flexibility and stifle unlicensed product 
development and innovation. Therefore, the Commission seeks to balance 
the concerns about the co-existence of different types of unlicensed 
devices with the concerns about inhibiting unlicensed device innovation 
in determining whether a spectrum etiquette is necessary and the form 
that an etiquette would take.
    3. The Commission used the term ``spectrum etiquette'' in the 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 68 FR 68823, September 17, 2003, 
to refer to a set of requirements to enable better sharing of spectrum 
between devices. The Commission cited the unlicensed personal 
communication services (UPCS) rules as an example of a spectrum 
etiquette. These rules contain a ``listen-before-talk'' requirement for 
UPCS devices to monitor spectrum to ensure that it is not being used 
before transmitting. However, a spectrum etiquette could be comprised 
of other requirements that enable better sharing of spectrum, such as 
trade-offs between the transmission duty cycle, output power and 
bandwidth to enable more devices to co-exist within the same band of 
spectrum.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a 
spectrum etiquette for unlicensed 915 MHz devices operating under 
Sec. Sec.  15.247 and 15.249 of the rules. In considering the need for 
an etiquette, the Commission's intent is not to establish interference 
protection rights for unlicensed devices or to ensure that unlicensed 
devices are always able to operate without interference. Rather, the 
goal is to ensure that the different types of unlicensed devices that 
operate in a band have an opportunity for spectrum access. The 
Commission specifically seeks comment on Cellnet's contention that 
digitally modulated devices in the 915 MHz band that transmit 
continuously at maximum power and occupy wide bandwidths are creating 
emissions at levels that can cause interference to incumbent devices, 
irrespective of how well the incumbent devices may have been designed 
to operate in the presence of other users. In this regard, the 
Commission seeks comment on the tolerance of currently operating 
devices to emissions from other devices in the same frequency band. It 
also seeks comment on how effective an etiquette would be in improving 
spectrum sharing between unlicensed devices in the 915 MHz

[[Page 42013]]

