[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33654-33687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
ed.mantiply@fcc.gov; Martin Doczkat, email: martin.doczkat@fcc.gov; the 
Commission's RF Safety Program, rfsafety@fcc.gov; 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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