[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33654-33687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12713]
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33654]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 24, 25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101
[ET Docket Nos. 03-137 and 13-84; FCC 13-39]
Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
Limits and Policies
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on proposals developed in the
course of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission's)
proceeding regarding compliance with our guidelines for human exposure
to RF electromagnetic fields. The Commission's further proposals
reflect an effort to provide more efficient, practical, and consistent
application of evaluation procedures to ensure compliance with its
guidelines limiting human exposure to RF energy from Commission-
regulated transmitters and devices. In addition the Commission has
initiated a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in a new proceeding to determine
whether there is a need for reassessment of the Commission
radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits and policies. The NOI acknowledges
the research that has occurred in recent years and the changing nature
of RF devices and their uses, and focuses on the propriety of the
Commission's existing standards and policies, including its fundamental
exposure guidelines and aspects of its equipment authorization process
and policies as they relate to RF exposure in light of these changes
since its rules were adopted.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before September 3, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before November 1, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Mantiply, email:
[email protected]; Martin Doczkat, email: [email protected]; the
Commission's RF Safety Program, [email protected]; or call the Office of
Engineering and Technology at (202) 418-2470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 03-137, and Notice
of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 13-84, FCC 13-39, adopted March 27, 2012 and
released March 29, 2012. 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. 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry
1. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM) focuses
on specific proposals to the Commission's RF safety rules not acted
upon in the Report and Order (Order) in this proceeding, that have
either been raised or have evolved significantly since the NPRM, 68 FR
52879, September 8, 2003. In the Further NPRM, the Commission's intent
is to appropriately protect the public without imposing an undue burden
on industry, and it seeks comment on the costs and benefits related to
this issue in its proposals. For each cost or benefit addressed, the
Commission asks that commenters provide specific data and information
such as actual or estimated dollar figures, including a description of
how the data or information was calculated or obtained and any
supporting documentation. Vague or unsupported assertions regarding
costs or benefits generally will be less persuasive than the more
specific and supported statements.
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM)
A. Definition of Terms Related to the Commission's Further Proposals
2. With respect to the Commission's use of varied definitions for
``power'' in its RF-exposure related rules, it is proposing explicit
and consistent power definitions appropriate for the conditions of use
and underlying exposure limits. The Commission clarifies for the
purposes of its proposals here the definitions that it will use
consistently throughout this Further NPRM. The ``maximum time-averaged
ERP'' for a fixed RF source is the product of the maximum delivered
power to the antenna and its maximum gain as averaged over any 30
minute time period; the ``available maximum time-averaged power'' is
the maximum available power as averaged over any 30 minute time period;
and the ``delivered maximum time-averaged power'' is the net maximum
delivered or supplied power as averaged over any 30 minute time period.
3. The Commission is also proposing a modification to the
terminology it uses in the context of providing for ``exclusions'' from
routine evaluation. Section 1.1306 of the Commission's NEPA procedures,
47 CFR 1.1306, establishes a categorical ``exclusion'' for actions not
specifically defined by Sec. 1.1307(a) or (b), or determined by the
processing bureau under Sec. 1.1307(c) or (d), to have a potentially
significant environmental impact that requires the applicant or license
to prepare an EA. The Commission is proposing a change in the language
used in its rules, so that an ``exemption'' will refer to an exemption
from performing a routine RF evaluation, while the term ``exclusion''
will continue to be used in the context of an exclusion from
preparation of any EA or other additional environmental document.
B. Exemption: Power and Distance Criteria to Streamline Determination
of Compliance
4. The Commission proposes here to adopt general exemption criteria
applying to single RF sources and then further generalized to multiple
RF sources in Sec. 1.1307(b) of its proposed revised rules, based on
power, distance, and frequency, for all services using fixed, mobile,
and portable transmitters, including implants. These exemption
thresholds proposed in the Further NPRM are based on the general
population exposure limits.
5. In the event that RF sources in fact cause human exposure to
levels of RF radiation in excess of the Commission's limits, a routine
RF evaluation or exemption from such an evaluation would not be
sufficient to show that there is no significant effect on the quality
of the human environment or that the RF sources are categorically
excluded from environmental processing. Further, RF sources are subject
to review under Sec. Sec. 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of the rules
regardless of whether those RF sources have either been determined to
be exempt from routine RF evaluation or have been satisfactorily
evaluated for compliance.
1. Blanket 1 mW Exemption
6. The Commission proposes inSec. 1.1307(b)(1) of its proposed
revised rules an exemption from routine environmental evaluation for a
single transmitter operating with up to one milliwatt available maximum
time-
[[Page 33655]]
averaged power, independent of frequency and service type. The
Commission seeks comment specifically on whether the 1-mW exemption
threshold will be useful in streamlining approval of very-low-power
implanted and body-mounted medical devices that operate intermittently
and with a low transmitter duty cycle.
7. The Commission conservatively proposes two centimeters as a
required separation distance between any portion of a blanket exempt
radiating structure and the nearest portion of any other radiating
structure in order to qualify for the 1-mW blanket exemption.
Conversely, for the case of multiple transmitters having antennas
within two centimeters of each other, the Commission proposes that the
power from all such transmitters be added together, treated
conservatively as a single transmitting antenna, and compared with the
blanket 1-mW exemption. The Commission seeks comment on whether
additive multiple transmitters operating at 1 mW at least two
centimeters apart could under normal operating conditions exceed the
exposure limits; on whether addition of a blanket exempt transmitter
could cause its exposure limits to be exceeded when other compliant
transmitters are present, exempt or not; and on whether the blanket
exemption as proposed may not be adequate to prevent exposure over its
limits, for example, in a situation involving multiple high-gain
millimeter-wave radiators.
2. MPE-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources
8. Instead of defining an invariant power threshold beyond a
certain distance, the Commission proposes herein to establish varying
exemption criteria based on MPE limits for fixed, mobile, and portable
RF sources so long as the separation distance for the operating
frequency is beyond the distance where the reactive near-field
dominates (i.e., at distances beyond [lambda]/2[pi], where [lambda] is
the free-space operating wavelength).
a. Single Transmitters
9. Rather than identifying power, distance, and frequency criteria
by service, as has been done in the past, the Commission is proposing a
revised table in Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of its rules for single fixed,
mobile, and portable antennas that specifies power and distance
criteria for each of the five frequency bands used for the MPE limits,
that would apply regardless of service category. The Commission
proposes to apply these criteria to single fixed, mobile, and portable
RF sources at separation distances from any part of the radiating
structure of at least [lambda]/2[pi] in all service categories and to
use them to determine whether routine evaluation is necessary. The
proposed thresholds in Table 1 in the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i)
are based on the general population maximum permissible exposure (MPE)
limits with a single perfect reflection, outside of the reactive near-
field, and in the main beam of the radiator, to be compared with the
maximum time-averaged ERP.
10. In the context of the proposed Table 1, the Commission proposes
to define ERP, as the product of the maximum time-averaged power
delivered to the antenna and its maximum gain in any direction relative
to a half-wave dipole. The maximum gain is the largest far-field total
power gain relative to a dipole in any direction for all transverse
polarization components. The maximum time-averaged power delivered to
the antenna is averaged over any 30 minute time period for fixed
sources and is averaged over a period inherent to the device
transmission characteristics for mobile and portable sources. The term
``separation distance'' in Table 1 is defined as the minimum distance
in any direction, from any part of the radiating structure of a
transmitting antenna or antenna array, to the body of a nearby person.
For these exemptions to apply, the Commission proposes that separation
distance shall be required to be maintained for all persons, including
those occupationally exposed, during operation at the ERP used for
comparison to the applicable formula in the table above. Table 1 would
strictly apply only to single transmitters.
11. With respect to the Commission's initial proposal in the NPRM
to exempt low-power single fixed transmitters, it now proposes to
delete the existing mobile power exemptions in Sec. 2.1091(c) and
apply the new proposed general fixed transmitter power exemptions to
mobile and portable devices as well.
12. The Commission proposes to delete the special exemptions from
evaluation in the Amateur Radio Service in Sec. 97.13(c) of its rules,
to avoid specific exemptions for particular services and maintain
consistency. Application of the general exemptions proposed here to
amateur radio installations would preclude the possibility of
overexposure and require further evaluation only when necessary, giving
guidance for both fixed and mobile transmitting antennas. Parties that
support maintaining the current exemption based on power alone are
requested to explain how it provides adequate assurance that the public
is protected against exposure to RF energy in excess of the
Commission's limits and the extent of the burden imposed by this
proposal.
b. Multiple Fixed Transmitters
13. To quantitatively exempt multiple transmitting antenna
configurations and transmitters where ambient exposure determined from
a previous evaluation (measured or computed) may be significant, the
Commission proposes to apply Table 1 in Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of its
proposed rules to multiple antennas operating in the same 30-minute
time averaging period as follows: a summation of the fractional
contributions to the exemption threshold for each antenna may be
determined by calculating the ratio of the maximum time-averaged ERP
for the antenna to the appropriate frequency- and distance-dependent
exemption threshold calculated using either the formulas in Table 1 of
the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or the formulas in the proposed
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) in the Further NPRM, summing these ratios, and
adding any contributions from RF sources with known SAR as well as any
significant ambient exposure (expressed as the ``ambient exposure
quotient,'' (AEQ), i.e., a fraction of the MPE that exists in the
environment prior to considering the relevant sources) at a specific
location, as defined below. An AEQ greater than 0.05 is considered
significant. If the total is 1 or more, further evaluation would be
required. In addition to ERP, if the configuration of a fixed RF source
operating between 300 MHz and 6 GHz in frequency permits a minimum
separation distance between 0.5 cm and 40 cm or less than [lambda]/
2[pi], the Commission also proposes alternatively to the MPE-based
exemption criteria that the SAR-based exemption criteria may be used.
c. Summation for RF Sources Without Definable Physical Relationships Is
Not Required
14. While it is reasonable to sum exposure due to all well-
characterized sources, the Commission sees no practical method to
quantitatively determine compliance for multiple RF sources that have
no fixed physical relationship to one another. Examples where a
physical relationship would not be well defined are between a fixed
wireless base station and a mobile or portable device, or between two
mobile or portable devices, but not between multiple transmitters
within the same device or between some classes of dependent devices
(such as USB dongles). For multiple exempt RF sources without an
inherent spatial
[[Page 33656]]
relationship, it is not likely that the localized or whole-body SAR
limits would be exceeded. The Commission therefore proposes to not
require exemption summations where there is no inherent spatial
relationship between RF sources. However, the Commission emphasizes
that it will continue to routinely consider summation of multiple
mobile and portable transmitters (including modular transmitters that
may be installed) for the purpose of evaluation and/or FCC Laboratory
test reduction procedures as long as these transmitters are within a
single device and a clear spatial relationship among multiple
transmitters within this single device is apparent. Notwithstanding
this policy, the Commission emphasizes Sec. 1.1307(c) and (d) of the
Commission rules would require further environmental processing if the
staff determined, on its own or based upon the allegations of an
interested party in a written petition, that the particular use of a
device(s) ordinarily exempt from routine RF evaluation exceed(s) the
applicable exposure limits.
3. SAR-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources
15. Here the Commission proposes to establish additional exemption
criteria for various transmitter configurations based primarily on SAR
limits for fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources near a human body,
when the separation distance may be less than [lambda]/2[pi]. These
proposed additional exemption criteria are applicable between 300 MHz
and 6 GHz in frequency and between 0.5 cm and 40 cm in separation
distance.
a. Single Transmitters
16. The Commission recognizes that there are other important
variables besides frequency, distance, and power that affect SAR; these
variables include antenna type and impedance (and its relationship to
RF current) and must be treated conservatively in order to define
thresholds that will avoid exemption of devices with unusual antenna
configurations that could result in a SAR above the limit. To qualify
for this proposed exemption, the Commission would require both the ERP
and matched or available conducted power to be less than the threshold
to avoid problems with high gain or poorly matched antennas. The
Commission proposes general frequency and separation distance dependent
maximum time-averaged power thresholds for any RF source (i.e.,
portable, mobile, and fixed) in Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of its rules to
support an exemption from SAR testing between 300 MHz and 6 GHz in
frequency and between 0.5 cm and 20 cm in separation distance.
Additionally, in this same frequency range, the Commission proposes to
extend the values obtained at exactly 20 cm from that distance to 40 cm
for mobile devices so that the thresholds will be continuous with the
exemption criteria in Table 1 in Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of the proposed
rules at 40 cm.
17. The proposed formulas in the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii)
define the proposed SAR-based exemption thresholds in general for
either available maximum time-averaged power or maximum time-averaged
ERP, whichever is greater. If the ERP of a portable device is not
easily obtained, the Commission proposes that available power may be
used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) for comparison with the
proposed criteria below only if the device antenna(s) or radiating
structure(s) do not exceed an electrical length of [lambda]/4. As for
devices such as ``leaky'' coaxial distribution systems, RF heating
equipment, and devices in general where the gain is not well defined
but always less than that of a half-wave dipole, the Commission
proposes that the RF power generated by the device may be used in place
of the ERP.
18. The proposed exemption threshold, Pth, is defined in
accordance with the source-based time averaging requirements described
in Sec. 2.1093(d)(5). Time-averaged power measurements are necessary
to determine if the maximum output of a transmitter is above or below
the proposed threshold for exemption or routine SAR evaluation. The
power measurement and SAR test procedures required to determine the
number and types of SAR tests necessary to demonstrate device
compliance will be available in procedures established by the OET
Laboratory at www.fcc.gov/oet/ea.
b. Multiple Portable Transmitters
19. To determine whether a device with multiple transmitters is
exempt, the Commission proposes that the individual contributions from
each transmitter in the device be summed, and if the sum is less than
100% of the exemption threshhold then the device would be exempt. See
the proposed revised rule Sec. Sec. 2.1093(c)(1), 2.1093(c)(2), and
1.1307(b)(1)(v) for the proposed exemption summation formulas. The
ratios proposed to determine these individual contributions are defined
by dividing the maximum time-averaged power (either available power or
ERP, whichever is greater) for each transmitter by the appropriate
frequency- and distance-dependent threshold calculated using the
formulas in the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii). If the ratios for all
transmitters operating in the same time averaging period are included
in the sum and the sum is less than one (i.e., 100%), the device (i.e.,
all transmitters within the device) is proposed to be exempt from
routine evaluation.
20. For the case where one or more transmitters are being added to
a device containing existing transmitters that already required SAR
evaluation, the Commission is proposing that the remaining SAR margin
be used to potentially exempt the additional transmitter(s). If the sum
of the previously measured maximum 1-gram average SAR for the existing
transmitters is less than 1.6 W/kg and the sum of the above defined
ratios for the transmitters to be added is less than the ratio of the
SAR margin to 1.6 W/kg, then the additional transmitters are proposed
to be exempt from further SAR evaluation. The Commission also proposes
that, in order to use exemption criteria for multiple transmitters,
each additional transmitter being added to a device must also be exempt
from evaluation for this to apply to avoid small incremental
contributions that might approach the exposure limit.
21. Conventionally, the use of maximum time-averaged power requires
that the power (and SAR) of multiple transmitters operating in the same
time averaging period be summed even if they do not transmit at the
same instant. For the purpose of implementing exemption thresholds of
products that can operate with multiple transmitters, the proposed
formula below must take into consideration all transmitters that can
operate at the same time and transmit with or without overlapping
transmissions to determine if evaluation exemption applies. The
proposed values for Pi and SARj are determined
according to the source-based time averaging requirements of Sec.
2.1093(d)(5), and summing these values represents conservatively the
maximum calculated exposure. As the extent of overlapping transmissions
may vary among individual products and host configurations, the details
of how to conduct evaluations and determine compliance are generally
addressed in FCC Laboratory test procedures.