band. The Commission further seeks comment about the potential for a 
spectrum etiquette to limit design flexibility and stifle unlicensed 
product innovation.
    5. The Commission believes that the general approach to a 915 MHz 
spectrum etiquette recommended by Cellnet that would limit unlicensed 
devices that operate under Sec. Sec.  15.247 and 15.249 with a high 
duty cycle to lower power is one possible way to enable more efficient 
spectrum sharing among unlicensed devices. Therefore, the Commission 
seeks comment on the proposed requirement that digitally modulated 915 
MHz spread spectrum devices with a continuous silent interval of less 
than 90% within a 0.4 second window (0.36 seconds) operate with a lower 
power level than the 30 dBm (1 Watt) maximum currently permitted by the 
rules. Specifically, the maximum permitted power would range from 30 
dBm (1 Watt) when there is a continuous silent interval of at least 90% 
between transmissions, down to 0 dBm (0.001 Watt) when there is no 
silent interval between transmissions, with the power limit in dBm 
linearly interpolated between the 90% silent and continuous operation 
duty cycle values. These recommended requirements could ensure that 
devices operating at high power levels leave a silent interval between 
transmissions that would provide an opportunity for other devices to 
transmit, and would prevent a high power device from operating 
continuously and precluding operation of other devices within a band. 
Devices that operate with shorter silent intervals between 
transmissions would be required to operate at less than the one watt 
maximum power to offset the increased interference potential of the 
longer duration transmissions. The decreasing power output limit would 
reduce the range at which interference can occur, thus increasing the 
likelihood that other devices could co-exist with them. The minimum 
power level of 0 dBm (0.001 Watt) that Cellnet recommends for devices 
that transmit continuously is comparable to the maximum level permitted 
for devices operating under Sec.  15.249.
    6. The Commission seeks comment on whether this type of spectrum 
etiquette is appropriate to enable more efficient sharing of spectrum 
between unlicensed 915 MHz devices and, if so, whether the suggested 
power levels and duty cycles are appropriate. It also seeks comment on 
whether an alternative type of etiquette would be more appropriate. For 
example, should an etiquette include limitations on the frequency range 
or bandwidth that a digitally modulated device may occupy and/or a 
``listen-before-talk'' requirement? Parties who believe that 
alternative approaches to an etiquette or different power levels are 
more appropriate are requested to supply specific technical details and 
justification for their recommendations. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on the impact an etiquette like the one suggested would 
have on other devices that operate in the 915 MHz band or other bands 
where it may be applied. For example, would manufacturers have to 
redesign or cease marketing certain equipment if all equipment in a 
band were required to comply with an etiquette? If so, what particular 
types of equipment would be affected?
    7. If the Commission were to require a spectrum etiquette for the 
915 MHz band, it seeks comment on whether there would be a need to 
prohibit the synchronization of transmissions from multiple devices in 
a system or otherwise under control of the same party in such a way as 
to more fully occupy the silent intervals between transmissions. 
Permitting synchronized transmissions of this nature could allow a 
group of devices to transmit essentially continuously, thus defeating 
the purpose of a spectrum etiquette.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on whether a device operating under 
such a spectrum etiquette should be permitted to automatically change 
the power level and duty cycle at which it operates, or if the device 
should be required to operate using only one fixed duty cycle/power 
level combination. Could allowing automatic adjustments of the power 
level and duty cycle encourage efficient spectrum sharing between 
unlicensed devices since there is incentive to use only the transmit 
power necessary for the desired output data rates?
    9. Cellnet recommends applying an etiquette only to digitally 
modulated devices operating under Sec.  15.247 of the rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on the types of devices to which an etiquette 
should apply. For example, is an etiquette necessary for frequency 
hopping spread spectrum transmitters operating under Sec.  15.247? The 
Commission notes that these transmitters have channel separation 
requirements and continually hop between a number of different 
channels, and that Sec.  15.247(h) prohibits the synchronized hopping 
by a group of spread spectrum transmitters. These requirements would 
appear to obviate the need for an etiquette for frequency hopping 
spread spectrum transmitters. Is an etiquette necessary for devices 
operating under Sec.  15.249 that are permitted maximum field strength 
levels that are significantly less than the maximum permitted output 
for spread spectrum transmitters? The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether requiring an etiquette for digitally modulated transmitters but 
not frequency hopping transmitters would place digitally modulated 
transmitters at operational or other disadvantages.
    10. The Commission notes that the 915 MHz band is the only one 
where a co-existence problem between unlicensed devices has been 
raised. However, it recognizes that unlicensed use of the 2.4 GHz and 
5.8 GHz bands is also continuing to increase. These bands are used by 
many types of unlicensed devices, including cordless telephones and 
wireless broadband networking equipment. The Commission is aware that 
industry standards such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and ZigBee have been 
developed for the various unlicensed frequency bands and these 
standards are designed to facilitate sharing among multiple unlicensed 
devices. The Commission has no intention of disrupting the private 
sector standards process. At the same time, it believes it is 
appropriate to consider whether its regulations should be amended to 
ensure that a single device or group of devices does not occupy all of 
the spectrum all of the time and thereby deny access to others. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a similar 
need to adopt rules for digitally modulated transmitters or other 
devices operating in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands to better facilitate 
shared used of the spectrum among unlicensed devices.
    11. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate transition 
requirements if the Commission were to adopt a spectrum etiquette for 
unlicensed devices operating under Sec. Sec.  15.247 and 15.249. In 
particular, it seeks comment on whether there should be a cutoff date 
after which new devices must comply with an etiquette requirement. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether equipment certified before a 
cutoff date should be permanently grandfathered, or whether there 
should be a specific cutoff date on the manufacturing, importation, 
marketing and/or use of equipment that does not comply with any 
etiquette rules adopted in this proceeding. If so, for which of these 
actions should there be a cutoff date, and what is the appropriate 
date?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended

