[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42011-42015]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01au07-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 15
[ET Docket No. 03-201; FCC 07-117]
Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on recommendations for a spectrum
etiquette in a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further NPRM) in
this proceeding. Specifically, the Further NPRM seeks comment on a
specific spectrum etiquette for unlicensed transmitters that operate in
the 915 MHz band. The goal is to ensure that the different types of
unlicensed devices that operate in a band have an opportunity for
spectrum access.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before October 15, 2007, and reply
comments must be filed on or before November 14, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail: Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov, TTY (202)
418-2989.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 03-201,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office.
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 07-
117, adopted June 19, 2007, and released June 22, 2007. The full text
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
[[Page 42012]]
following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form
and directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In the Further NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether
there is a need to require unlicensed transmitters operating in the 915
MHz band under Sec. Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 of the rules to comply with
a spectrum etiquette requirement, and the impact that requiring an
etiquette would have on the development and operation of unlicensed 915
MHz devices operating under those rule sections. The Commission also
seeks comment on the particular etiquette suggested by Cellnet that
would require digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters
operating in the 915 MHz band under Sec. 15.247 of the rules to
operate at less than the 1 Watt maximum power if they are continuously
silent less than 90% of the time within a 0.4 second interval. This
etiquette would require that the maximum permitted power level decrease
in accordance with a specified formula as the silent interval between
transmission decreases. The Commission further seeks comment on
alternatives to the etiquette suggested by Cellnet.
2. The Commission concluded in the Report and Order, 69 FR 54027,
September 7, 2004, that design flexibility has helped industry to
develop efficient sharing and modulation schemes and that the existing
regulations with no etiquette requirements have resulted in very
efficient use of available unlicensed spectrum. However, the Commission
notes Cellnet's observations regarding emerging products and its
concern that digitally modulated 915 MHz devices operating under Sec.
15.247 have no duty cycle limitation and may therefore transmit
continuously at the maximum power permitted by the rules. Additionally,
the Commission observes that there is no limitation on the maximum
transmit bandwidth for digitally modulated 915 MHz devices other than
the requirement to maintain the fundamental emissions within the
authorized band of operation. Thus, there appears to be a potential for
a digitally modulated device or a group of digitally modulated devices
to essentially occupy the entire 915 MHz band, leaving little or no
opportunity for other devices to gain access to the spectrum. The
Commission believes that this has not been a problem in the past
because the majority of spread spectrum devices operate at less than
the maximum output power permitted in the rules to conserve battery
power or because higher power is not necessary in many applications.
Also, most spread spectrum devices that have been on the market in this
band do not occupy the entire band simultaneously. However, as Cellnet
and Itron observe, recently there has been increased use of the
unlicensed 915 MHz band by parties providing wireless broadband
services. These applications require operation at higher power and
greater bandwidth than other unlicensed devices to provide service to
users. While the Commission encourages the provision of wireless
broadband service to all Americans, it recognizes that there is the
potential under our rules for some unlicensed devices to preclude the
operation of other unlicensed devices. The Commission believes it is
now appropriate for it to consider whether there is a need for a
spectrum etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 915 MHz band.
However, it recognizes concerns about the potential for a spectrum
etiquette to limit design flexibility and stifle unlicensed product
development and innovation. Therefore, the Commission seeks to balance
the concerns about the co-existence of different types of unlicensed
devices with the concerns about inhibiting unlicensed device innovation
in determining whether a spectrum etiquette is necessary and the form
that an etiquette would take.
3. The Commission used the term ``spectrum etiquette'' in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 68 FR 68823, September 17, 2003,
to refer to a set of requirements to enable better sharing of spectrum
between devices. The Commission cited the unlicensed personal
communication services (UPCS) rules as an example of a spectrum
etiquette. These rules contain a ``listen-before-talk'' requirement for
UPCS devices to monitor spectrum to ensure that it is not being used
before transmitting. However, a spectrum etiquette could be comprised
of other requirements that enable better sharing of spectrum, such as
trade-offs between the transmission duty cycle, output power and
bandwidth to enable more devices to co-exist within the same band of
spectrum.
4. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a
spectrum etiquette for unlicensed 915 MHz devices operating under
Sec. Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 of the rules. In considering the need for
an etiquette, the Commission's intent is not to establish interference
protection rights for unlicensed devices or to ensure that unlicensed
devices are always able to operate without interference. Rather, the
goal is to ensure that the different types of unlicensed devices that
operate in a band have an opportunity for spectrum access. The
Commission specifically seeks comment on Cellnet's contention that
digitally modulated devices in the 915 MHz band that transmit
continuously at maximum power and occupy wide bandwidths are creating
emissions at levels that can cause interference to incumbent devices,
irrespective of how well the incumbent devices may have been designed
to operate in the presence of other users. In this regard, the
Commission seeks comment on the tolerance of currently operating
devices to emissions from other devices in the same frequency band. It
also seeks comment on how effective an etiquette would be in improving
spectrum sharing between unlicensed devices in the 915 MHz
[[Page 42013]]
band. The Commission further seeks comment about the potential for a
spectrum etiquette to limit design flexibility and stifle unlicensed
product innovation.