22. The proposed summation scheme for multiple transmitters makes
the conservative assumption that antennas that are at the same body-to-
antenna or radial distance are also at the same location. The
Commission seeks
[[Page 33657]]
comment on this proposal. For some specific types of equipment where
certain FCC Laboratory procedures apply, consideration of lateral
separation has already been implemented in these procedures to
streamline evaluation requirements, and this will continue. However,
since the necessary lateral antenna-to-antenna or SAR peak location
separation distance to avoid significant SAR overlap is a complex
function of the radial antenna-to-body distance and antenna
characteristics, the Commission is proposing not to allow a general
exemption from routine evaluation based on lateral distance at this
time. The Commission encourages further development and implementation
of more efficient evaluation procedures in this area by the Laboratory
and others.
c. Multiple Portable and Mobile Transmitters
23. A device may contain a combination of portable and mobile
transmitters, that is, some at less than 20 cm and some at greater than
20 cm separation distances from the body, respectively. Other devices
may contain either only mobile or only portable transmitters. In any
case, the fractional contributions to the threshold can be determined
according to this proposal by calculating for each transmitter the
ratio of the maximum time-averaged power (matched conducted power and/
or ERP, as appropriate) for the transmitter and comparing to the
appropriate frequency- and distance-dependent threshold using the
equations in Table 1 of the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) and the
formulas in the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) and then summing those
ratios. If the ratios for all transmitters in a device operating in the
same time averaging period are included in the sum and the sum is less
than one, the device (i.e. all transmitters within the device) is
proposed to be exempt from routine evaluation. The Commission proposes
that all transmitters must be included in the summation of multiple
transmitters in a device, including those that may be added
subsequently under its permissive change authorization procedures.
24. For devices that have already been evaluated for compliance
based on SAR, if one or more portable transmitters are being added, the
additional transmitters are proposed to be exempt from further
evaluation if all of the following conditions apply: (1) The summation
of the ratios of either the available maximum time-averaged power or
the ERP, whichever is greater, for the portable transmitters to be
added and existing portable transmitters that do not require SAR
evaluation to the threshold powers according to the formulas in the
proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii); (2) the ratio of the summation of
previously measured maximum 1-gram average SAR for the existing
portable transmitters to 1.6 W/kg; and (3) the summation of the ratios
of the maximum time-averaged ERP for mobile transmitters to the
exemption thresholds according to either the formulas in the proposed
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) or Table 1of the proposed Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i),
as applicable--all sum to less than one.
25. The values for Pi, SARj, and
ERPk, where applicable, are proposed to be determined
according to the source-based time averaging requirements of Sec. Sec.
2.1093(d)(5) and 2.1091(d)(2), and the sum of those values represents
conservatively the total calculated exposure. The proposed formula may
be used even if some of the three terms do not apply (i.e., where those
terms would be zero). As the extent of overlapping transmissions may
vary among individual products and host configurations, FCC Laboratory
test procedures may address the details of how to conduct evaluations
and determine compliance for specific types of devices.
26. The ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) proposed to be applicable
in the summation of multiple fixed sources is not proposed to be
applicable in the summation of multiple mobile and portable sources,
because AEQ could vary significantly depending on the spatial location
of the device and is thus indeterminate.
d. Portable Transmitters With Operating Frequencies Above Six Gigahertz
or at Distances Greater Than [lambda]/2[pi]
27. The Commission proposes that above 6 GHz, the more conservative
exemptions using the equations proposed in Table 1 of Sec.
1.1307(b)(1)(i) must be used for portable devices if the separation
distance is greater than [lambda]/2[pi], again using only the third
term involving ERP in the formula above. In general, the Commission
proposes that any RF source operating above 6 GHz may use only the
blanket 1 mW exemption and the MPE-based exemption in Table 1.
B. Evaluation of Portable Devices
28. The Commission proposes to remove material from the rules, as
specifically described, that is more properly addressed by its guidance
on evaluation procedures by measurement and computation. This guidance
would continue to be updated as necessary in the Commission's Bulletins
and in other supplemental materials such as the KDB.
1. Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation
29. The Commission is proposing to modify the language in
Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b)(2) and 95.1221 to allow any valid computational
method by removing from its rules specific references to FDTD.
2. Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement From Rules for
Frequencies Above Six Gigahertz
30. There is no apparent reason why measurement or calculation to
demonstrate compliance with MPE field strength or power density limits
could not be achieved at distances of less than five centimeters as
stated in Sec. 2.1093(d) of the Commission's rules, provided, of
course, that proper equipment and techniques are used. The 5-cm minimum
distance appears to be no longer appropriate, and the Commission
therefore proposes to remove it and document it in the Commission's
Bulletins or other supplemental materials.
3. Technical Evaluation References in Rules
31. The Commission proposes to eliminate references in its rules to
outside documents or specific editions of OET Bulletins and supplements
when offering guidance on acceptable procedures for evaluating
compliance. Thus, the Commission specifically proposes to remove the
reference to IEEE Std C95.3-1991 in Sec. 24.51(c). However, the
Commission also notes and seeks comment on the potential implication of
this overarching general proposal as it may affect cross-references by
other federal agencies that may utilize its existing guidance that it
is proposing to discontinue. Specifically, the Commission notes Federal
Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 236,
Appendix E, section (h)(2).
C. Mitigation
32. Post-evaluation procedures to ensure that the Commission's
exposure limits are not exceeded include labels, signs, barriers,
occupational training, and enforcement. Here the Commission reviews in
detail its definitions related to power and clarify issues related to
exposure classification and time averaging. Additionally, the
Commission proposes to provide further guidance on specific mitigation
actions such as proximity restriction and disclosure requirements for
fixed RF
[[Page 33658]]
sources. We proposed to define fixed RF sources in our proposed revised
rules as transmitters which are physically attached to one location,
sometimes temporarily, and are not able to be easily moved to another
location while transmitting.
1. Transient Exposure in Controlled Environments Near Fixed RF Sources
33. The Commission seeks to clarify the applicability of transient
exposure and how to apply its exposure limits in controlled
environments with respect to averaging time near fixed transmitter
sites in a controlled environment, and proposes a clarification of
averaging time.
34. The Commission interprets the terms ``transient'' and ``brief''
in the context of human exposure to RF energy to imply that the general
population exposure limits would apply to transient individuals near
fixed RF sources within controlled environments, considering a time-
averaging period of 30 minutes. In a controlled environment and with
supervision, ``behavior-based'' time averaging such as moving through a
specific area promptly would be feasible, while the Commission has not
found it to be generally feasible in an uncontrolled environment. Thus,
the Commission proposes the definition of transient exposure with
respect to averaging time to mean general population/``controlled,''
that is, transient exposure should not exceed the general population
limit considering 30-minute time averaging in a controlled environment.
Additionally, the Commission proposes that transient exposure should
not exceed the continuous occupational limit at any time, accounting
for source-based time averaging. In other words, the Commission
proposes that behavior-based time averaging may be used in controlled
situations to maintain compliance with the general population exposure
limits (this is the essence of the Commission's transient exposure
interpretation), while behavior-based time averaging may not be used to
maintain compliance with the occupational exposure limits for
individuals classified as transient.
35. The Commission clarifies herein that transient individuals in a
controlled area may be any individual who would normally be subject to
the general population exposure limits in uncontrolled environments,
including occupational personnel that have not received training. In
the context of satisfying the requirement to present written and/or
verbal information to transient individuals and occupational personnel
within controlled environments, the Commission also clarifies here that
written information may include signs, maps, or diagrams showing where
exposure limits are exceeded, and verbal information may include
prerecorded messages. Averaging time is an intrinsic part of the
existing exposure limits, and as such, the Commission's intent is that
averaging time may be used whenever there is adequate control over time
of exposure. As the Commission has proposed here for transient
exposure, where the general population limit is exceeded (but not the
occupational limit) and adequate controls are in place, averaging time
may be used to comply with the general population limit. The Commission
seeks comment on all of these proposals to better define transient
exposure conditions beyond what has already been adopted. Specifically,
the Commission solicits comment on the expected cost associated with
requiring supervision of transient individuals, where licensees would
benefit from compliance certainty.
2. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Fixed RF
Sources
36. The Commission proposes training, access restriction, and
signage requirements for fixed transmitter sites considering recent
standards activity working toward defining industrial RF safety
programs. In particular, the Commission uses, in part, a combination of
certain concepts, programs, specifications, and actions contained in
IEEE Std C95.7-2005, IEEE Std C95.2-1999, NCRP 2002 Letter Report, and
Chapter 2.4 of the NAB Engineering Handbook, in the derivation of these
proposed rules. The Commission realizes that rigid requirements may not
be practical in all cases, but clear rules that can be followed where
feasible can help avoid both inadvertent over-exposure and unnecessary
public concern. The Commission notes that fixed radio transmitters are
no longer located only on towers or facilities such as utility poles.
Radio transmitters and their antennas have been deployed in a wide
variety of forms, often designed as trees, chimneys, or panels on a
building for aesthetic reasons, and their presence therefore might not
be obvious. The Commission realizes that each transmitter site is
different and that a wide range of exposure environments may exist, and
so it seeks comment on how to simultaneously provide flexibility and
certainty to licensees and site owners while at the same time ensuring
enforceable compliance with the exposure limits.
37. Relating terminology of Commission exposure limits to IEEE Std
C95.7-2005 for the purpose of this discussion, the general term
``action level'' used in the IEEE standard should be considered
equivalent to the Commission exposure limit for the general population
in an uncontrolled environment; similarly, the general term ``exposure
limit'' used by the IEEE should be considered equivalent to the
Commission exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled
environment. The Commission emphasizes that the general population
exposure limit is a legal limit enforced by the Commission and should
not be considered as merely action guidance, nor does this proposal
suggest any different exposure limit than those currently in effect.
The proposed mitigation actions in this section are meant to supplement
the exposure limits themselves by facilitating compliance with them.
38. The Commission proposes to unambiguously define boundaries
between each category based on the maximum time-averaged power over the
appropriate time averaging period (six minutes for occupational or 30
minutes for general population).
39. The Commission seeks comment on how potential equipment
failures or non-routine or auxiliary operation that may cause exposure
over the exposure limits should be considered in the determination of
these categories. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment on the
feasibility of requiring positive access control for Category Two and
the advisability of continuing the ``remote'' designation. The question
becomes one of determining whether an area can be considered
``remote.'' Evidence of public access, such as litter and trails, has
been used by the Commission in past inspections to show that an area is
not ``remote.'' The Commission further seeks comment on how to better
encourage cooperation between property owners, managers, and licensees
in the implementation of RF safety programs, since it is ultimately the
licensee that is responsible for compliance.
40. The Commission maintains that accurate placement of appropriate
signage is important and that such placement should make clear both
where limits are exceeded and where limits are not exceeded. The
Commission has observed inappropriate postings that imply that
occupational limits are exceeded far outside areas that approach the
general population limit. Such ``over-signage'' may result in undue
alarm, confusion, and subsequent disregard of meaningful postings.
Since
[[Page 33659]]
each situation is different, the Commission proposes that those
responsible for the placement of signs consider the potential
implications of over-signage, and it will consider compliance with
these proposed rules on a case-by-case basis. Unnecessary public
concern may also arise from placement of a sign with an inappropriate
signal word. For example, placement of a sign that says ``DANGER'' or
``WARNING'' in a location where RF fields may only approach the general
population exposure limit might raise unnecessary alarm despite
compliance in the area, since the words ``danger'' and ``warning''
imply conditions leading to imminent or likely physical harm.
41. Regarding training and verbal information, the Commission
proposes to consider the topics outlined in Annex A of IEEE Std C95.7-
2005 as guidance to be referenced in a future revision of OET Bulletin
65. The Commission proposes that training is optional only for
transient individuals who must be supervised, and training would be
required for all other controlled situations in Category Two and higher
categories. Training may include effective web-based or similar
programs. The Commission proposes that either spoken word or pre-
recorded audio from an authorized individual qualified to provide such
instructions on how to remain compliant would be acceptable as forms of
verbal information.
42. The Commission has used the environmental categories and
guidance provided in IEEE Std C95.7-2005 to develop the following
specific proposals that the categories below require the specified
control actions:
Category One--INFORMATION (Below General Population
Exposure Limit):
No signs or positive access controls are proposed to be required;
optionally a green ``INFORMATION'' sign may offer information to the
public that a transmitting source of RF energy is nearby but that it is
compliant with Commission exposure limits regardless of duration or
usage. Labels or signs would not be required for fixed transmitters
that can determine that the transmitter is ``intrinsically compliant''
with the general population exposure limit.
Category Two--NOTICE (Exceeds General Population Exposure
Limit but Less Than the Occupational Exposure Limit):
Signs and positive access control are proposed to be required
surrounding the areas in which the general population exposure limit is
exceeded, with the appropriate signal word ``NOTICE'' and associated
color (blue) on the sign. Signs must contain the content described
below. However, the Commission proposes to allow under certain
controlled conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access (e.g.,
a locked door with appropriate signage), ``[a] label or small sign
attached directly to the surface of an antenna . . . if it specifies a
minimum approach distance,'' to be sufficient signage. Allowing a label
or sign to be affixed to an antenna is consistent with the Commission's
policy for certain low-power fixed transmitters operating with a
minimum separation distance more than 20 centimeters from the body of
persons under normal operating conditions and with its labeling
requirements for fixed consumer subscriber antennas. Of course, a label
affixed to an antenna would be considered sufficient only if it is
legible at least at the separation distance required for compliance
with the general population exposure limit in Sec. 1.1310 of the
rules. The Commission proposes appropriate training to be required for
any occupational personnel with access to the controlled area where the
general population exposure limit is exceeded, and transient
individuals to be supervised by occupational personnel with appropriate
training upon entering any of these areas. Use of time averaging would
be required for transient individuals in the area in which the general
population exposure limit is exceeded to ensure compliance with the
time-averaged general population limit. Use of personal RF monitors in
the areas in which the general population exposure limit is exceeded
would be recommended but not required.
Category Three--CAUTION (Exceeds Occupational Exposure
Limit but by No More Than Ten Times):
In addition to the mitigation actions required within those areas
designated as Category Two, additional signs (with the appropriate
signal word ``CAUTION'' and associated color (yellow) on the signs),
controls, or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint,
diagrams) are proposed to be required surrounding the area in which the
exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled environment
is exceeded. A label or small sign may be attached directly to the
surface of an antenna within a controlled environment if it specifies a
minimum approach distance where the occupational exposure limit is
exceeded. The Commission proposes that transient individuals would not
be permitted in any area in which the occupational exposure limit is
exceeded. Additionally, appropriate training would be required for any
occupational personnel with access to the controlled area where the
general population exposure limit is exceeded. Use of personal RF
monitors in the areas in which the general population exposure limit is
exceeded is recommended but not proposed to be required. Use of
personal protective gear (such as properly-worn RF protective suits) is
recommended for occupational individuals in the areas in which the
occupational exposure limit is exceeded.
Category Four--WARNING/DANGER (Exceeds Ten Times
Occupational Exposure Limit or Serious Contact Injury Possible):
In addition to the mitigation actions required within those areas
designated as Category Three, ``WARNING'' signs with the associated
color (orange) are proposed to be required where the occupational limit
could be exceeded by a factor of ten, and ``DANGER'' signs with the
associated color (red) are proposed to be required where immediate and
serious injury will occur. For example, ``DANGER'' signs would be
required at the base of AM broadcast towers, where serious injuries due
to contact burns may occur. If power reduction would not sufficiently
protect against the relevant exposure limit in the event of human
presence considering the optional additional use of personal protective
equipment, lockout/tagout procedures must be followed to ensure human
safety.
43. The Commission also proposes to require the following in the
content of the sign, adapted from Sec. 2.4 of the National Association
of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition. Specifically, RF
exposure advisory signs are proposed to include at least the following
components:
Appropriate signal word and associated color in accord
with IEEE Std C95.2-1999 (e.g., ``DANGER,'' ``WARNING,'' ``CAUTION,''
or ``NOTICE'')
RF energy advisory symbol (Figure A.3 of C95.2-1999)
An explanation of the RF source (e.g., transmitting
antennas)
Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits
(e.g., do not climb tower while antennas are energized)
Contact information (e.g., phone number or email address
resulting in a timely response)
44. For the optional information sign discussed in Category One,
the Commission recommends that it include at least the following
information:
[[Page 33660]]
Appropriate signal word (e.g., ``INFORMATION'') and
associated color (green)
An explanation of safety precaution
Contact information
Reminder to obey all postings and boundaries (if higher
categories are nearby)
45. Note that the inclusion of the RF energy advisory symbol and
directions on how to avoid a potential hazard are excluded from these
recommendations on the optional ``INFORMATION'' sign, since inclusion
of these aspects on a sign where the general public exposure limit is
not exceeded may cause confusion or unnecessary public alarm. If, for
example, a member of the general public proceeds past an information
sign and continues toward a source of RF energy, only at the point
where that individual approaches the general population exposure limit
should there be information on how to remain in areas where RF field
levels are less than the public limit. Once this individual approaches
the boundary where the general population exposure limit is exceeded,
then the ``NOTICE'' sign would explain how to avoid exceeding the
limits and positive access control would keep the individual from doing
so. The Commission proposes that the use of language(s) other than
English on an ``INFORMATION'' sign would be particularly advisable
since the information sign would not include the universal RF energy
symbol.
