[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32901-32906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14001]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[WT Docket No. 03-66; RM-11614; FCC 11-81]
The Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational
and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal
to use wider channel bandwidths for the provision of broadband services
in certain spectrum bands. Specifically, we consider changes to the
out-of-band emission limits for mobile Broadband Radio Service (BRS)
and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) devices operating in the 2496-
2690 MHz band (2.5 GHz band). The proposed changes may permit operators
to use spectrum more efficiently, and to provide higher data rates to
consumers, thereby advancing key goals of the National Broadband Plan.
Also, the changes would promote greater harmonization of FCC
requirements with global standards for mobile devices in the 2.5 GHz
band, potentially making equipment more affordable and furthering the
development of mobile broadband devices. In addition, we seek comment
on whether the proposed changes can be made without increasing the
potential for harmful interference to existing users in the 2.5 GHz
band and adjacent bands.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 7, 2011. Submit reply comments
on or before July 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket
No. 03-66, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-
0797 or via the Internet to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth
[[Page 32902]]
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-81, adopted on May 24,
2011, and released on May 27, 2011. The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
[email protected]. The complete text is also available on the
Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-81A1.doc. Alternative formats (computer diskette,
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail to
[email protected].
SUMMARY:
I. Background
1. General: On July 29, 2004, the Commission released the BRS/EBS
R&O & FNPRM, which fundamentally transformed the rules for the 2.5 GHz
band. In the BRS/EBS R&O, the Commission adopted a band plan that
restructured the 2.5 GHz band into upper and lower-band segments for
low-power operations (UBS and LBS, respectively), and a mid-band
segment (MBS) for high-power operations, in order to reduce the
likelihood of interference caused by incompatible uses. The Commission
also revised the out-of band emission limits for BRS and EBS licensees
consistent with a proposal made by a coalition of organizations
representing BRS and EBS licensees. With respect to mobile devices, the
Commission adopted an emission mask which requires that emissions
outside the licensee's frequency bands of operation be attenuated below
the transmitter power (P) by a factor of 43 + 10 log(P) decibels (dB)
at the channel's edge, and 55 + 10 log(P) dB at 5.5 megahertz from the
channel edge, where (P) is the transmitter power measured in watts. 5.5
megahertz represents the size of individual channels in the LBS and UBS
in the post-transition band plan adopted by the Commission.
2. Today, the 2.5 GHz band is used by Clearwire Corporation
(Clearwire) and other operators to provide wireless broadband service
using the Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX)
version 802.16e standard. WiMAX is a wireless broadband access
technology based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) 802.16 standard which supports delivery of non-line-
of-sight connectivity between a subscriber station and base station
with a typical cell radius of 3 to 10 kilometers. WiMAX can support
fixed and nomadic, as well as portable and mobile, wireless broadband
applications. Another standard for wireless broadband technology is
Long Term Evolution (LTE), which is developed by the Third Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), a consensus-driven international
partnership of telecommunications standards bodies. Both IEEE and 3GPP
are working to develop standards for refinements of WiMAX and LTE,
which are known as WiMAX 2 (based on the 802.16m standard and LTE-
Advanced (3GPP Release 10 and beyond).
3. Current WiMAX deployments typically use maximum channel
bandwidths of 10 megahertz. Clearwire reports that average usage for
its mobile services is more than 7 GB/month. Wireless broadband data
usage is projected to increase by a factor of at least twenty from 2009
to 2014. One way of making more efficient use of spectrum is to
increase channel bandwidth. LTE-Advanced and WiMAX2 contemplate channel
bandwidths up to 40-100 megahertz.
4. WCAI Petition: On October 22, 2010, the Wireless Communications
Association International (WCAI) filed a petition for rulemaking asking
the Commission to revise the out-of-band emission limits for mobile
digital stations operating in the BRS and EBS band to accommodate
channel bandwidths of 20 megahertz and wider. WCAI asserts that it is
currently difficult for BRS/EBS devices to meet the out-of-band
emission limits for 10 megahertz channels because of the limits of
power amplifier efficiency inherent in current technology, and states
that developing a smartphone that would fully use a 20 megahertz
channel bandwidth that complies with the current out-of-band emission
limits would be very difficult or impossible.