5. The Commission believes that the general approach to a 915 MHz
spectrum etiquette recommended by Cellnet that would limit unlicensed
devices that operate under Sec. Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 with a high
duty cycle to lower power is one possible way to enable more efficient
spectrum sharing among unlicensed devices. Therefore, the Commission
seeks comment on the proposed requirement that digitally modulated 915
MHz spread spectrum devices with a continuous silent interval of less
than 90% within a 0.4 second window (0.36 seconds) operate with a lower
power level than the 30 dBm (1 Watt) maximum currently permitted by the
rules. Specifically, the maximum permitted power would range from 30
dBm (1 Watt) when there is a continuous silent interval of at least 90%
between transmissions, down to 0 dBm (0.001 Watt) when there is no
silent interval between transmissions, with the power limit in dBm
linearly interpolated between the 90% silent and continuous operation
duty cycle values. These recommended requirements could ensure that
devices operating at high power levels leave a silent interval between
transmissions that would provide an opportunity for other devices to
transmit, and would prevent a high power device from operating
continuously and precluding operation of other devices within a band.
Devices that operate with shorter silent intervals between
transmissions would be required to operate at less than the one watt
maximum power to offset the increased interference potential of the
longer duration transmissions. The decreasing power output limit would
reduce the range at which interference can occur, thus increasing the
likelihood that other devices could co-exist with them. The minimum
power level of 0 dBm (0.001 Watt) that Cellnet recommends for devices
that transmit continuously is comparable to the maximum level permitted
for devices operating under Sec. 15.249.
6. The Commission seeks comment on whether this type of spectrum
etiquette is appropriate to enable more efficient sharing of spectrum
between unlicensed 915 MHz devices and, if so, whether the suggested
power levels and duty cycles are appropriate. It also seeks comment on
whether an alternative type of etiquette would be more appropriate. For
example, should an etiquette include limitations on the frequency range
or bandwidth that a digitally modulated device may occupy and/or a
``listen-before-talk'' requirement? Parties who believe that
alternative approaches to an etiquette or different power levels are
more appropriate are requested to supply specific technical details and
justification for their recommendations. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on the impact an etiquette like the one suggested would
have on other devices that operate in the 915 MHz band or other bands
where it may be applied. For example, would manufacturers have to
redesign or cease marketing certain equipment if all equipment in a
band were required to comply with an etiquette? If so, what particular
types of equipment would be affected?
7. If the Commission were to require a spectrum etiquette for the
915 MHz band, it seeks comment on whether there would be a need to
prohibit the synchronization of transmissions from multiple devices in
a system or otherwise under control of the same party in such a way as
to more fully occupy the silent intervals between transmissions.
Permitting synchronized transmissions of this nature could allow a
group of devices to transmit essentially continuously, thus defeating
the purpose of a spectrum etiquette.
8. The Commission seeks comment on whether a device operating under
such a spectrum etiquette should be permitted to automatically change
the power level and duty cycle at which it operates, or if the device
should be required to operate using only one fixed duty cycle/power
level combination. Could allowing automatic adjustments of the power
level and duty cycle encourage efficient spectrum sharing between
unlicensed devices since there is incentive to use only the transmit
power necessary for the desired output data rates?
9. Cellnet recommends applying an etiquette only to digitally
modulated devices operating under Sec. 15.247 of the rules. The
Commission seeks comment on the types of devices to which an etiquette
should apply. For example, is an etiquette necessary for frequency
hopping spread spectrum transmitters operating under Sec. 15.247? The
Commission notes that these transmitters have channel separation
requirements and continually hop between a number of different
channels, and that Sec. 15.247(h) prohibits the synchronized hopping
by a group of spread spectrum transmitters. These requirements would
appear to obviate the need for an etiquette for frequency hopping
spread spectrum transmitters. Is an etiquette necessary for devices
operating under Sec. 15.249 that are permitted maximum field strength
levels that are significantly less than the maximum permitted output
for spread spectrum transmitters? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether requiring an etiquette for digitally modulated transmitters but
not frequency hopping transmitters would place digitally modulated
transmitters at operational or other disadvantages.