D. Review and Update All RF Safety Text in Parts 1 and 2 for Clarity
and Consistency
46. The Commission takes this opportunity to propose a careful
rewording of some of its rules in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091,
and 2.1093 as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency, as described
in its proposed rules. Changes to specific sections of parts 15, 24,
25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 are necessarily dependent on the
Commission's proposed changes in parts 1 and 2.
II. Notice of Inquiry (NOI)
47. The first Commission's Notice of Inquiry (1979 NOI) on the
subject of biological effects of radiofrequency radiation occurred in
1979 in response to the need for the Commission to implement the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The most recent
proceeding inviting comment on exposure limits was initiated in 1993
and culminated in a Report and Order in 1996, which resulted in the
Commission's present limits. The instant rulemaking that is underway,
initiated with the 2003 NPRM, 68 FR 52879, September 8, 2003,
specifically excludes consideration of the exposure limits themselves.
The Commission continues to have confidence in the current exposure
limits, and notes that more recent international standards have a
similar basis. At the same time, given the fact that much time has
passed since the Commission last sought comment on exposure limits, as
a matter of good government, the Commission wishes to develop a current
record by opening a new docket with this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), and
seeks comment on whether its limits should be more restrictive, less
restrictive, or remain the same.
48. The Commission recognizes the ubiquity of device adoption as
well as advancements in technology and developments in the
international standards arena since establishing the Commission's
present policies in 1996 warrant an inquiry to gather information to
determine whether its general regulations and policies limiting human
exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation are still appropriately
drawn. In considering whether there is a need for changes to its RF
exposure limit rules, the Commission's intent is to adequately protect
the public without imposing an undue burden on industry. While
acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and
burdens in considering the overall costs of the regulation, the
Commission needs to be mindful of its fundamental responsibility to
provide for the appropriate protection of consumers, workers, and other
members of the public. The Commission therefore requests comment on a
wide range of questions that will enable it to weigh those costs and
benefits. The Commission also requests comment on the most cost-
effective approach for modifying existing exposure limit policies and
practices, if such modifications are needed, to achieve its goals. For
each cost or benefit addressed, the Commission asks that commenters
provide specific data and information such as actual or estimated
dollar figures, including a description of how the data or information
was calculated or obtained and any supporting documentation. Vague or
unsupported assertions regarding costs or benefits generally will
receive less weight and be less persuasive than more specific and
supported statements.
50. Although the Commission is aware of recent scientific and
technical standard publications, it is important to gather additional
pertinent information and authoritative expert views to ensure the
Commission is meeting its regulatory responsibilities. Continued use of
the Commission's present exposure limits is currently supported by
statements from significant qualified expert organizations and
governmental entities. Some critics of the Commission's exposure limits
have contrasting opinions, and it is aware of the general concerns
raised some members of the public. The purpose of this NOI is to open a
science-based examination of the efficacy, currency, and adequacy of
the Commission's exposure limits for RF electromagnetic fields. The
Commission underscores that in conducting this review it will work
closely with and rely heavily--but not exclusively--on the guidance of
other federal agencies with expertise in the health field. This
approach will ensure that the Commission will have fully discharged its
regulatory responsibility and also will be appropriately responsive to
the public's interest in knowing that its RF exposure guidelines are
based on the most current information, analysis, and expertise
available.
51. As already noted, the Commission is guided by the expertise of
federal safety, health, and environmental agencies and institutes that,
subject to any budgetary constraints, perform regular reviews of
scientific research and periodically recommend any appropriate changes
to, or reaffirm the validity of, the Commission's exposure criteria.
Nonetheless, the Commission is confident of its own ability to remain
abreast of scientific developments and research, and to participate in
standards development and implementation, as is necessary to make an
independent determination as to the adequacy of its exposure limits in
the absence of affirmative input from agencies with more health and
safety expertise. Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a
de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal
health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF
exposure issues in formulating such judgments. The Commission notes
that the international community has been active in this area, with the
World Health Organization (WHO) initiating its electromagnetic fields
(EMF) program in 1996 and continuing its broad efforts in this area.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) published exposure guidelines in 1998, and the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published a major revision
to its RF exposure standard in 2006. Although the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has not updated its
criteria since its
[[Page 33661]]
1986 release, NCRP did subsequently issue comments supporting it in
2002. As the Commission continues to monitor such activity and
information, it seeks comment on the appropriate consideration of the
evaluations of research conducted by international organizations or by
activities in other countries. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment
from federal agencies and institutes as to whether there may be any
additional information or resources that could be provided by the
Commission to support their ongoing activities.
1. Exposure Limits
52. Introduction. The more recent limits developed by ICNIRP
(supported by WHO) and IEEE are based on the avoidance of known adverse
health effects. The adjustments underlying these newer limits are
primarily due to significant developments in dosimetry. Also, several
other exposure variables in the more recent standards more clearly
specify various evaluation requirements, such as spatial averaging,
spatial peak field limits, time averaging, overlapping frequency range
for heating and shock effects, etc. While there has been increasing
public discussion about the safety of wireless devices, to date
organizations with expertise in the health field, such as the FDA, have
not suggested that there is a basis for changing the Commission's
standards or similar standards applied in other parts of the world.
53. The Commission asks generally whether its current standards
should be modified in any way, notwithstanding the detailed discussion.
The Commission specifically solicits information on the scientific
basis for such changes as well as the advantages and disadvantages and
the associated costs of doing so. In addition to seeking input from
federal health and safety agencies and institutes, the Commission
solicits comment from national and international standards
organizations (specifically including NCRP and IEEE) on the currency of
their exposure limits and supporting documents in light of recent
research and the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s
announcement on its classification of RF fields. The Commission notes
that IARC's detailed monograph on this classification recently became
available, to inform the Commission's consideration during the course
of this proceeding, and it invites parties to comment in the
Commission's record on the IARC monograph during the comment period
established for this NOI. Although IEEE Std 1528-2003, which the
Commission uses to determine the compliance of devices such as cell
phones intended to be used against the head, states that the mannequin
in its measurement test setup ``represents a conservative case for men,
women, and children'' alike, the Commission specifically seeks comment
as to whether its current limits are appropriate as they relate to
device use by children.
54. Partial-body and Whole-body averaging of exposure. For
localized SAR, both the ICNIRP and the newest IEEE standard limit
exposure to 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue as opposed to the
Commission's existing localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1
gram. (The definitions of the 10-gram averaging volume differ slightly
between ICNIRP and IEEE.) Depending on the exposure criteria used
internationally, SAR would be the metric between 100 kHz and upper
frequencies varying from 3 to 10 GHz (the exact upper limit depends on
the particular exposure standard being applied), while power density is
the metric at higher frequencies. The Commission requests comment on
the significance, if any, of the differences between these standards.
55. Averaging Area. The NCRP criteria and Commission regulations do
not specify an averaging area for power density or a spatial maximum
power density limit, while both the ICNIRP guidelines and the IEEE
standards specify a spatial maximum power density, at least at higher
frequencies (e.g., between 3 and 10 GHz) of 20 times the whole-body MPE
limit, generally averaged over 1 cm\2\. In addition, IEEE Std C95.1-
2005 specifies frequency-dependent averaging areas for power density
above 3 GHz. The Commission invites comment on whether it should change
or clarify spatial averaging requirements and spatial maximum power
density limits, at least at higher frequencies, either in its rules
limiting human exposure to RF energy or in its non-mandatory materials.
More generally, the Commission seeks comment on whole-body spatial
averaging techniques, particularly as applied to children at any
frequency.
56. Averaging Time. While different time averaging periods are
defined in the various exposure standards, all use time averaging to
demonstrate compliance with both SAR and MPE limits. The Commission's
exposure limits are intended for continuous exposure, that is, for
indefinite time periods. The limits may be applied generally without
time averaging, where the limits listed (typically in tables) would
then be considered continuous exposure limits. While the averaging time
for the Commission's exposure limits is six minutes for occupational
and 30 minutes for general population exposure, the ICNIRP guidelines
specify six minutes in both cases. IEEE Std C95.1-2005 specifies six
minutes for occupational and 30 minutes for general population exposure
at frequencies between 3 MHz and 3 GHz. The Commission notes that
C95.1-2005 is more restrictive at lower and higher frequencies (i.e.,
shorter time averaging periods are specified above and below those
frequency limits). Below 3 MHz, the Commission's MPE limits, extracted
from the 1986 NCRP criteria, could allow for a higher short-term
exposure for the general population than for a short-term occupational
exposure of the same duration when accounting for averaging times.
However, such scenarios are of limited practical importance given that
such time averaging near fixed sources would not be applicable for the
general population. Moreover, contact burns are the primary issue at
such low frequencies and high fields, as discussed below. The
Commission invites comment on whether it should modify its time
averaging periods. If so, should the Commission comport with recent
standards activities? Alternatively from a precautionary perspective,
should the Commission consider any potential risk due to long-term
exposure as relevant to its time averaging periods, and if so, what
scientific evidence supports this?
57. In Sec. Sec. 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5) of its existing
rules, portable and mobile consumer devices may not use the 30-minute
averaging time specified in Sec. 1.1310. However, ``source-based''
time averaging may be used for these consumer products based on
inherent transmission properties of a device. Since ``source-based''
averaging often involves consideration of transmit periodicity to
determine the time interval over which to average at the maximum power
achievable by the device, a 30-minute time averaging interval
containing many identical periods at maximum power would result in the
same average power as one period. For ``source-based'' time averaging
the time period for evaluation is less than 30 minutes. Thus, if the
periodicity of a device exceeds 30 minutes, then the largest ``source-
based'' time averaging interval to be used for evaluation is 30
minutes. Notwithstanding its current policy, the Commission requests
comment on whether consumers would prefer to be given an informed
choice to behave in such a manner that may result in
[[Page 33662]]
somewhat exceeding the exposure limits.
58. Peak Pulsed RF Fields. The present Commission rules do not
include limits on peak pulsed RF fields, and independent standard-
setting bodies have adopted differing standards applicable to such
fields. There is a lack of harmonization among these standards due to
limited information about the biological effects of peak pulsed fields.
The Commission requests comment on whether it should adopt peak pulsed
field limits for RF sources regulated by the Commission.
59. Contact Currents. Contact currents can be a safety issue in the
vicinity of AM broadcast facilities. The Commission is not aware of
similar hazards near other transmitters operated by Commission
licensees aside from those used by AM stations. Considering the
wavelengths necessary to induce significant currents on large objects,
it is not expected that higher frequency RF sources would cause
comparable problems, especially given the lack of complaints at these
frequencies. The Commission requests comment on the appropriate
strategy to promote awareness for construction and maintenance project
contractors and planners where the potential for contact RF burns,
whether serious or minor, could occur. For example, would it be
beneficial for the Commission to provide publicly available maps
showing areas where electric fields exceed 10 V/m from AM broadcast
stations? If so, the Commission invites comment as to whether AM
broadcast stations currently have this information and, if not, to
explain the impact of collecting this information and making it
available to the Commission. How much time should be required to do so
and what would be the costs and benefits? The Commission seeks comment
on whether the cost of dealing with potential AM burn hazards as they
arise should be the responsibility of the station, the affected party,
or both. The Commission also seeks comment as to whether it is the
appropriate body to address this issue. While contact burns are a
universally recognized hazard of variable severity, adoption of
numerical limits on contact RF currents over a broad frequency range
may not be effective in avoiding situations where burns actually occur.
The Commission requests comment on the feasibility, efficacy, and
burden of contact current limits versus other, perhaps informational,
approaches such as mapping.
60. Frequency Range. The 1979 NOI opened discussion of exposure
limits over the 0 to 300 GHz frequency range, but the limits eventually
adopted in 1996 included only frequencies between 100 kHz and 100 GHz
as this was the extent of the frequency scope of the standards the
Commission adopted and there were few sources of considerable
significance outside of this scope at that time. The IEEE and ICNIRP
guidelines also encompass the frequency range between 0 and 300 GHz.
The Commission requests comment on whether, in addition to the limits
already established for RF fields between 100 kHz and 100 GHz, it
should also explore actions to control exposure outside of this
frequency range (e.g., in the range between 0 and 100 kHz and/or 100
and 300 GHz) due to sources authorized by the Commission. The
Commission notes that some wireless inductive chargers operate at
frequencies below its current frequency scope, and all terahertz (THz)
sources operate at frequencies above its current frequency scope. The
Commission also requests comment on whether explicitly controlling
exposure in these additional frequency ranges may have a broader impact
on or be in conflict with the Commission's rules and what the relative
costs and benefits would be. The Commission notes that at frequencies
not explicitly within the scope of its existing limits there are still
general compliance obligations under Sec. Sec. 1.1307(c) and (d) for
sources it regulates.
60. Conductive Implanted Objects. Electrically conductive objects
in or on the body may interact with sources of RF energy in ways that
are not easily predicted. Examples of conductive objects in the body
include implanted metallic objects. Examples of conductive objects on
the body include eyeglasses, jewelry, or metallic accessories. The
Commission seeks comment on whether the present volume-averaged SAR
limits are protective for the more localized SAR that may occur near
the tip of a conductive object such as the end of an implanted wire. In
general, the Commission seeks comment on whether high levels of RF
exposure may cause internal thermal injury at the site of conductive
implants. Commenters are specifically advised to provide scientific
research or analysis to support their arguments and to propose
practical and effective regulatory responses for any such assertion,
and the Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of any such
approach.
2. Consumer Information
61. The Commission has continually provided information to the
general public regarding the potential hazards of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields. The information provided regarding RF safety
includes the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
Bulletins 56 and 65 (and their Supplements), the Local Official's
Guide, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) Consumer
Guides, and other information (including links to external resources)
on its Web site. OET Bulletin 56 was designed to answer general non-
technical questions about biological effects of RF fields and explain
the exposure limits, and OET Bulletin 65 is intended to be a technical
document with supplements designed to provide practical guidance on
determining compliance with the Commission's exposure limits. In
contrast to the general information provided in OET Bulletin 56, CGB
FCC Consumer Guides provide information on specific topics on which the
Commission has received numerous inquiries, such as cellular base
stations, mobile antennas, wireless devices, and specific absorption
rate (SAR). The Local Official's Guide provides a framework for local
and state governments and wireless service providers to cooperate in
the determination of compliance with the Commission's RF exposure
limits. The Commission requests comment on what additional information
should be provided to consumers and in what format to assist in making
decisions about reducing exposure. The Commission also specifically
seeks comment on how it can ensure that such information is presented
in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities.
62. The Commission continues to receive inquiries on various
subjects related to RF exposure, particularly as infrastructure is
deployed to support new wireless technologies. Some of those inquirers
perceive deployment of fixed transmitters to support a wireless network
as an action that may affect them involuntarily (as opposed to use of a
cell phone, which is a voluntary activity and exposure). For example,
even though exposures generated by fixed wireless base stations (and
fixed RF sources in general) are typically orders of magnitude less
than those from cell phones and other portable devices (due to
proximity), exposures due to fixed RF sources are both involuntary and
long-term. However, even if continuous exposure is assumed from
wireless base stations, the total energy absorbed from a nearby base
station is typically much less on average than that due to using a cell
phone. The Commission seeks comment on what
[[Page 33663]]
additional information it should develop relating to exposures from
common fixed sources.
63. The Consumers Union suggests that the Commission ``mandate that
the SAR information included with phones be more consistent.'' The
Commission agrees that there is inconsistency in the supplemental
information voluntarily provided in the manuals provided with portable
and mobile devices. The Commission also notes that for a variety of
reasons, the maximum SAR value that is normally supplied is not
necessarily a reliable indicator of typical exposure and may not be
useful for comparing different devices. The Commission requests comment
on whether the Commission should consistently require either disclosure
of the maximum SAR value or other more reliable exposure data in a
standard format, perhaps in manuals, at point-of-sale, or on a Web
site.