5. WCAI argues that the revised rules will not significantly
increase the risk of interference, because mobile 4G devices using
orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) technology (on
which WiMAX and LTE are based) are not typically allocated all of the
uplink bandwidth while operating at full transmit power, the scenario
that would maximize potential interference. In addition, WCAI notes
that mobile 4G devices operate under very stringent power controls in
order to maximize battery life and minimize intra-system interference
and argues that these changes are necessary to permit operators to
realize the full benefits of 4G technologies.
6. A number of parties support the proposed rule changes, including
Clearwire, the largest BRS licensee and lessee of EBS spectrum and
DigitalBridge Communications Corp., a mobile WiMAX provider; as well as
equipment and component manufacturers including GCT Semiconductor, HTC
America, Inc., Motorola, Inc., and Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC/Nokia
Inc. These parties assert that the proposed changes would allow
wireless carriers to realize the full benefits of 4G technologies,
offer a greater variety of services and applications, allow more
efficient use of spectrum, and better align the Commission's rules with
the approach of 3GPP and other standards bodies.
7. One concern raised in the oppositions is that the rule change
will result in increased interference to service providers in adjacent
spectrum bands. Globalstar, Inc. (Globalstar), which is authorized to
operate a mobile satellite service (MSS) system with the downlink
(satellite to mobile earth stations) in the 2483.5-2500 MHz band,
asserts that the proposed change could cause significant harm to its
MSS users, including consumers and public safety users. Similarly,
Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum
(EIBASS) are concerned that the proposed change could result in greater
interference to Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) operations operating
on Channels A10 (2483.5-2500 MHz) and A9 (2467-2483.5 MHz). With
respect to the concerns raised by Globalstar and EIBASS, WCAI responds
that those parties exaggerate the risk of interference, because the
chances that BRS Channel 1 would be operating at full power across the
entire bandwidth of the channel in the vicinity of Globalstar's mobile
receivers and BAS Channels A9 or A10 receivers are very low.
8. IP Wireless, Inc. (IP Wireless), a developer and manufacturer of
3GPP user equipment, opposes the rule changes proposed by WCAI because
it does not believe changes are necessary to permit wider bandwidth
operations. IP Wireless asserts that it makes available LTE devices
that can ``easily'' meet the FCC's existing out-of-band emission limits
for mobile devices operating with 20 megahertz channels. WCAI responds
that IP Wireless is just one equipment supplier in a larger ecosystem
and that other equipment manufacturers agree ``that the mask proposed
in the Petition represents an
[[Page 32903]]
appropriate and reasonable trade-off between form factor, battery
consumption, and performance, especially for the most challenging type
of device: highly integrated smartphones with multiple radios.''
II. Discussion
9. We find that facilitating the use of wider channels in the 2.5
GHz spectrum band would greatly enhance spectrum efficiency and
throughput in wireless broadband systems operating in the band. We also
find that the opportunity to harmonize the Commission's rules with
international standards could benefit both operators and consumers by
encouraging the development of mobile broadband equipment for the 2.5
GHz band at lower cost. For these reasons, we initiate this rulemaking
on WCAI's proposal to change the out-of-band emission limits for mobile
devices for BRS and EBS.
10. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to modify the out-of-
band emission limits for BRS and EBS mobile digital stations by
modifying the factors by which these devices' emissions outside the
licensee's frequency bands of operation must be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P), in Watts, to the following, as requested by
WCAI:
40 + 10 log (P) dB at the channel edge, measured using a
resolution bandwidth of 2 percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and
adjacent to the frequency block.
43 + 10 log (P) dB beyond 5 megahertz from the channel
edges, and
55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a distance of
``X'' megahertz from the channel edges, where ``X'' is the greater of 6
megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in Sec.
27.53(m)(6) of the Commission's rules.
WCAI asserts that these changes would allow operators to provide the
full uplink capacity available in 20 megahertz or wider channels, and
would harmonize the Commission's out-of-band emission limits with 3GPP
standards for out-of-band emission limits in the 2.5 GHz band.