[[Page 42014]]

(RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (NPRM). 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 on the NPRM provided in the item. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 103-121, Title 11, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    13. This Further NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should require unlicensed devices to comply with rules to designed to 
ensure more efficient sharing of spectrum (i.e., a ``spectrum 
etiquette'') such as the one suggested by Cellnet. Cellnet's 
recommended spectrum etiquette would be a trade-off between transmitter 
power and transmission duration. Devices that operate with a duty cycle 
of 10% or less would be permitted to operate at the same one Watt power 
level currently permitted in the rules. As the transmission duty cycle 
is increased, the maximum permitted power would decrease, down to 0.001 
Watts (1 milliwatt) for devices that transmit continuously.

B. Legal Basis

    14. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 
304 and 307.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    15. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\3\ The RFA defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern'' 
under section 3 of the Small Business Act.\4\ Under the Small Business 
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and 
(3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \4\ Id. 601(3).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' \6\ The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 
750 or fewer employees.\7\ According to Census Bureau data for 2002, 
there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that 
operated for the entire year.\8\ Of this total, 1,010 had employment of 
under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.\9\ Thus, 
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, ``334220 Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing''; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.
    \7\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \8\ U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic 
Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, 
NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The number of ``establishments'' is a less 
helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than 
would be the number of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the 
latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. 
Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even 
though that location may be owned by a different establishment. 
Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses 
in this category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this 
category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to 
give the total number of such entities for 2002, which was 929.
    \9\ Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 
or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic 
census categories of ``Paging'' \10\ and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' \11\ Under both categories, the SBA deems a 
wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For 
the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 
there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year.\12\ Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more.\13\ Thus, under this category and associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census 
category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census 
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.\14\ Of this total, 1,378 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 
1,000 employees or more.\15\ Thus, under this second category and size 
standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211.
    \11\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
    \12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
    \13\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000 
employees or more.''
    \14\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
    \15\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000 
employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    18. Digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters are already 
required to be authorized under the Commission's certification 
procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, and no 
changes to that requirement are proposed. There would, however, be 
changes to the compliance requirements.
    19. The applicant for certification would have to demonstrate in 
the application that the equipment complies with the etiquette 
requirements. These requirements may include a trade-off between the 
silent period between transmissions and output power as suggested by 
Cellnet, or other requirements such as the equipment monitoring 
spectrum to ensure it is unused before transmitting (listen-before-
talk).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 47 CFR 15.323(c) and 15.407(h) for examples of listen-
before-talk requirements currently in the rules.

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

[[Page 42015]]

    20. Most unlicensed transmitters can be approved by either the 
Commission's Laboratory or a designated Telecommunication Certification 
Body (TCB). TCBs are private sector organizations that are permitted to 
issue equipment certifications in the same manner as the Commission. 
TCBs would not be permitted to certify equipment subject to the 
etiquette requirement until the Commission has experience with them and 
can properly advise TCBs on how to apply the applicable rules.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): `` the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the rule for such small entities; the use of 
performance, rather than design standards; and an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. If the rules proposed in this notice are adopted, the 
Commission believes they might have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. For an entity that chooses to 
manufacture or import digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters, 
the rules would impose costs for compliance with equipment technical 
requirements, such as modifying or redesigning equipment that does not 
comply with any new etiquette requirement. However, the burdens for 
complying with the proposed rules would be the same for both large and 
small entities. Further, the proposals in the NPRM are ultimately 
beneficial for both large and small entities. The Commission cannot 
find electrical engineering alternatives that would achieve our goals 
while treating small entities differently. Nonetheless, it solicits 
comment on any alternatives commenters may wish to suggest for the 
purpose of facilitating the Commission's intention to minimize the 
compliance burden on smaller entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    23. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby adopted. 
This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 
4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 
303(r).
    24. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14930 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P