64. Information on the SAR of a particular device is available from
the Commission's Web site if an individual knows the FCC ID, which is
printed on every device. The Commission recognizes that it is not
always easy for some to access the SAR information, because the FCC ID
is not tied to the model number or marketing name of the device, and
there may be multiple records for each FCC ID, potentially creating
confusion. Given that private organizations have already linked FCC IDs
to device model numbers, the Commission requests comment on whether the
Commission should also take actions that would better enable consumers
to correlate the make and model number of their device to an FCC ID. If
so, how could this be accomplished and what would be the impact on
industry? The Commission requests comment in general on the information
discussed that would be most useful to provide precautionary guidance
to consumers.
3. Exposure Reduction Policies
65. The Commission has a responsibility to ``provide a proper
balance between the need to protect the public and workers from
exposure to potentially harmful RF electromagnetic fields and the
requirement that industry be allowed to provide telecommunications
services to the public in the most efficient and practical manner
possible.'' The intent of the Commission's exposure limits is to
provide a cap that both protects the public based on scientific
consensus and allows for efficient and practical implementation of
wireless services. The present Commission exposure limit is a ``bright-
line rule.'' That is, so long as exposure levels are below a specified
limit value, there is no requirement to further reduce exposure. The
limit is readily justified when it is based on known adverse health
effects having a well-defined threshold, and the limit includes prudent
additional safety factors (e.g., setting the limit significantly below
the threshold where known adverse health effects may begin to occur).
The Commission's current RF exposure guidelines are an example of such
regulation, including a significant ``safety'' factor, whereby the
exposure limits are set at a level on the order of 50 times below the
level at which adverse biological effects have been observed in
laboratory animals as a result of tissue heating resulting from RF
exposure. This ``safety'' factor can well accommodate a variety of
variables such as different physical characteristics and individual
sensitivities--and even the potential for exposures to occur in excess
of the Commission's limits without posing a health hazard to humans.
66. Despite this conservative bright-line limit, there has been
discussion of going even further to guard against the possibility of
risks from non-thermal biological effects, even though such risks have
not been established by scientific research. As such, some parties have
suggested measures of ``prudent avoidance''--undertaking only those
avoidance activities which carry modest costs. For example, New Zealand
has not set a specific precautionary environmental limit beyond its
adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines, opting instead to minimize, ``as
appropriate, RF exposure which is unnecessary or incidental to
achievement of service objectives or process requirements, provided
that this can be readily achieved at modest expense.'' However, the
environmental exposure levels from fixed transmitters, such as
broadcast facilities and cellular base stations, are normally not only
far below the MPE limit, but also well below exposure from a portable
device such as a cell phone. Thus, the adoption and enforcement of
considerably more restrictive MPE limits might have little, or no,
practical effect under most environmental exposure scenarios, but may
significantly increase infrastructure costs which would ultimately be
paid by consumers. Nonetheless, some countries have implemented extra
``precautionary'' environmental limits for fixed transmitters far below
the prevailing scientifically-based values, sometimes limited to
specific locations. The SAR limits for portable devices, however, have
not been correspondingly reduced by these considerations because of
various practical limitations on device design.
67. In this regard, the Commission stresses that while it must be
cognizant of and considerate of other countries' standards or agencies'
activities or recommendations, it would be guided by them only to the
extent it would have confidence in the research, analysis, and
principles upon which they are based, as well as the tangible benefits
they would provide. Additionally, the concept of ``prudent avoidance''
encourages a balance between exposure reduction and cost. Imposing
additional precautionary restrictions on device design and/or on the
siting of fixed transmitting facilities to reduce exposure may entail
significant costs that licensees and equipment manufacturers would need
to consider when developing communications systems or designing
equipment. Nevertheless, the Commission notes, some jurisdictions have
adopted precautionary restrictions or comparable requirements. For
example, the California Public Utilities Commission requires utility
companies to allocate a small percentage of total project cost to ELF
field exposure reduction actions during power line construction. The
Commission requests comment on whether any general technical approach
to reduce exposure below its limits in some situations is appropriate
or feasible, particularly in cases in which there is no specific
quantitative goal for improvement.
68. There are natural trade-offs that come into play when
considering extra precautionary aspects of system design. For example,
increased antenna height tends to reduce exposure levels nearby at
ground level, but taller towers may increase cost, may possibly have a
greater environmental impact, and may be inconsistent with community
zoning goals. In addition, higher mounting of antennas could negatively
impact system architecture, constraining the provision of service.
Local efforts to avoid placement of fixed wireless base stations in
particular areas can unintentionally result in increased exposure to
users of portable devices within those areas where personal portable
devices would transmit using greater power in order to communicate with
distant base stations, thus increasing the RF emissions and consequent
exposure from the device itself. Finally, distributed antenna systems
(DAS) can offer more advanced services from multiple carriers with a
single physical network of less visually intrusive lower profile
antenna installations and may likely reduce
[[Page 33664]]
exposure to device users, but the Commission seeks comment on whether
such installations reduce or increase environmental exposures.
69. Given the complexity of the information on research regarding
non-thermal biological effects, taking extra precautions in this area
may fundamentally be qualitative and may not be well-served by the
adoption of lower specific exposure limits without any known,
underlying biological mechanism. Additionally, adoption of extra
precautionary measures may have the unintended consequence of
``opposition to progress and the refusal of innovation, ever greater
bureaucracy, . . . [and] increased anxiety in the population.''
Nevertheless, the Commission invites comment as to whether
precautionary measures may be appropriate for certain locations which
would not affect the enforceability of its existing exposure limits, as
well as any analytical justification for such measures. Parties
advocating such measures should suggest specific situations in which
more restrictive limits (and corresponding thresholds) or alternative
requirements should be applied, and provide their scientific basis and
substantive information as to the tangible benefits and corresponding
costs. If such action were taken, the Commission solicits views as to
whether it should it be applied only prospectively or also to existing
situations, and if so, what would be the impact on existing systems in
terms of costs and performance and what period of time should be
afforded for compliance?
70. The Commission seeks comment on the possibility that there may
be other precautionary measures not involving reduction of time-
averaged SAR that could possibly reduce potential risk, without
necessarily assuming that such risks are known. For example, such
precautionary measures could include limitations on characteristics
that have little or no impact on performance, such as ELF fields, peak
pulsed RF fields, or modulation. The Commission requests comment on
what aspects of extra precautionary measures could be effective, what
aspects may be counterproductive or unnecessary, and what other extra
precautionary measures could be efficiently and practically implemented
at modest cost.
71. The Commission significantly notes that extra precautionary
efforts by national authorities to reduce exposure below recognized
scientifically-based limits is considered by the WHO to be unnecessary
but acceptable so long as such efforts do not undermine exposure limits
based on known adverse effects. Along these lines, the Commission notes
that although it supplies information to consumers on methods to reduce
exposure from cell phones, it has also stated that it does not endorse
the need for nor set a target value for exposure reduction and it seeks
comment on whether these policies are appropriate. The Commission also
observes that the FDA has stated that, ``available scientific
evidence--including World Health Organization (WHO) findings released
May 17, 2010--shows no increased health risk due to radiofrequency (RF)
energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell
phones.'' At the same time, the FDA has stated that ``[a]lthough the
existing scientific data do not justify FDA regulatory actions, FDA has
urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including
[hellip] [d]esign[ing] cell phones in a way that minimizes any RF
exposure to the user.'' The Commission seeks information on other
similar hortatory efforts and comment on the utility and propriety of
such messaging as part of this Commission's regulatory regime.
72. While the Commission may not take further action related to the
regulatory concepts discussed here, it requests comment on the
financial impact and the introduction of regulatory uncertainty due to
any initiative to minimize exposure beyond scientifically-established
specific limits.
4. Evaluation
73. Evaluation is a rapidly evolving area, keeping pace with
technological changes, that is most effectively guided by good
engineering practice rather than specific regulations. The Commission
uses the term ``evaluation'' here to mean the determination of
compliance with its exposure limits by measurement or computation.
Evaluation is objectively verifiable in principle, even when various
methods are used. However, engineering decisions or assumptions are
sometimes required based on limited information. These assumptions are
generally argued to be conservative, but verification of these
assumptions is not always straightforward. On occasion, some prior
presumably conservative assumption is later found to be questionable
and warrants further analysis. While non-mandatory evaluation
techniques are referenced and reflected in OET Bulletins and in the FCC
Laboratory Knowledge Database (KDB), development of them is the result
of international engineering efforts by standards setting groups of the
IEEE and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and is
generally self-correcting as information and analysis becomes more
readily available. These are often dosimetric issues that can be
resolved by the Commission's reliance on SAR as a primary metric for
compliance. However, SAR measurement and modeling methods themselves
are complex and continue to evolve to achieve greater accuracy. In
particular, SAR evaluation for portable devices (e.g., cell phones) has
been a significant undertaking and standards development in this area
is a continuous process.
74. Except for the extremities, the Commission's SAR limits for the
general public are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a
peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of
tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube) and refer to
continuous exposure over time. Evaluation with respect to the SAR
limits must demonstrate compliance with both the whole-body and peak
spatial-average limits using technically supportable methods and
exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing or equipment
certification) and in a manner that permits independent assessment.
While these regulations refer to a cube of tissue, measurement
standards have used simplified adult human models, and computational
methods may be subject to errors where modeling requirements are not
standardized. Most evaluations submitted to the Commission are based on
measurement using the standardized specific anthropomorphic mannequin
(SAM). The SAM does not model children, tissue layers, or a hand
holding the device but SAM was designed to be conservative relative to
these factors. Computational standards can in principle more
realistically model a range of variables not present using mannequins.
Various numerical models of humans (both male and female of different
age groups) have been developed, and presumably CAD models of devices
can also be made available. However, using this information to produce
accurate and practical computational models for individual devices to
evaluate SAR on a routine basis may not be ideal for all situations.
Since it is not possible to measure the SAR in a 1-gram cube of tissue
within the head of a real human being, and given that each human being
is different, the Commission requests comment on the pros and cons of
measurement versus computation, as well as standardization of human
models in general, and the significance of these issues in comparison
with procedures that have already been
[[Page 33665]]
standardized. The Commission recognizes that a measurement model is
standardized by IEEE with the SAM for the head and a flat model for the
body; however it seeks comment on whether computation should use the
same modeling and test configurations as used for measurement to
maintain consistency of results and/or whether more complex human
models should be used for computation.
75. The Commission has recently established both whole-body and
localized SAR as primary metrics for exposure compliance in the
frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz. Other than in the area of
portable devices, development of standard procedures for SAR evaluation
is more limited. While the Commission generally states that it requires
appropriate practices using technically supportable methods for all
cases, because of the lack of standard procedures, it requests comment
on how SAR evaluation methods should be supported for fixed and mobile
RF sources. The Commission also realizes that there may be limitations
with any approach to evaluation of SAR due to fixed RF sources, and
that the existing MPE limits may not ensure SAR compliance in all
cases, in particular where whole-body spatial averaging is used. While
this dosimetric issue may be resolved in newer versions of standards,
the Commission mentions it here because of its close connection with
evaluation using SAR. The Commission requests information to address
these issues. Since no OET Bulletin 65 supplement has yet focused on
measurement procedures (or SAR evaluation) near fixed RF sources, the
Commission requests comment on whether it should develop a future
technical supplement to OET Bulletin 65 for fixed evaluation including
SAR recognizing the development of the IEC 62232 base station standard.
Additionally, the Commission asks interested parties for suggestions
for changes to OET Bulletin 56, 65, and the KDB.
5. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Portable RF
Sources
76. Since 2001, Supplement C of OET Bulletin 65, Edition 01-01,
(Supplement C) has recommended maintaining a body-worn device
separation distance up to 2.5 cm (about one inch) during testing of
consumer portable devices, since accessories such as holsters would
normally be used to wear devices on the body and maintain this
distance. Note that, in contrast to the body-worn testing
configuration, for consumer portable devices intended to be held
against the head during normal use, the device must be placed directly
against a head mannequin during testing. Manufacturers have been
encouraged since 2001 to include information in device manuals to make
consumers aware of the need to maintain the body-worn distance--by
using appropriate accessories if they want to ensure that their actual
exposure does not exceed the SAR measurement obtained during testing.
The testing data for body-worn configurations would not be applicable
to situations in which a consumer disregards this information on
separation distance and maintains a device closer to the body than the
distance at which it is tested. In such situations, it could be
possible that exposure in excess of the Commission's limits might
result, but only with the device transmitting continuously and at
maximum power--such as might happen during a call with a headset and
the phone in a user's pocket at the fringe of a reception area.
77. Handsets and wireless technologies have evolved significantly
since the release of Supplement C. Body-worn accessories such as
holsters have become a matter of consumer choice and are not always
supplied with the device. The availability of low power Bluetooth
headsets has enabled cell phones to be used away from the head, which
may reduce exposure to the head. However, because today's cell phones
are smaller and typically have no external antenna, the phone may be
placed in a shirt or pants pocket against the body without the consumer
appreciating that it is still transmitting. Handsets may also include
wireless router functions that require simultaneous transmission of
multiple transmitters to support unattended body-worn operations where,
unlike with a traditional voice call, users are unaware that
transmissions are occurring. With the introduction of LTE technologies
(4G), handsets are operating with multiple higher-output power
transmitters, which enable simultaneous voice and data connections in
both next-to-ear and body-worn use configurations.
78. As devices have continued to evolve, so too have the
Commission's policies. Portable devices must comply with the localized
SAR limits as they are normally used. In fact, the Commission has
established evaluation procedures for newer technologies with reduced
body-worn separation distances as small as 0.5 centimeters.
Manufacturers have achieved compliance using various methods. Some have
used proximity sensors to reduce power when close to the body of the
user, although device power reduction in general may degrade
performance. Others have simply reduced the power of the device or
changed its design. The manual should include operating instructions
and advisory statements so that users are aware of the body-worn
operating requirements for RF exposure compliance. This allows users to
make informed decisions on the type of body-worn accessories and
operating configurations that are appropriate for the device.
79. Commission calculations suggest that some devices may not be
compliant with its exposure limits without the use of some spacer to
maintain a separation distance when body-worn, although this conclusion
is not verifiable for individual devices since a test without a spacer
has not been routinely performed during the body-worn testing for
equipment authorization. Yet, the Commission has no evidence that this
poses any significant health risk. Commission rules specify a pass/fail
criterion for SAR evaluation and equipment authorization. However,
exceeding the SAR limit does not necessarily imply unsafe operation,
nor do lower SAR quantities imply ``safer'' operation. The limits were
set with a large safety factor, to be well below a threshold for
unacceptable rises in tissue temperature. As a result, exposure well
above the specified SAR limit should not create an unsafe condition.
The Commission notes that, even if a device is tested without a spacer,
there are already certain separations built into the SAR test setup,
such as the thickness of the mannequin shell, the thickness of the
device exterior case, etc., so the Commission seeks comment on the
implementation of evaluation procedures without a spacer for the body-
worn testing configuration. The Commission also realizes that SAR
measurements are performed while the device is operating at its maximum
capable power, so that given typical operating conditions, the SAR of
the device during normal use would be less than tested. In sum, using a
device against the body without a spacer will generally result in
actual SAR below the maximum SAR tested; moreover, a use that possibly
results in non-compliance with the SAR limit should not be viewed with
significantly greater concern than compliant use.
80. In sum, there could be certain circumstances where test
configurations may not reflect actual use, and newer technological
solutions may exist to allow for devices to be evaluated as close as is
feasible to a simulated human under a body-worn configuration.
Accordingly, the Commission invites
[[Page 33666]]
comment as to what steps, if any, the Commission should take relative
to its policies for testing of devices on the basis of an expectation
of some separation from the body, including whether it is appropriate
to consider ``zero'' spacing, or actual contact with the body when
testing. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential negative
impacts of such measuring protocols on the design and performance of
portable devices and, by extension, network architecture.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether both requiring
that advisory information be more prominent and detailed and supplying
accessories to the consumer could be an effective means to ensure
adequate awareness and capability to ensure adherence to the SAR
standards under all potential usage conditions. Given the considerable
safety margin in the Commission's requirements, would the potential
number of occurrences resulting from inattention to manual instruction
and the extent of resulting exposure constitute a health hazard? The
Commission requests information on the costs and benefits of these or
other options that will help it progress on this front.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
81. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),\1\
the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (Further 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 provided in the
Further NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this Further 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 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
82. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
agencies of the Federal Government to evaluate the effects of their
actions on the quality of the human environment.\3\ To meet its
responsibilities under NEPA, the Commission has adopted requirements
for evaluating the environmental impact of its actions. One of several
environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure
to radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters,
facilities and devices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4321-4335.