10. The Commission notes that the 915 MHz band is the only one
where a co-existence problem between unlicensed devices has been
raised. However, it recognizes that unlicensed use of the 2.4 GHz and
5.8 GHz bands is also continuing to increase. These bands are used by
many types of unlicensed devices, including cordless telephones and
wireless broadband networking equipment. The Commission is aware that
industry standards such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and ZigBee have been
developed for the various unlicensed frequency bands and these
standards are designed to facilitate sharing among multiple unlicensed
devices. The Commission has no intention of disrupting the private
sector standards process. At the same time, it believes it is
appropriate to consider whether its regulations should be amended to
ensure that a single device or group of devices does not occupy all of
the spectrum all of the time and thereby deny access to others.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a similar
need to adopt rules for digitally modulated transmitters or other
devices operating in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands to better facilitate
shared used of the spectrum among unlicensed devices.
11. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate transition
requirements if the Commission were to adopt a spectrum etiquette for
unlicensed devices operating under Sec. Sec. 15.247 and 15.249. In
particular, it seeks comment on whether there should be a cutoff date
after which new devices must comply with an etiquette requirement. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether equipment certified before a
cutoff date should be permanently grandfathered, or whether there
should be a specific cutoff date on the manufacturing, importation,
marketing and/or use of equipment that does not comply with any
etiquette rules adopted in this proceeding. If so, for which of these
actions should there be a cutoff date, and what is the appropriate
date?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended
[[Page 42014]]
(RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in the item. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 103-121, Title 11, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
13. This Further NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission
should require unlicensed devices to comply with rules to designed to
ensure more efficient sharing of spectrum (i.e., a ``spectrum
etiquette'') such as the one suggested by Cellnet. Cellnet's
recommended spectrum etiquette would be a trade-off between transmitter
power and transmission duration. Devices that operate with a duty cycle
of 10% or less would be permitted to operate at the same one Watt power
level currently permitted in the rules. As the transmission duty cycle
is increased, the maximum permitted power would decrease, down to 0.001
Watts (1 milliwatt) for devices that transmit continuously.
B. Legal Basis
14. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
15. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\3\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern''
under section 3 of the Small Business Act.\4\ Under the Small Business
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and
(3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\4\ Id. 601(3).
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' \6\ The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees.\7\ According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that
operated for the entire year.\8\ Of this total, 1,010 had employment of
under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.\9\ Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, ``334220 Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing''; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342
.
\7\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
\8\ U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic
Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size,
NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov.
The number of ``establishments'' is a less
helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than
would be the number of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the
latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control.
Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even
though that location may be owned by a different establishment.
Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses
in this category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this
category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to
give the total number of such entities for 2002, which was 929.
\9\ Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000
or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
census categories of ``Paging'' \10\ and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' \11\ Under both categories, the SBA deems a
wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For
the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year.\12\ Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
more.\13\ Thus, under this category and associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census
category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category
that operated for the entire year.\14\ Of this total, 1,378 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more.\15\ Thus, under this second category and size
standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211.
\11\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
\13\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000
employees or more.''
\14\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
\15\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000
employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
18. Digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters are already
required to be authorized under the Commission's certification
procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, and no
changes to that requirement are proposed. There would, however, be
changes to the compliance requirements.
19. The applicant for certification would have to demonstrate in
the application that the equipment complies with the etiquette
requirements. These requirements may include a trade-off between the
silent period between transmissions and output power as suggested by
Cellnet, or other requirements such as the equipment monitoring
spectrum to ensure it is unused before transmitting (listen-before-
talk).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 47 CFR 15.323(c) and 15.407(h) for examples of listen-
before-talk requirements currently in the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42015]]
20. Most unlicensed transmitters can be approved by either the
Commission's Laboratory or a designated Telecommunication Certification
Body (TCB). TCBs are private sector organizations that are permitted to
issue equipment certifications in the same manner as the Commission.
TCBs would not be permitted to certify equipment subject to the
etiquette requirement until the Commission has experience with them and
can properly advise TCBs on how to apply the applicable rules.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): `` the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements under the rule for such small entities; the use of
performance, rather than design standards; and an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. If the rules proposed in this notice are adopted, the
Commission believes they might have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For an entity that chooses to
manufacture or import digitally modulated spread spectrum transmitters,
the rules would impose costs for compliance with equipment technical
requirements, such as modifying or redesigning equipment that does not
comply with any new etiquette requirement. However, the burdens for
complying with the proposed rules would be the same for both large and
small entities. Further, the proposals in the NPRM are ultimately
beneficial for both large and small entities. The Commission cannot
find electrical engineering alternatives that would achieve our goals
while treating small entities differently. Nonetheless, it solicits
comment on any alternatives commenters may wish to suggest for the
purpose of facilitating the Commission's intention to minimize the
compliance burden on smaller entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
None.
Ordering Clauses
23. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby adopted.
This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections
4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
303(r).
24. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14930 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P