11. WCAI has argued that it will be particularly difficult to
design smartphone devices with small form factors that can use 20
megahertz channels and meet the current OOBE requirements, and asserts
that IP Wireless does not offer any handset devices. Does the existence
of some mobile devices capable of operating on 20 megahertz channels
and meeting the current FCC OOBE rules affect the necessity or
desirability of making the proposed rule changes?
12. We seek comment on whether the proposed rule change is
necessary to permit mobile devices to operate in the 2.5 GHz band using
channel bandwidths wider than 10 megahertz. IP Wireless claims to have
equipment capable of operating on 20 megahertz channels that meets the
FCC's current out-of-band emission limits, but a number of other
equipment manufacturers and operators support the proposed rule change.
Also, IP Wireless also argues that the proposed rule changes will
result in insufficient protection against interference within the 2.5
GHz band. Specifically, it claims that the more permissive 3GPP
emissions standard on which the proposed rule changes are modeled has
traditionally been applied to paired (Frequency Division Duplex (FDD))
spectrum allocations, and cites a European Conference of Postal and
Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) report for support that
coexistence between FDD and Time Division Duplex (TDD) systems in
adjacent spectrum, or between uncoordinated TDD systems, is generally
achieved by a combination of the 3GPP emissions standards and guard
bands. However, the CEPT report notes that the block edge mask limits
it proposed were developed in order to manage the risk of harmful
interference independently of any relaxation which may be achieved
through mitigation techniques or coordination. We seek comment on how
adoption of the proposed rule changes would affect the likelihood of
interference within the 2.5 GHz band and whether additional protections
against such interference would be needed. In that regard, we note that
our existing rules contain a provision requiring both licensees to
comply with a tighter emission mask for its base stations within 60
days of receiving a documented interference complaint from an adjacent
channel licensee. Since mobile devices and base stations operate in the
same frequency band in TDD systems, and base stations operate with
higher power, it appears that the existing provisions in our rules may
protect adjacent channel licensees with protection against adjacent
channel interference. We seek further comment on this issue.
13. Globalstar and EIBASS contend that adopting WCAI's requested
OOBE limits would increase the potential for harmful interference into
the MSS and BAS bands and we seek comment. The Commission has
previously said that the BRS/EBS out-of-band emission limits ``should
allow MSS providers to operate without unnecessary restrictions or
significant interference in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band.'' The same
considerations apply to adjacent band BAS operations. As noted above,
Globalstar, EIBASS and WCAI disagree about whether the proposed rule
changes could result in increased interference into services below 2495
MHz, the likelihood that such interference could result, and the harms
that could result from such interference. In view of these disputes in
the record, we seek comment including detailed engineering analyses on
the potential for, and likelihood that, the proposed rule changes will
result in harmful interference into MSS and BAS operations below 2495
MHz. In this vein, we seek comment on the assumptions used by
Globalstar in its engineering study, including its definition of
interference as a signal level above -133 dBm/MHz. We also seek
additional engineering analyses related to the potential for
interference, in which the key assumptions underlying the analysis are
identified, and accompanied by an explanation of why these assumptions
are appropriate. We also seek comment on the significance of the fact
that MSS licensees can file documented interference complaints against
adjacent channel licensees and take advantage of the provisions that
could require adjacent channel BRS licensees to comply with tighter
base station emission masks.
14. In addition, we seek comment on whether, in connection with the
proposed rule changes, we should consider adopting additional measures
of protecting against interference to adjacent bands. For example, we
seek comment on the desirability and feasibility of establishing a
fixed limit on out-of-band emissions below 2495 MHz or above 2690 MHz
in order to protect adjacent bands' operations. While the WCAI Petition
and comments discuss the use of 20 megahertz channels, the proposed
rule is not limited to 20 megahertz channels, and developing standards
contemplate the use of wider channels. We seek comment on whether the
proposed rule would work for channels wider than 20 megahertz without
causing interference to adjacent bands' operations, or whether we
should set a maximum channel size to which the proposed out-of-band
emission limits would apply. In addition, while the proposed rule
change relies on standards being developed by 3GPP, we seek comment on
whether, to the extent such information is available, the proposed
changes would be consistent with IEEE's continuing development of
[[Page 32904]]
WiMAX2, as well as other evolving standards. Finally, we seek comment
on whether any additional changes to the OOBE limits applicable to
mobile devices in the 2.5 GHz band are necessary or desirable to
promote greater efficiency and flexibility in the provision of
broadband services in these bands?