\4\ See 47 CFR 1.1307(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. The Further NPRM proposes to amend parts 1, 2, 15, 24, 25, 27,
73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of our rules relating to the compliance of FCC-
regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices with the guidelines for
human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy adopted by the Commission
in l996 and 1997. Specifically we are proposing to make certain
revisions in our rules that we believe will result in more efficient,
practical and consistent application of compliance procedures.
B. Legal Basis
84. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.;
section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
104; and section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
85. 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 and policies, if adopted.\5\ The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' \6\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\7\ A ``small business concern'' is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``Frequently Asked Questions,''
http://web.sba.gov/faqs (accessed Jan. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size
standards.\10\ First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately
27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.\11\ In addition, a
``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.'' \12\ Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately
1,621,315 small organizations.\13\ Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \14\ Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States.\15\ We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental
jurisdictions.'' \16\ Thus,
[[Page 33667]]
we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6).
\11\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``Frequently Asked
Questions,'' web.sba.gov/faqs (last visited May 6,2011; figures are
from 2009).
\12\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\13\ Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk
Reference (2010).
\14\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\15\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
\16\ The 2007 U.S. Census data for small governmental
organizations indicate that there were 89, 476 ``Local Governments''
in 2007. (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED
STATES 2011, Table 428.) The criterion by which the size of such
local governments is determined to be small is a population of
50,000. However, since the Census Bureau does not specifically apply
that criterion, it cannot be determined with precision how many of
such local governmental organizations is small. Nonetheless, the
inference seems reasonable that substantial number of these
governmental organizations has a population of less than 50,000. To
look at Table 428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table
429 in the Census's Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that inference
is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many entities
that may well be small are included in the 89,476 local governmental
organizations, e.g. county, municipal, township and town, school
district and special district entities. Measured by a criterion of a
population of 50,000 many specific sub-entities in this category
seem more likely than larger county-level governmental organizations
to have small populations. Accordingly, of the 89,746 small
governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the
Commission estimates that a substantial majority is small. 16 13 CFR
121.201, NAICS code 517110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Radio Service (Other Than Broadcast). The majority of
experimental licenses are issued to companies such as Motorola and
Department of Defense contractors such as Northrop, Lockheed and Martin
Marietta. Businesses such as these may have as many as 200 licenses at
one time. The majority of these applications are from entities such as
these. Given this fact, the remaining 30 percent of applications, we
assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA,
will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
The Commission processes approximately 1,000 applications a year
for experimental radio operations. About half or 500 of these are
renewals and the other half are for new licenses. We do not have
adequate information to predict precisely how many of these
applications will be impacted by our rule revisions. However, based on
the above figures we estimate that as many as 300 of these applications
could be from small entities and potentially could be impacted.
International Broadcast Stations. Commission records show that
there are 19 international high frequency broadcast station
authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of international
high frequency broadcast stations that would constitute a small
business under the SBA definition. Since all international broadcast
stations operate using relatively high power levels, it is likely that
they could all be impacted by our proposed rule revisions.
Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census
categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a
small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules.\17\ The second has a size standard of $25
million or less in annual receipts.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
\18\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' \19\ Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512
Satellite Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire
year.\20\ Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.\21\
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
our proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517410
Satellite Telecommunications.
\20\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
\21\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications''
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' \22\ For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2007 shows that there were a total of
2,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\23\ Of this total, 2,347
firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual
receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999.\24\ Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
\23\ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
\24\ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. There are
approximately 4,303 earth station authorizations, a portion of which
are Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not request
nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the
number of the earth stations that would constitute a small business
under the SBA definition. However, the majority of these stations could
be impacted by our proposed rules.
Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. There are
approximately 4,303 earth station authorizations, a portion of which
are Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not
request nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to
estimate the number of fixed small satellite transmit/receive earth
stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA
definition. However, the majority of these stations could be impacted
by our proposed rules.
Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. These
stations operate on a primary basis, and frequency coordination with
terrestrial microwave systems is not required. Thus, a single
``blanket'' application may be filed for a specified number of small
antennas and one or more hub stations. There are 492 current VSAT
System authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of VSAT systems that
would constitute a small business under the SBA definition. However, it
is expected that many of these stations could be impacted by our
proposed rules.
Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. There are 19 licensees. We do not
request nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to
estimate the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would
constitute a small business under the SBA definition. However, it is
expected that many of these stations could be impacted by our proposed
rules.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services.\25\ The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for
that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\26\ Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
[[Page 33668]]
employees.\27\ For this category, census data for 2007 show that there
were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\28\ Of this total,
1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had
employment of 1000 employees or more.\29\ Thus under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
action.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
\26\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\27\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The now-superseded, pre-
2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and
517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
\28\ U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5,
``Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the
United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210'' (issued Nov. 2010).
\29\ Id. Available 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
``100 employees or more.''
\30\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licenses Assigned by Auctions. Initially, we note that, as a
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
Paging Services. Neither the SBA nor the FCC has developed a
definition applicable exclusively to paging services. However, a
variety of paging services is now categorized under Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).\31\ This industry
comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
Illustrative examples in the paging context include paging services,
except satellite; two-way paging communications carriers, except
satellite; and radio paging services communications carriers. The SBA
has deemed a paging service in this category to be small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees.\32\ For this category, census data for 2007
show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.\33\
Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and
15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.\34\ Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of paging services in the
category of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are
small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``517210
Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except Satellite)''; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.
\32\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``517210
Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except Satellite)''.
\33\ U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5,
``Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the
United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210'' (issued Nov. 2010).
\34\ Id. Available 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
``100 employees or more.''
\35\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission
adopted a size standard for ``small businesses'' for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits.\36\ A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.\37\ The SBA has
approved this definition.\38\ An initial auction of Metropolitan
Economic Area (``MEA'') licenses was conducted in the year 2000. Of the
2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.\39\ Fifty-seven companies
claiming small business status won 440 licenses.\40\ A subsequent
auction of MEA and Economic Area (``EA'') licenses was held in the year
2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.\41\ One
hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased
3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each
of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held
in 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business
status won 2,093 licenses.\42\ A fourth auction of 9,603 lower and
upper band paging licenses was held in the year 2010. 29 bidders
claiming small or very small business status won 3,016 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules
to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, Second Report
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (``Paging
Second Report and Order''); see also Revision of Part 22 and Part 90
of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd
10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107 (1999).
\37\ Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, para.
179.
\38\ See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy
Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (``WTB''), FCC (Dec. 2, 1998) (``Alvarez
Letter 1998'').
\39\ See ``929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,'' Public
Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).
\40\ See id.
\41\ See ``Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,'' Public
Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).
\42\ See ``Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes,'' Public
Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003). The current number of small or
very small business entities that hold wireless licenses may differ
significantly from the number of such entities that won in spectrum
auctions due to assignments and transfers of licenses in the
secondary market over time. In addition, some of the same small
business entities may have won licenses in more than one auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used
for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
satellite uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the
wireless communications services (``WCS'') auction as an entity with
average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding
years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average gross
revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.\43\ The
SBA approved these definitions.\44\ The Commission conducted an auction
of geographic area licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In the auction,
seven bidders that qualified as very small business entities won 31
licenses, and one bidder that qualified as a small business entity won
a license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27,
the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), Report and Order, 12 FCC
Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
\44\ See Alvarez Letter 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and
mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile.\45\ An auction for one license
in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. The Commission defined
a ``small business'' as an entity with attributable average annual
gross revenues of not more than $40 million for the preceding three
years, which would thus be eligible for a 15 percent discount on its
winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. Further, the Commission
defined a ``very small business'' as an entity with attributable
average annual gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the
preceding three years, which would thus be eligible to receive a 25
percent discount on its winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license.
The winning bidder was not a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 47 CFR 2.106; see generally 47 CFR 27.1-.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
[[Page 33669]]
communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite).\46\ Under the SBA small business size standard, a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\47\ Census data for 2007
shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.\48\ Of those
1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than
100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
According to Trends in Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported
that they were engaged in wireless telephony.\49\ Of these, an
estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than
1,500 employees.\50\ Therefore, approximately half of these entities
can be considered small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.\51\ Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees.\52\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\47\ Id.
\48\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
\49\ Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
\50\ Id.
\51\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
\52\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal
communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for
each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small business'' for
C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of
$40 million or less in the three previous years.\53\ For F-Block
licenses, an additional small business size standard for ``very small
business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years.\54\ These small business size standards,
in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the
SBA.\55\ No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business
size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There
were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first
two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small and very
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.\56\ On April
15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-,
and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.\57\ Of the 57 winning bidders
in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's
Rules--Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile
Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission's Cellular/
PCS Cross-Ownership Rule, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314,
Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-52, paras. 57-60 (1996)
(``PCS Report and Order''); see also 47 CFR 24.720(b).
\54\ See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852, para. 60.
\55\ See Alvarez Letter 1998.
\56\ See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public
Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
\57\ See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999). Before Auction No. 22,
the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to
match the standard used for F Block. Amendment of the Commission's
Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743, 15768 para. 46 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C
and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning
bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.\58\
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses.\59\ On May 21, 2007, the Commission
completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in
Auction No. 71.\60\ Of the 14 winning bidders in that auction, six
claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.\61\ On August 20,
2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78.\62\ Of the eight
winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed
small business status and won 14 licenses.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning
Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2339 (2001).
\59\ See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders
Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
\60\ See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes;
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, Public Notice, 22 FCC
Rcd 9247 (2007).
\61\ Id.
\62\ See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes;
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd
12749 (WTB 2008).
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Wireless Services. In 2006, the Commission conducted its
first auction of Advanced Wireless Services licenses in the 1710-1755
MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (``AWS-1''), designated as Auction 66.\64\
For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as
an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three
years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $15 million.\65\ In 2006, the Commission conducted its
first auction of AWS-1 licenses.\66\ In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31
winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 142
licenses.\67\ Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified themselves
as small businesses and won 73 licenses.\68\ In a subsequent 2008
auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1
[[Page 33670]]
licenses.\69\ Four winning bidders identified themselves as very small
businesses, and three of the winning bidders identifying themselves as
a small businesses won five AWS-1 licenses.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses
Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum
Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No.
66, AU Docket No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006)
(``Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice'');
\65\ See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7
GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25,162, App. B
(2003), )modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services In
the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd
14,058, App. C (2005).
\66\ See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses
Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum
Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No.
66, AU Docket No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006)
(``Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice'').
\67\ See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Closes;
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 66, Public Notice, 21 FCC
Rcd 10,521 (2006) (``Auction 66 Closing Public Notice'').
\68\ See id.
\69\ See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23
FCC Rcd at 7499. Auction 78 also included an auction of broadband
PCS licenses.
\70\ See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes,
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Down Payments Due
September 9, 2008, FCC Forms 601 and 602 Due September 9, 2008,
Final Payments Due September 23, 2008, Ten-Day Petition to Deny
Period, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12,749 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrowband Personal Communications Services. In 1994, the
Commission conducted two auctions of Narrowband PCS licenses. For these
auctions, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $40 million.\71\ Through these auctions, the Commission
awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small
businesses.\72\ To ensure meaningful participation by small business
entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small
business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and
Order.\73\ A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $40 million.\74\ A ``very
small business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
preceding years of not more than $15 million.\75\ The SBA has approved
these small business size standards.\76\ A third auction of Narrowband
PCS licenses was conducted in 2001. In that auction, five bidders won
317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.\77\ Three of
the winning bidders claimed status as a small or very small entity and
won 311 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act--Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS, Third Memorandum Opinion
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
196, para. 46 (1994).
\72\ See ``Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of Ten
Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
$617,006,674,'' Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
``Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total $490,901,787,'' Public
Notice, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).
\73\ Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New
Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, Second Report and
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd
10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000) (``Narrowband PCS Second Report and
Order'').
\74\ Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
10476, para. 40.
\75\ Id.
\76\ See Alvarez Letter 1998.
\77\ See ``Narrowband PCS Auction Closes,'' Public Notice, 16
FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits.\78\ The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years.\79\ A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the
preceding three years.\80\ Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Service had
a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/Rural
Service Area (``MSA/RSA'') licenses --``entrepreneur''-- which is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3
million for the preceding three years.\81\ The SBA approved these small
size standards.\82\ An auction of 740 licenses was conducted in 2002
(one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of
the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available
for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two
of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business, or
entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses.\83\ A second
auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
included 256 licenses.\84\ Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or
very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning
bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.\85\ In 2005,
the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the lower 700 MHz
band (Auction 60). All three winning bidders claimed small business
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, 17 FCC
Rcd 1022 (2002) (``Channels 52-59 Report and Order'').
\79\ See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88,
para. 172.
\80\ See id.
\81\ See id, 17 FCC Rcd at 1088, para. 173.
\82\ See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas
Sugrue, Chief, WTB, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999) (``Alvarez Letter 1999'').
\83\ See ``Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,'' Public Notice,
17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
\84\ See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18
FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
\85\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz
band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order.\86\ An auction of A, B and
E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in 2008.\87\ Twenty
winning bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed
$40 million for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning
bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the
preceding three years). In 2011, the Commission conducted Auction 92,
which offered 16 lower 700 MHz band licenses that had been made
available in Auction 73 but either remained unsold or were licenses on
which a winning bidder defaulted. Two of the seven winning bidders in
Auction 92 claimed very small business status, winning a total of four
licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz
Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC
Docket No. 94-102, Sec. 68.4(a) of the Commission's rules Governing
Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01-309, Biennial
Regulatory Review--Amendment of parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to
Streamline and Harmonize Various rules Affecting Wireless Radio
Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc.
Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to part 27 of the
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169, Implementing a Nationwide,
Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band,
PS Docket No. 06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and
Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public
Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
No. 96-86, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (``700
MHz Second Report and Order'').
\87\ See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice,
23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses.\88\ On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73
in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block.\89\ The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
\89\ See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice,
23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 2000, the Commission adopted the
700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, in which it established rules for
the A and B block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz
[[Page 33671]]
band, including size standards for ``small businesses'' and ``very
small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility for
special provisions such as bidding credits.\90\ A small business in
this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40
million for the preceding three years.\91\ Additionally, a very small
business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
than $15 million for the preceding three years.\92\ SBA approval of
these definitions is not required.\93\ An auction of these licenses was
conducted in 2000.\94\ Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were
won by nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that
won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
licenses was held in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were
sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that
won a total of two licenses.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions
to part 27 of the Commission's rules, Second Report and Order, 15
FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (``700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order'').
\91\ See 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
5343, para. 108.
\92\ See id.
\93\ See id., 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the
746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 15
U.S.C. 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval
before adopting small business size standards).
\94\ See ``700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
Announced,'' Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000).
\95\ See ``700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
Announced,'' Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small business
size standards for the purpose of determining eligibility for bidding
credits in auctions of Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area
licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The Commission defined a
``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15
million for the preceding three years.\96\ The Commission defined a
``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years.\97\ The SBA has approved these
small business size standards for both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
Service.\98\ The first 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty
bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15
million size standard won 263 licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In
2004, the Commission held a second auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses and
three winning bidders identifying themselves as very small businesses
won 7 licenses.\99\ The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper
200 channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they
qualified as small or very small businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200 channels.\100\ A second
auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses was conducted in 2002 and included 23
BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five
licenses.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 47 CFR 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
\97\ 47 CFR 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
\98\ See Alvarez Letter 1999.
\99\ See 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Spectrum
Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,'' Public Notice, 19 FCC
Rcd. 3921 (WTB 2004).
\100\ See ``Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 `FCC Announces
Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz
SMR in Major Trading Areas,''' Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB
1996).
\101\ See ``Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,'' Public Notice,
17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small businesses.\102\ In an auction
completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower
80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded.\103\ Of the 22
winning bidders, 19 claimed small or very small business status and won
129 licenses. Thus, combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed to be small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See ``800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service
General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band (861-865 MHz) Auction
Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,'' Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 17162
(2000).
\103\ See, ``800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction
Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,'' Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 1736
(2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues
not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues.
In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees.\104\ We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of
the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held
by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by
the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See generally 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
220 MHz Radio Service--Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-
nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized
to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a
small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable
to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of
such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the
small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable. The SBA
has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\105\ For this service, the SBA uses the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Census data for 2007,
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year.\106\ Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The now-
superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes
517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
\106\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
220 MHz Radio Service--Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service
licenses are assigned by auction, where mutually exclusive applications
are accepted. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission
adopted a small business size standard for defining ``small'' and
``very small'' businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits.\107\ This small
business standard indicates that a ``small business'' is an entity
that, together with its affiliates
[[Page 33672]]
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
$15 million for the preceding three years.\108\ A ``very small
business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not
exceed $3 million for the preceding three years.\109\ The SBA has
approved these small size standards.\110\ Auctions of Phase II licenses
commenced on and closed in 1998.\111\ In the first auction, 908
licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas:
three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG)
Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold.\112\ Thirty-nine small businesses won 373
licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A second auction included 225
licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies
claiming small business status won 158 licenses.\113\ A third auction
included four licenses: 2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220
MHz Service. No small or very small business won any of these
licenses.\114\ In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of
the 220 MHz licenses, designated as Auction 72.\115\ Auction 72, which
offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007.\116\
In this auction, five winning bidders won a total of 76 licenses. Two
winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 56
of the 76 licenses. One of the winning bidders that identified
themselves as a small business won 5 of the 76 licenses won.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
For the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
Service, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 paras.
291-295 (1997).
\108\ Id. at 11068 para. 291.
\109\ Id.
\110\ See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
January 6, 1998 (Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998).
\111\ See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public
Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
\112\ See FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220
MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd
1085 (WTB 1999).
\113\ See Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).
\114\ See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17
FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
\115\ See ``Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum
Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum
Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 72,
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 3404 (2007).
\116\ See Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses
Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 72, Down Payments due
July 18, 2007, FCC Forms 601 and 602 due July 18, 2007, Final
Payments due August 1, 2007, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public
Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11573 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Land Mobile Radio (``PLMR''). PLMR systems serve an
essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation,
and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all
sizes operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in
support of the licensee's primary (non-telecommunications) business
operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR
system is a small business as defined by the SBA, we use the broad
census category, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). This definition provides that a small entity is any such
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.\117\ The Commission does
not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of
employees, so the Commission does not have information that could be
used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities
under this definition. We note that PLMR licensees generally use the
licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and
therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the
standards applied to the particular industry subsector to which the
licensee belongs.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\118\ See generally 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating
921,909 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. We note that any
entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR
license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore
potentially impact small entities covering a great variety of
industries.
Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common
carrier,\119\ private-operational fixed,\120\ and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.\121\ They also include the Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (``LMDS''),\122\ the Digital Electronic Message
Service (``DEMS''),\123\ and the 24 GHz Service,\124\ where licensees
can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.\125\
The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, the Commission will use
the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite)--i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is
considered small.\126\ For the category of Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007 shows that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year.\127\ Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission
notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of
licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See 47 CFR part 101, subparts C and I.
\120\ See id. subparts C and H.
\121\ Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of
Title 47 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR part 74. Available to
licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.
\122\ See 47 CFR part 101, subpart L.
\123\ See id. Subpart G.
\124\ See id.
\125\ See 47 CFR 101.533, 101.1017.
\126\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\127\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 GHz Service. The Commission adopted small business size
standards for 39 GHz licenses. A ``small business'' is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million in the preceding
three years.\128\ A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding
three years.\129\ The SBA has approved these small business size
standards.\130\ In 2000, the Commission conducted an auction of 2,173
39 GHz licenses. A total of 18 bidders who claimed small or very small
business status won 849 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the
37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, Report
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1997).
\129\ Id.
\130\ See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to
Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
Division, WTB, FCC (Feb. 4, 1998); see Letter from Hector Barreto,
Administrator, SBA, to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Jan. 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (``LMDS'') is a fixed broadband point-to-
multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video
[[Page 33673]]
telecommunications.\131\ The Commission established a small business
size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous years.\132\ An
additional small business size standard for ``very small business'' was
added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years.\133\ The SBA has approved these small business size standards in
the context of LMDS auctions.\134\ There were 93 winning bidders that
qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small
and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses
and 387 B Block licenses. In 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161
licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses winning that
won 119 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See Rulemaking to Amend parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the
Commission's rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and
Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order,
Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, para. 348 (1997) (``LMDS Second Report
and Order'').
\132\ See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12689-90,
para. 348.
\133\ See id.
\134\ See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz Service
(previously referred to as the Interactive and Video Data Service or
IVDS) licenses resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (``MSAs'').\135\ Of the 594 licenses,
557 were won by 167 entities qualifying as a small business. For that
auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth
and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has
no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous
two years.\136\ In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Commission revised its small business size
standards for the 218-219 MHz Service and defined a small business as
an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities
that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average
annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three
years.\137\ The Commission defined a ``very small business'' as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that
hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three
years.\138\ The SBA has approved these definitions.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See ``Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS)
Applications Accepted for Filing,'' Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd 6227
(1994).
\136\ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act--Competitive Bidding, Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330
(1994).
\137\ Amendment of part 95 of the Commission's rules to Provide
Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, Report and Order
and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).
\138\ Id.
\139\ See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location and Monitoring Service (``LMS''). Multilateration LMS
systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and
status of mobile radio units. For auctions of LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.\140\
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $3 million.\141\ These
definitions have been approved by the SBA.\142\ An auction of LMS
licenses was conducted in 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289
licenses were sold to four small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Amendment of part 90 of the Commission's rules to Adopt
Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, Second Report
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192, para. 20 (1998) (``Automatic
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Second Report and Order''); see also 47
CFR 90.1103.
\141\ Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems Second Report and
Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192, para. 20; see also 47 CFR 90.1103.
\142\ See Alvarez Letter 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size
standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.\143\ A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS'').\144\ For
purposes of its analysis of the Rural Radiotelephone Service, the
Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),'' which is
1,500 or fewer employees.\145\ Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 1,383 firms that operated that year.\146\ Of those 1,383, 1,368
had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms in the Rural Radiotelephone Service can
be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ The service is defined in Sec. 22.99 of the Commission's
rules.
\144\ BETRS is defined in Sec. Sec. 22.757 and 22.759 of the
Commission's rules.
\145\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\146\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.\147\ The Commission has
previously used the SBA's small business definition applicable to
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.\148\ There are
approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service,
and under that definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify
as small entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding,
the Commission has defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
million.\149\ A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15
million.\150\ These definitions were approved by the SBA.\151\ In 2006,
the Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction 65). The
auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders
claimed small business status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ The service is defined in Sec. 22.99 of the Commission's
rules.
\148\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.
\149\ Amendment of part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Benefit
the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications Services, Biennial
Regulatory Review--Amendment of parts 1, 22, and 90 of the
Commission's Rules, Amendment of parts 1 and 22 of the Commission's
rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General
Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, WT Docket Nos. 03-103
and 05-42, Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd
19663, paras. 28-42 (2005).
\150\ Id.
\151\ See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to
Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access
Division, WTB, FCC (Sept. 19, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the
aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (``VHF'')
marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-
indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator
[[Page 33674]]
transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For
purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business
size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees.\152\ Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that
year.\153\ Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15
firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\153\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several
UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico.\154\ There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number
of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
size standard for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) under that standard.\155\ Under that SBA small
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\156\ Census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms
that operated that year.\157\ Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100
employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 22.1001-22.1037.
\155\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\156\ Id.
\157\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Address Systems (``MAS''). Entities using MAS spectrum, in
general, fall into two categories: (1) Those using the spectrum for
profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private
internal uses. The Commission defines a small business for MAS licenses
as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $15 million
in the preceding three years.\158\ A very small business is defined as
an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross
revenues of not more than $3 million for the preceding three
years.\159\ The SBA has approved these definitions.\160\ The majority
of these entities will most likely be licensed in bands where the
Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that
would require the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve
mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's licensing database
indicates that, as of March 5, 2010, there were over 11,500 MAS station
authorizations. In 2001, an auction of 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs
was conducted.\161\ Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or
very small businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission
completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed
Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six
winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning
bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won
1,891 licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ See Amendment of the Commission's rules Regarding Multiple
Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008, para.
123 (2000).
\159\ Id.
\160\ See Alvarez Letter 1999.
\161\ See ``Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,''
Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to
accommodate internal communications needs, we note that MAS serves an
essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land
transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all
sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all
types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal
users, the small business size standard developed by the SBA would be
more appropriate. The applicable size standard in this instance appears
to be that of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.\162\ The Commission's licensing
database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS
station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio
service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land mobile radio
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The Commission conducted an auction of 64
1.4 GHz band licenses in the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz
bands, and in the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz band in 2007.\163\ For these
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, had average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.\164\
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ See ``Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Scheduled for
February 7, 2007,'' Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 12393 (WTB 2006);
``Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction No. 69,'' Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 4714 (2007)
(``Auction No. 69 Closing PN'').
\164\ Auction No. 69 Closing PN, Attachment C.
\165\ See Auction No. 69 Closing PN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. This analysis may affect incumbent
licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band,
and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. For
this service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard
for the category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees.\166\ To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the
most current census data. Census data for 2007 shows that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year.\167\ Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission
notes that the Census' use of the classifications ``firms'' does not
track the number of ``licenses''. The Commission believes that there
are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the
18 GHz band, Teligent \168\ and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that
Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees,
though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus,
only one incumbent licensee in
[[Page 33675]]
the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\167\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007
NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
\168\ Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only
licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been
modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future 24 GHz Licensees. With respect to new applicants for
licenses in the 24 GHz band, for the purpose of determining eligibility
for bidding credits, the Commission established three small business
definitions. An ``entrepreneur'' is defined as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million.\169\
A ``small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues
for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million.\170\ A ``very
small business'' in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.\171\
The SBA has approved these small business size standards.\172\ In a
2004 auction of 24 GHz licenses, three winning bidders won seven
licenses.\173\ Two of the winning bidders were very small businesses
that won five licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Amendments to parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's
rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, Report and Order, 15 FCC
Rcd 16934, 16967 para. 77 (2000) (``24 GHz Report and Order''); see
also 47 CFR 101.538(a)(3).
\170\ 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 para. 77 ;
see also 47 CFR 101.538(a)(2).
\171\ 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 para. 77; see
also 47 CFR 101.538(a)(1).
\172\ See Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions
and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28,
2000).
\173\ Auction of 24 GHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning
Bidders Announced for Auction 56, Down Payments Due August 16, 2004,
Final Payments Due August 30, 2004, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 14738 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (``MMDS'') systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (``BRS'') and Educational Broadband Service (``EBS'')
(previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service
(``ITFS'').\174\ In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the
Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that
had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the
previous three years.\175\ The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful
bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas
(``BTAs''). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small
business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to
the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to
the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are
approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small
entities.\176\ After adding the number of small business auction
licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we
find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are
defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's
rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78
licenses in the BRS areas.\177\ The Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the
preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent
discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15
million for the preceding three years (very small business) will
receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35
percent discount on its winning bid.\178\ Auction 86 concluded in 2009
with the sale of 61 licenses.\179\ Of the ten winning bidders, two
bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder
that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two
bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Amendment of parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--
Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253,
Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 para 7 (1995).
\175\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).
\176\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-
auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business
size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
\177\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses,
Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements,
Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for
Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
\178\ Id. at 8296.
\179\ Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes,
Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November
23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to
Deny Period, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small
business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032
EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational
institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as
small entities.\180\ Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees
are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution
Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' \181\ For these services, the Commission uses the SBA
small business size standard for the category ``Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or
fewer employees.\182\ To gauge small business prevalence for these
cable services we must, however, use the most current census data.
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955
firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year.\183\
Of this total, 939 firms employed 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms
employed 1,000 employees or more.\184\ Thus, the majority of these
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ The term ``small entity'' within SBREFA applies to small
organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental jurisdictions
(cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and
special districts with populations of less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C.
601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.
\181\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, (partial definition), www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
\182\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
\183\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
States: 2007, NAICS code 5171102 (issued November 2010).
\184\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
[[Page 33676]]
public.'' \185\ The SBA has created the following small business size
standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $14 million or
less in annual receipts.\186\ The Commission has estimated the number
of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387.\187\ In
addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory
Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012,
about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or
approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.\188\ We
therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television
broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``515120
Television Broadcasting'' (partial definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
\186\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation
in 2010).
\187\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2011,'' dated January 6, 2012; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
\188\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the
FCC total given supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations \189\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a
third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.''
13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.\190\
These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small
entities.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2011,'' dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
\191\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there are also 2,528 low power television stations,
including Class A stations (LPTV).\192\ Given the nature of these
services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2011,'' dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio,
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' \193\ The SBA
has established a small business size standard for this category, which
is: Such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts.\194\
According to Commission staff review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC's
Media Access Pro Radio Database on March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97%)
of 11,102 commercial radio stations had revenues of $7 million or less.
Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``515112 Radio
Stations''; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112.
\194\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation
in 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above size standard, business affiliations
must be included.\195\ In addition, to be determined to be a ``small
business,'' the entity may not be dominant in its field of
operation.\196\ We note that it is difficult at times to assess these
criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small
businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ ``Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when
one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party
or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not
matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control
exists.'' 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
\196\ 13 CFR 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution
Services. This service involves a variety of transmitters, generally
used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator
and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a
remote news gathering unit back to the station). The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities applicable to broadcast
auxiliary licensees. The applicable definitions of small entities are
those, noted previously, under the SBA rules applicable to radio
broadcasting stations and television broadcasting stations.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 515112 and 515120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 6,099 FM
translators and boosters.\198\ The Commission does not collect
financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of
Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary
broadcast facilities. We believe that most, if not all, of these
auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by
themselves. We also recognize that most commercial translators and
boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be
covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed
above. These stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the
SBA maximum to be designated as a small business ($7.0 million for a
radio station or $14.0 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do
not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a ``small business
concern'' because they are not independently owned and operated.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of
December 31, 2011,'' dated January 6, 2012; http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
\199\ See 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service. MVDDS is a
terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for
special provisions such as bidding credits. It defines a very small
business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding
$3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity
with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average
annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three
years.\200\ These definitions were approved by the SBA.\201\ On January
27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses
(Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten
[[Page 33677]]
winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.\202\ Eight of the
ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the
licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on
December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22
licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed
small business status.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Amendment of parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the
Commission's rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the
12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses and their
Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband
Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614,
9711, para. 252 (2002).
\201\ See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S.
Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief,
Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Feb.13, 2002).
\202\ See ``Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service
Auction Closes,'' Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004).
\203\ See ``Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data
Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No.
63,'' Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amateur Radio Service. These licensees are held by individuals in a
noncommercial capacity; these licensees are not small entities.
Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-
range, low power radio for personal communications, radio signaling,
and business communications not provided for in other services. The
Personal Radio Services include spectrum licensed under part 95 of our
rules.\204\ These services include Citizen Band Radio Service (``CB''),
General Mobile Radio Service (``GMRS''), Radio Control Radio Service
(``R/C''), Family Radio Service (``FRS''), Wireless Medical Telemetry
Service (``WMTS''), Medical Implant Communications Service (``MICS''),
Low Power Radio Service (``LPRS''), and Multi-Use Radio Service
(``MURS'').\205\ There are a variety of methods used to license the
spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning
operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based
licensing, to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission
is required to make a determination of which small entities are
directly affected by the rules being proposed. Since all such entities
are wireless, we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which a small entity is
defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.\206\ Many of the licensees
in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In
addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the
spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks
direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number of
small entities under an SBA definition that might be directly affected
by our proposed actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ 47 CFR part 90.
\205\ The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio
Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless
Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service,
Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by
subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H, subpart I,
subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of part 95 of the
Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR part 95.
\206\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Safety Radio Services. Public Safety radio services include
police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway
maintenance, and emergency medical services.\207\ There are a total of
approximately 127,540 licensees in these services. Governmental
entities \208\ as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for
these services. All governmental entities with populations of less than
50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ With the exception of the special emergency service, these
services are governed by subpart B of part 90 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 90.15-90.27. The police service includes approximately
27,000 licensees that serve state, county, and municipal enforcement
through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and
facsimile (printed material). The fire radio service includes
approximately 23,000 licensees comprised of private volunteer or
professional fire companies as well as units under governmental
control. The local government service is presently comprised of
approximately 41,000 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
entities that use the radio for official purposes not covered by
other public safety services. There are approximately 7,000
licensees within the forestry service which is comprised of
licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest
organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout
towers and ground crews. The approximately 9,000 state and local
governments are licensed for highway maintenance service to provide
emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety
services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. The
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service
(``EMRS'') use the 39 channels allocated to this service for
emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
emergency medical treatment. 47 CFR 90.15-90.27. The approximately
20,000 licensees in the special emergency service include medical
services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons,
disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,
establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities,
and emergency repair of public communications facilities. 47 CFR
90.33-90.55.