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
15. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the
Commission's rules.
Comment Period and Procedures
16. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Comments shall be sent
as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the
following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form
and directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Availability of Documents: The public may view the
documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the
Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments
and reply comments are also available through the Commission's
duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160.
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
17. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4) requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (4th FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines specified in the 4th NPRM for comments. The
Commission will send a copy of this 4th FNPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the 4th FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In this 4th FNPRM, we seek comment on changing the out-of-band
emission limits, which limit the amount of energy that can be radiated
outside a licensee's authorized bandwidth, for mobile devices operating
in the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service
(EBS) in the 2496-2690 MHz band (2.5 GHz band). The proposed change is
designed to facilitate the use of wider channel bandwidths, which could
potentially allow higher data rates and more efficient use of spectrum.
Such a change would increase the range of applications and devices that
can benefit from mobile broadband connectivity, generating a
corresponding increase in demand for mobile broadband service from
consumers, businesses, public safety, health care, education, energy
and other public safety uses. The proposed change is also designed to
facilitate harmonization of future standards in the equipment market
for mobile devices in the 2.5 GHz band, which would make equipment more
affordable and further the development of advanced wireless broadband
devices. We seek comment on whether the proposed changes can be made
without any increase in the potential for harmful interference to
existing users in the 2.5 GHz band and adjacent bands. We also consider
establishing an additional requirement of fixed interference limits
below 2496 MHz and above 2690 MHz in order to protect adjacent band
users.
[[Page 32905]]
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and
333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319,
324, 332, and 333.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
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. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. 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.
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)). 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 calendar
years. 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. 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. 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. Auction 86 concluded
in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. 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.
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. 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.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services
we must, however, use the most current census data that are based on
the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its
associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of
these firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
This 4th FNPRM imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The only potential burden on small entities that hold BRS or EBS
licenses is a potential increase in interference to existing users in
the 2.5 GHz band. We believe this potential burden would be outweighed
by benefits to small businesses that hold BRS and EBS licensees, who
would be able to use wider channel bandwidths to provide faster service
and use their spectrum more efficiently. An alternative being
considered in order to minimize any potential burden is establishing
fixed interference limits below 2496 MHz and above 2690 MHz in order to
protect adjacent band users.
The other main alternative would be to maintain the existing rules.
If we maintained the existing rules, it would be more difficult or
impossible for BRS and EBS operators to offer broadband systems with
higher data rates by using wider channel bandwidths. Such difficulty
would make it more difficult for BRS and EBS operators, including small
entities, to be competitive with other broadband providers.
Ordering Clauses
19. Accordingly, it is ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed regulatory changes described in this Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
20. It is further ordered pursuant to section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the Commission's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
shall send a copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Final Regulatory Certification and the Initial Regulatory
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
[[Page 32906]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 27
Communications common carriers, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 27 as follows:
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
and 337 unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraphs (m)(4) and
(m)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission Limits.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(4) For mobile digital stations, the attenuation factor shall be
not less than 40 + 10 log (P) dB at the channel edge, 43 + 10 log (P)
dB beyond 5 MHz from the channel edges, and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at X MHz
from the channel edges, where X is the greater of 6 MHz or the actual
emission bandwidth as defined in Sec. 27.53(m)(6). Mobile Satellite
Service licensees operating on frequencies below 2495 MHz may also
submit a documented interference complaint against BRS licensees
operating on channel BRS Channel 1 on the same terms and conditions as
adjacent channel BRS or EBS licensees.
* * * * *
(6) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth
of 1 MHz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately
outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of
at least one percent (or two percent for mobile digital stations) of
the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter
may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all
cases to improve measurement accuracy provided the measured power is
integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth (i.e., 1
megahertz). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power. With respect
to television operations, measurements must be made of the separate
visual and aural operating powers at sufficiently frequent intervals to
ensure compliance with the rules.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-14001 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P