\208\ 47 CFR 1.1162.
\209\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMTS Resale Carriers. Providers of IMTS resale services are common
carriers that purchase IMTS from other carriers and resell it to their
own customers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.\210\ Census data for 2007 show that 1,523
firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,522
operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with more than
1,000.\211\ Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be considered
small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale
services.\212\ Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and two have more than 1,500 employees.\213\ Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of IMTS resellers are small
entities that may be affected by our proposed actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
\211\ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
\212\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
\213\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. Included among the
providers of IMTS resale are a number of wireless carriers that also
provide wireless telephony services domestically. The Commission
classifies these entities as providers of Commercial Mobile Radio
Services (CMRS). At present, most, if not all, providers of CMRS that
offer IMTS provide such service by purchasing IMTS from other carriers
to resell it to their customers. The Commission has not developed a
size standard specifically for CMRS providers that offer resale IMTS.
Such entities would fall within the larger category of wireless
carriers and service providers. For those services subject to auctions,
the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
86. The proposals being made in this Further Notice, may require
additional analysis and mitigation activities regarding compliance with
our RF exposure limits for certain facilities, operations and
transmitters, such as some wireless base stations, particularly those
on rooftops, and some antennas at multiple transmitter sites. In other
cases, current analytical requirements are being relaxed.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
87. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of
[[Page 33678]]
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\214\ In this proceeding, our proposals are consistent with
(2), in that our goal is making our RF rules more consistent and
clarifying certain areas that have created confusion in the past. In
addition, due to our revisions in our policy on categorical exclusions,
we are providing exemptions from routine RF evaluation for many small
entities that should reduce the overall impact on small entities (see
number 4 above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
88. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 24,
25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and 309, Cable Landing License Act of
1921, 47 U.S.C. 35-39, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96.
0
2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
(b) In addition to the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, Commission actions granting or modifying construction permits,
licenses or renewals thereof, temporary authorities, equipment
authorizations, or any other authorizations for radiofrequency (RF)
sources require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) if
those RF sources would cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation
in excess of the limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications
to the Commission for construction permits, licenses or renewals
thereof, temporary authorities, equipment authorizations, or any other
authorizations requesting either approval or modification of RF sources
must contain a statement confirming compliance by RF evaluation with
the limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter unless those RF sources are
exempt from such RF evaluation, as discussed below. Technical
information showing the basis for compliance with the limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter, either by RF evaluation or exemption, must be
submitted to the Commission upon request. Notwithstanding the above, in
the event that RF sources cause human exposure to levels of RF
radiation in excess of the limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter, such
RF evaluations and exemptions are not deemed sufficient to show that
there is no significant effect on the quality of the human environment
or that the RF sources are categorically excluded from environmental
processing.
(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter is required only for RF sources not exempt from
such evaluation. Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits may
be based on either computation or measurement in accordance with Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter. Exemption from evaluation may be based on
frequency, power, and separation distance. However, all single RF
sources having less than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1
mW are exempt from evaluation, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of
this section. The ``available maximum time-averaged power'' for a fixed
RF source is the maximum available power as averaged over any 30 minute
time period, and for a mobile or portable RF source is the maximum
available power as averaged over a period inherent from device
transmission characteristics. Evaluation of compliance with the
exposure limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary for single
fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources above 1 mW and having an ERP
greater than listed in Table 1 specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section or single fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources greater than
the threshold Pth for separation distances between 0.5 cm
and 20 cm (inclusive) or ERP20cm for separation distances of
at least 20 cm up to 40 cm as listed in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section. Mobile devices, as defined in Sec. 2.1091(b) of this chapter,
and portable devices, as defined in Sec. 2.1093(b) of this chapter,
with multiple RF sources shall refer to Sec. Sec. 2.1091(c) and
2.1093(c), respectively, for relevant exemption criteria. For the
purposes of this section, a fixed RF source is defined as one that is
physically secured at one location, even temporarily, and is not able
to be easily moved to another location.
(i) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are
exceeded, is necessary for single RF sources either above an available
maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or above the ERP listed in Table 1
below, whichever is greater. The ERP, defined as the product of the
maximum antenna gain and the maximum delivered time-averaged power
summed over all polarizations, shall be used for comparison with the
value calculated from the applicable formula in Table 1, where the term
``maximum antenna gain'' is the largest far-field total power gain
relative to a dipole in any direction for all transverse polarization
components and the term ``delivered maximum time-averaged power'' is
the largest net power delivered or supplied to the antenna as averaged
over any 30 minute time period for fixed sources and as averaged over a
period inherent from device transmission characteristics for mobile and
portable sources. The term ``separation distance,'' R in Table 1, is
defined as the minimum distance in any direction from any part of the
radiating structure of a transmitting antenna or antenna array to the
body of a nearby person.
[[Page 33679]]
Table 1--Single RF Sources Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmitter frequency (MHz) Threshold ERP (watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of ERP, evaluation is required if the separation distance R is less than [lambda]/2[pi] from the
radiating structure, where [lambda] is the free-space operating wavelength, unless the available maximum time-
averaged power is less than one milliwatt. In addition, evaluation is required if the ERP in watts is greater
than the value given by the formula below for the appropriate frequency, f, in MHz at the separation distance,
R, in
meters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3-1.34............................ ERP >= 1,920 R\2\
1.34-30............................. ERP >= 3,450 R\2\/f\2\
30-300.............................. ERP >= 3.83 R\2\
300-1,500........................... ERP >= 0.0128 R\2\f
1,500-100,000....................... ERP >= 19.2R\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter is necessary for single RF sources not exempted
by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section if either its available maximum
time-averaged power or effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than
the threshold Pth listed in the formula below, which shall
only be used at distances from 0.5 to 20 centimeters and at frequencies
from 0.3 to 6 GHz. For distances from 20 to 40 centimeters at
frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the
exposure limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary if the ERP
is greater than ERP20cm in the formula below. If the ERP of
a single RF source at distances from 0.5 to 40 centimeters and at
frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz is not easily obtained, then the
available maximum time-averaged power may be used (i.e., without
consideration of ERP) in comparison with the formula below only if the
device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the
electrical length of [lambda]/4.
Pth (mW) = ERP20cm (d/20 cM)X
Where
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.005
d = the minimum separation distance in any direction from any part
of the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) to the body of
the device user.
(iii) In order for the 1 mW exemption criterion in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section to apply, a separation distance of two centimeters is
required between any portion of a radiating structure operating at less
than 1 mW and the nearest portion of any other radiating structure in
the same device.
(iv) A routine RF evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits
in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary for single fixed RF
sources that exceed the thresholds defined in paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text, (b)(1)(i), or (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Multiple
fixed RF sources require evaluation of compliance with the exposure
limits in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter if the sum of the fractional
contributions to the applicable ERP thresholds and the ambient exposure
quotient (AEQ) is greater than or equal to 1 as indicated in the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.006
Where
a = number of fixed RF sources using paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section.
b = number of existing fixed RF sources with known SAR.
c = number of fixed RF sources using ERP, either according to
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the
ERP, whichever is greater, for RF source i.
Pth,i = the threshold power according to the formula in
(b)(1)(ii) of this section for RF source i.
SARj = the maximum SAR reported from the jth fixed RF
source.
ERPk = ERP of RF source k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for RF source k, either
according to (b)(1)(ii) of this section or (b)(1)(i) of this
section, as applicable.
AEQ = the ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) for the general
population/uncontrolled limit from an existing evaluation of
exposure at the site from fixed sources not included in the
summations. An AEQ less than 0.05 may be considered insignificant.
(v) Where applicable, for multiple mobile or portable RF sources
within a device operating in the same time averaging period, evaluation
is required if:
[[Page 33680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.007
Where
a = number of mobile or portable transmitters that use
Pth, including existing transmitters and those being
added.
b = number of existing mobile or portable transmitters with known
SAR.
c = number of mobile or portable transmitters using ERP, according
to either (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section, including
existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the
ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile or portable transmitter i.
Pth,i = the threshold power according to the formula in
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) for mobile or portable transmitter i.
SARj = the maximum SAR reported for equipment
certification from the jth mobile or portable transmitter in the
device.
ERPk = ERP of mobile or portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile or portable
transmitter k, either according to (b)(1)(ii) of this section or
(b)(1)(i) of this section, as applicable.
(vi) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single
or multiple RF source(s) is exempt from routine environmental
evaluation for RF exposure prior to authorization (licensing or
equipment certification), except as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section.
(2) Specific mitigation actions are required for fixed RF sources
in order to ensure compliance with our exposure limits, including the
implementation of an RF safety plan, restriction of access to those RF
sources, and disclosure of spatial regions where exposure limits are
exceeded. For the purpose of this section, Category One described in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is defined as compliant with the
general population exposure limit in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter at
any separation distance; Category Two described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
of this section is defined as above the general population exposure
limit but compliant with the occupational exposure limit in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter within its defined spatial region; Category
Three described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section is defined as
above the occupational exposure limit but no more than ten times the
occupational exposure limit in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter within its
defined spatial region; and Category Four described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section is defined as more than ten times the
occupational exposure limit in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter within its
defined spatial region.
(i) Category One--INFORMATION. No mitigation actions are required.
Optionally a green ``INFORMATION'' sign may offer information to those
persons who might be approaching RF sources. This optional sign should
include at least the following information: appropriate signal word
``INFORMATION'' and associated color (green) in accord with section 5.8
of IEEE Std C95.2-1999, a specification of the RF source, contact
information, and a reminder to obey all postings and boundaries.
(ii) Category Two--NOTICE. Mitigation actions are required in the
form of signs and positive access control surrounding the areas in
which the general population exposure limit is exceeded, with the
appropriate signal word ``NOTICE'' and associated color (blue) on the
signs. Signs must contain the components discussed in paragraph
(b)(2)(v) of this section. Under certain controlled conditions, such as
on a rooftop with limited access, a sign containing the components
discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section attached directly to
the surface of an antenna will be considered a sufficient mitigation
action if the sign specifies and is legible at the separation distance
required for compliance with the general population exposure limit in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Appropriate training is required for any
occupational personnel with access to controlled areas within
restrictive barriers where the general population exposure limit is
exceeded, and transient individuals must be supervised by trained
personnel upon entering any of these areas. Use of time averaging is
required for transient individuals in the area in which the general
population exposure limit is exceeded to ensure compliance with the
time-averaged general population exposure limit.
(iii) Category Three--CAUTION. In addition to the mitigation
actions required within those areas designated as Category Two, further
signs, controls, or indicators are required surrounding the area in
which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded, with the appropriate
signal word ``CAUTION'' and associated color (yellow) on the signs. If
signs are used at the occupational exposure limit boundary, they must
contain the components discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this
section. If the boundaries between Category Two and Three are such that
placement of both Category Two and Three signs would be in the same
location, then the Category Two sign is optional. A label or small sign
may be attached directly to the surface of an antenna within a
controlled environment if it specifies a minimum approach distance
where the occupational exposure limit is exceeded. If signs are not
used at the occupational exposure limit boundary, controls or
indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams, etc.)
must designate the spatial regions where the occupational exposure
limit is exceeded. Transient individuals are not permitted in any area
for any period of time in which the occupational exposure limit is
exceeded. Further mitigation by reducing exposure time in accord with
six minute time averaging is required for occupational personnel in the
area in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded. However,
proper use of RF personal protective equipment may be considered
sufficient in lieu of time averaging for occupational personnel in the
areas in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded.
(iv) Category Four--WARNING/DANGER. In addition to the mitigation
actions required within those areas designated as Category Three,
``WARNING'' signs with the associated color (orange) are required where
the occupational limit is exceeded by a factor of ten, and ``DANGER''
signs with the associated color (red) are required where immediate and
serious injury will occur on contact. Signs must contain the components
discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section. If the boundaries
between Category Three and Four are such that placement of both
Category Three and Four signs would be in the same location, then the
Category Three sign is optional. If power reduction, and therefore
Category reduction, is not feasible, then lockout/tagout procedures in
29 CFR 1910.147 must be followed.
(v) RF exposure advisory signs. RF exposure advisory signs must
include at least the following five components:
(A) Appropriate signal word and associated color {i.e., ``DANGER''
(red),
[[Page 33681]]
``WARNING'' (orange), ``CAUTION,'' (yellow) ``NOTICE'' (blue){time} in
accord with IEEE Std C95.2-1999, ``IEEE Standard for Radio-Frequency
Energy and Current-Flow Symbols,'' copyright 1999 by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017
(B) RF energy advisory symbol (Figure A.3 of IEEE Std C95.2-1999)
(C) An explanation of the RF source
(D) Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits
(E) Contact information
(3) In general, when the exposure limits specified in Sec. 1.1310
are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions from multiple
fixed RF sources, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance
or preparation of an Environmental Assessment as specified in Sec.
1.1311 are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose RF sources
produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the
applicable exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared to be
proportional to SAR or power density. Specifically, these compliance
requirements apply if the square of the electric or magnetic field
strength exposure level applicable to a particular RF source exceeds 5%
of the square of the electric or magnetic field strength limit at the
area in question where the levels due to multiple fixed RF sources
exceed the exposure limit. Site owners and managers are expected to
allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with
the requirements contained in Sec. 1.1307(b) and, where feasible,
should encourage co-location of RF sources and common solutions for
controlling access to areas where the RF exposure limits contained in
Sec. 1.1310 might be exceeded. Additionally, applicants for proposed
RF sources and applicants for renewal of licenses for RF sources shall
inform other licensees at a site in question of evaluations indicating
possible non-compliance with the exposure limits.
(i) Applicants for proposed RF sources that would cause non-
compliance with the limits specified in Sec. 1.1310 at an accessible
area previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the
applicant's RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels
that exceed 5% of the applicable exposure limit. Field strengths must
be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power density.
(ii) Renewal applicants whose RF sources would cause non-compliance
with the limits specified in Sec. 1.1310 at an accessible area
previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the
applicant's RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels
that exceed 5% of the applicable exposure limit. Field strengths must
be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power density.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.1310 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1310 Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.
(a) Specific absorption rate (SAR) shall be used to evaluate the
environmental impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation
as specified in Sec. 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 100 kHz
to 6 GHz (inclusive).
(b) The SAR limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 0.4 W/
kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of
8 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume
in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body
treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and
pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit for occupational/
controlled exposure is 20 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue
(defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exposure may be
averaged over a time period not to exceed 6 minutes to determine
compliance with occupational/controlled SAR limits.
(c) The SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are
0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average
SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a
tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the
human body treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles,
and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg,
averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the
shape of a cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to
exceed 30 minutes to determine compliance with general population/
uncontrolled SAR limits.
(d)(1) Evaluation with respect to the SAR limits in this section
must demonstrate compliance with both the whole-body and peak spatial-
average limits using technically supported measurement or computational
methods and exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing
or equipment certification) and in a manner that facilitates
enforcement. Numerical computation of SAR must be supported by adequate
documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the
computational software has been fully validated; in addition, the
equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according
to protocols established by numerical computation standards or
available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.
(2) For operation within the frequency range of 300 kHz and 6 GHz
(inclusive), the limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE), derived
from whole-body SAR limits and listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of
this section, may be used instead of whole-body SAR limits as set forth
in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to evaluate the
environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as specified in
Sec. 1.1307(b), except for portable devices as defined in Sec. 2.1093
as these evaluations shall be performed according to the SAR provisions
in Sec. 2.1093 of this chapter.
(3) At operating frequencies above 6 GHz, the MPE limits listed in
Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section shall be used in all cases to
evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as
specified in Sec. 1.1307(b).
(4) Both the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this
section and the SAR limits as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section are for continuous exposure, that is, for indefinite
time periods. Exposure levels higher than the limits are permitted for
shorter exposure times, as long as the average exposure over the
specified averaging time in Table 1 is less than the exposure limits.
Detailed information on our policies regarding procedures for
evaluating compliance with all of these exposure limits can be found in
the most current edition of FCC's OET Bulletin 65, ``Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields,'' and its supplements, all available at the
FCC's Internet Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.
Note to Paragraphs (a) through (d): SAR is a measure of the rate
of energy absorption due to exposure to RF electromagnetic energy.
These SAR limits to be used for evaluation are based generally on
criteria published by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) for localized SAR in section 4.2 of ``IEEE Standard for
Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,'' ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-
1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017. These criteria for SAR
evaluation are similar to those recommended by the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in ``Biological
Effects and Exposure
[[Page 33682]]
Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,'' NCRP Report
No. 86, section 17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland
20814. Limits for whole body SAR and peak spatial-average SAR are
based on recommendations made in both of these documents. The MPE
limits in Table 1 are based generally on criteria published by the
NCRP in ``Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,'' NCRP Report No. 86,
sections 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3, copyright 1986 by
NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. In the frequency range from 100 MHz
to 1500 MHz, these MPE exposure limits for field strength and power
density are also generally based on criteria recommended by the ANSI
in section 4.1 of ``IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz,'' ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York
10017.
(e) Table 1 in this paragraph sets forth limits for Maximum
Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Table 1--Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric field Magnetic field Power density (mW/ Averaging time
Frequency range (MHz) strength (V/m) strength (A/m) cm\2\) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3-3.0............................. 614 1.63 * (100) 6
3.0-30.............................. 1842/f 4.89/f * (900/f\2\) 6
30-300.............................. 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1500............................ ................. ................. f/300 6
1500-100,000........................ ................. ................. 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3-1.34............................ 614 1.63 * (100) 30
1.34-30............................. 824/f 2.19/f * (180/f\2\) 30
30-300.............................. 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500............................ ................. ................. f/1500 30
1500-100,000........................ ................. ................. 1.0 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f = frequency in MHz.
* = Plane-wave equivalent power density.
(1) Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply in situations in
which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided
those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can
exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/
controlled exposure also apply in situations when a person is transient
through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided
he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The phrase fully
aware in the context of applying these exposure limits means that an
exposed person has received written and/or verbal information fully
explaining the potential for RF exposure resulting from his or her
employment. With the exception of transient persons, this phrase also
means that an exposed person has received appropriate training
regarding work practices relating to controlling or mitigating his or
her exposure. See Sec. 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter. The phrase
exercise control means that an exposed person is allowed and also knows
how to reduce or avoid exposure by administrative or engineering work
practices, such as use of personal protective equipment or time
averaging of exposure.
(2) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply in
situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which
persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be
fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control
over their exposure. For example, RF sources intended for consumer use
shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled
exposure in this section.
Sec. 1.4000 [Amended]
0
4. Section 1.4000 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and
redesignating paragraphs (d) through (h) as paragraphs (c) through (g).
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
5. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
6. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)
introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile
devices.
* * * * *
(b) For purposes of this section, a mobile device is defined as a
transmitting device designed to be used in other than fixed locations
and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at
least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between the transmitter's
radiating structure(s) and the body of the user or nearby persons. In
this context, the term ``fixed location'' means that the device is
physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved
to another location while transmitting. Transmitting devices designed
to be used by consumers or workers that can be easily re-located, such
as wireless devices associated with a personal desktop computer, are
considered to be mobile devices if they meet the 20 centimeter
separation requirement.
(c) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are
exceeded, is necessary for mobile devices with single RF sources either
more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or more than
the ERP listed in Table 1 of Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter,
whichever is greater. For mobile devices not exempt by Sec.
1.1307(b)(1)(i) at distances from 20 to 40 centimeters and frequencies
from 0.3 to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary if the ERP of the device is
greater than ERP20cm in the formula below. If the ERP of a
single RF source at distances from 20 to 40 centimeters and frequencies
from 0.3 to 6 GHz is not easily obtained, then the available maximum
time-averaged RF output power may be used (i.e., without
[[Page 33683]]
consideration of ERP) in comparison with the formula below only if the
device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the
electrical length of [lambda]/4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.008
(1) For multiple mobile RF sources within a device operating in the
same time averaging period, when all transmitting antennas are at a
separation distance of at least 20 centimeters, evaluation is required
if:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.009
Where
a = number of mobile transmitters that use Pth,
including existing transmitters and those being added.
b = number of existing mobile transmitters with known SAR.
c = number of mobile transmitters using ERP, according to either
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter,
including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the
ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile transmitter i.
Pth,i = the threshold power according to the formula
in Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for mobile transmitter i.
SARj = the maximum SAR reported for equipment
certification from the jth mobile transmitter in the
device.
ERPk = ERP of mobile transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile
transmitter k, either according to Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this
chapter or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.
(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device
operating in the same time averaging period, routine environmental
evaluation is required if the formula in Sec. 2.1093(c)(2) of this
chapter is applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is
greater than or equal to 1.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single
mobile or multiple mobile and portable RF source(s) associated with a
device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure
prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in Sec.
1.1307(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(d) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile transmitting
devices subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a
statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical
information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to
the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged power
levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal
communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII devices shall
be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.
(1) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the
occupational/controlled criteria specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this
chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in
conjunction with maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged
exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
(2) Such time averaging provisions based on maximum duty factor may
not be used in determining exposure levels for devices intended for use
by consumers in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined
in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. However, ``source-based'' time
averaging based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed. An
example of this is the determination of exposure from a device that
uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA)
scheme for transmission of a signal.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable
devices.
* * * * *
(c) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are
exceeded, is necessary for portable devices with single RF sources with
more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW, more than
the ERP listed in Table 1 of Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i), or more than the
Pth in the formula below, whichever is greater. The formula
below shall only be used in conjunction with portable devices not
exempt by Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) at distances from 0.5 to 20 centimeters
and frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz. If the ERP of a single RF source at
distances from 0.5 to 20 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz
is not easily obtained, then available maximum time-averaged power may
be used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) in comparison with the
formula below only if the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s)
do not exceed the electrical length of [lambda]/4.
Pth (mW) = ERP20cm (d / 20 cm)x
Where
[[Page 33684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.010
d = the minimum separation distance in any direction from any part
of the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) to the body of
the device user
(1) For multiple portable RF sources within a device operating in
the same time averaging period, when all transmitting antennas are at a
separation distance of up to 20 centimeters, evaluation is required if:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.011
Where
a = number of portable transmitters that use Pth,
including existing transmitters and those being added.
b = number of existing portable transmitters with known SAR.
c = number of portable transmitters using ERP, according to either
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter,
including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the
ERP, whichever is greater, for portable transmitter i.
Pth,i = the threshold power according to the formula in
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for portable transmitter i.
SARj = the maximum SAR reported for equipment
certification from the jth portable transmitter in the
device.
ERPk = ERP of portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for portable
transmitter k, either according to Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this
chapter or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.
(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device
operating in the same time averaging period, evaluation is required if:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN13.012
Where
a = number of mobile or portable transmitters that use
Pth, including existing transmitters and those being
added.
b = number of existing mobile or portable transmitters with known
SAR.
c = number of mobile or portable transmitters using ERP, according
to either Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this
chapter, including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the
ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile or portable transmitter i.
Pth,i = the threshold power according to the formula in
Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for mobile or portable
transmitter i.
SARj = the maximum SAR reported for equipment
certification from the jth mobile or portable transmitter in the
device.
ERPk = ERP of mobile or portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile or portable
transmitter k, either according to Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this
chapter or Sec. 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single
portable or multiple mobile and portable RF source(s) associated with a
device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure
prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in
Sec. Sec. 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.
(d) Applications for equipment authorization of portable
transmitting devices subject to routine environmental evaluation must
contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. The limits
to be used for evaluation shall apply for portable devices transmitting
in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz in terms of the SAR limits
specified in Sec. 1.1310(a) through (c) of this chapter. The device
must be evaluated at a separation distance applicable to the operating
configurations and exposure conditions of the device. Portable devices
that transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz are to be evaluated in terms
of the MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Sec. 1.1310(e) of this
chapter. Technical information showing the basis for this statement
must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum
time-averaged power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed
personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII
devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/
uncontrolled exposure.
(1) Evaluation of compliance with the SAR limits can be
demonstrated by either laboratory measurement techniques or by
computational modeling. The latter must be supported by adequate
documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the
computational software has been fully validated; in addition, the
equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according
to protocols established by numerical computation standards or
available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.
[[Page 33685]]
Guidance regarding SAR measurement techniques can be found in the
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division
Knowledge Database (KDB). The staff guidance provided in the KDB does
not necessarily represent the only acceptable methods for measuring RF
exposure or emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any
interested party.
(2) For purposes of analyzing portable transmitting devices under
the occupational/controlled SAR criteria specified in Sec. 1.1310 of
this chapter, the time averaging provisions of these SAR criteria may
be used to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal
operating conditions.
(3) The time averaging provisions for occupational/controlled SAR
criteria, based on maximum duty factor, may not be used in determining
typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use by
consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate
in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter. However, ``source-based'' time averaging based
on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed. An example of this
would be the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital
technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for
transmission of a signal.
(4) Visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an
equivalent electronic display) on portable devices designed only for
occupational use can be used as part of an applicant's evidence of the
device user's awareness of occupational/controlled exposure limits.
Such visual advisories shall be legible and clearly visible to the user
from the exterior of the device. Visual advisories must indicate that
the device is for occupational use only, refer the user to specific
information on RF exposure, such as that provided in a user manual and
note that the advisory and its information is required for FCC RF
exposure compliance. Such instructional material must provide the user
with information on how to use the device in order to ensure compliance
with the occupational/controlled exposure limits. A sample of the
visual advisory, illustrating its location on the device, and any
instructional material intended to accompany the device when marketed,
shall be filed with the Commission along with the application for
equipment authorization. Details of any special training requirements
pertinent to limiting RF exposure should also be submitted. Holders of
grants for portable devices to be used in occupational settings are
encouraged, but not required, to coordinate with end-user organizations
to ensure appropriate RF safety training.
(5) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter apply to portable devices intended for use
by consumers or persons who are exposed as a consequence of their
employment and may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or
cannot exercise control over their exposure. No communication with the
consumer including either visual advisories or manual instructions will
be considered sufficient to allow consumer portable devices to be
evaluated subject to limits for occupational/controlled exposure
specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter.
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a and
549.
0
9. Section 15.709 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.709 General technical requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Compliance with radio frequency exposure requirements. TVBDs
shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this
chapter, where applicable.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
10. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
Sec. 24.51 [Amended]
0
11. Section 24.51 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c).
0
12. Section 24.52 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 24.52 RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization
of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain
a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
13. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies sections 4,
301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless
otherwise noted.
0
14. Section 25.115 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.115 Application for earth station authorizations.
* * * * *
(j) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. See Sec. 1.1307(b)(3)(i).
0
15. Section 25.117 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.117 Modification of station license.
* * * * *
(g) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. See Sec. 1.1307(b)(3)(ii).
0
16. Section 25.129 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.129 Equipment authorization for portable earth-station
transceivers.
* * * * *
(c) In addition to the information required by Sec. 2.1033(c) of
this chapter, applicants for certification required by this section
shall submit any additional equipment test data necessary to
demonstrate compliance with pertinent
[[Page 33686]]
standards for transmitter performance prescribed in Sec. Sec. 25.138,
25.202(f), 25.204, 25.209, and 25.216, and shall ensure compliance with
the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec.
1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required
if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization
of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain
a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 25.149 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.149 Application requirements for ancillary terrestrial
components in the Mobile-Satellite Service networks operating in the
1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization
of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain
a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 25.226 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.226 Blanket Licensing provisions for domestic, U.S. Vehicle-
Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs) receiving in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-
to-Earth), 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-
to-Earth) bands and transmitting in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space)
band, operating with Geostationary Satellites in the Fixed-Satellite
Service.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) All VMES applicants shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. VMES applicants with VMES terminals that
will exceed the guidelines in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter for radio
frequency radiation exposure shall provide, with their environmental
assessment, a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent
required to meet those guidelines. All VMES licensees shall ensure
installation of VMES terminals on vehicles by qualified installers who
have an understanding of the antenna's radiation environment and the
measures best suited to maximize protection of the general public and
persons operating the vehicle and equipment. A VMES terminal exhibiting
radiation exposure levels exceeding 1.0 mW/cm\2\ in accessible areas,
such as at the exterior surface of the radome, shall have a label
attached to the surface of the terminal warning about the radiation
hazard and shall include thereon a diagram showing the regions around
the terminal where the radiation levels could exceed 1.0 mW/cm\2\. All
VMES applicants shall demonstrate that their VMES terminals are capable
of automatically ceasing transmissions upon the loss of synchronization
or within 5 seconds of loss of reception of the satellite downlink
signal, whichever is the shorter timeframe.
* * * * *
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
19. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
and 337 unless otherwise noted.
0
20. Section 27.52 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.52 RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization
of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain
a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
21. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
0
22. Section 73.404 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.404 Interim hybrid IBOC DAB operation.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(10) Licensees and permittees shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter.
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
23. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
0
24. Section 90.1217 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1217 RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
[[Page 33687]]
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b)
of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with
radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength
in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization
of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain
a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
0
25. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
26. Section 95.628 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.628 MedRadio transmitters in the 413-419 MHz, 426-432 MHz,
438-444 MHz, and 451-457 MHz and 2360-2400 MHz bands.
* * * * *
(f) Measurement procedures. (1) MedRadio transmitters shall be
tested for frequency stability, radiated emissions and EIRP limit
compliance in accordance with paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this
section.
(2) Frequency stability testing shall be performed over the
temperature range set forth in (d) of this section.
(3) Radiated emissions and EIRP measurements may be determined by
measuring the radiated field from the equipment under test at 3 meters
and calculating the EIRP. The equivalent radiated field strength at 3
meters for 1 milliwatt, 25 microwatts, 250 nanowatts, and 100 nanowatts
EIRP is 115.1, 18.2, 1.8, or 1.2 mV/meter, respectively, when measured
on an open area test site; or 57.55, 9.1, 0.9, or 0.6 mV/meter,
respectively, when measured on a test site equivalent to free space
such as a fully anechoic test chamber. Compliance with the maximum
transmitter power requirements set forth in Sec. 95.639(f) shall be
based on measurements using a peak detector function and measured over
an interval of time when transmission is continuous and at its maximum
power level. In lieu of using a peak detector function, measurement
procedures that have been found to be acceptable to the Commission in
accordance with Sec. 2.947 of this chapter may be used to demonstrate
compliance.
(i) For a transmitter intended to be implanted in a human body,
radiated emissions and EIRP measurements for transmissions by stations
authorized under this section may be made in accordance with a
Commission-approved human body simulator and test technique. The
reference to be used for dielectric properties of the tissue-equivalent
material for the body simulator is in 2.1093(d)(1) of this chapter.
(ii) [RESERVED]
0
27. Section 95.1125 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.1125 RF exposure.
Portable devices as defined in Sec. 2.1093(b) of this chapter
operating in the WMTS shall ensure compliance with the Commission's
radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. 1.1307(b) of this
chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF radiation
from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from
other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an
accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in Sec.
1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of
WMTS devices operating under this section must contain a statement
confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental
emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon
request.
0
28. Section 95.1221 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.1221 RF exposure.
A MedRadio medical implant device or medical body-worn transmitter
is subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure requirements
specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b) and 2.1093 of this chapter, as
appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of devices
operating under this section must demonstrate compliance with these
requirements using either computational modeling or laboratory
measurement techniques. Where a showing is based on computational
modeling, the Commission retains the discretion to request that
supporting documentation and/or specific absorption rate (SAR)
measurement data be submitted, as described in 2.1093(d)(1).
PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
0
29. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.
0
30. Section 97.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 97.13 Restrictions on station location.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The licensee shall ensure compliance with the Commission's
radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 2.1091
and 2.1093 of this chapter, where applicable. In lieu of evaluation
with the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits, amateur
licensees may evaluate their operation with respect to members of his
or her immediate household using the occupational/controlled exposure
limits in Sec. 1.1310, provided appropriate training and information
has been supplied to the amateur licensee and members of his/her
household. Other nearby persons who are not members of the amateur
licensee's household must be evaluated with respect to the general
population/uncontrolled exposure limits. Appropriate methodologies and
guidance for evaluating amateur radio service operation is described in
the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Supplement
B.
* * * * *
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICE
0
31. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
32. Section 101.1425 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 101.1425 RF exposure.
MVDDS stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band shall ensure
compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements
in Sec. 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be
required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in
combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density
or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits
specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter.
[FR Doc. 2013-12713 Filed 6-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P