*Pages 1--48 from  Microsoft Word - 28838*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 Proposed  Changes  in  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Human  Exposure  to 
 Radiofrequency  Electromagnetic  Fields 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ET  Docket  No.  03-  137 


 NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULE  MAKING 
 Adopted:  June  12,  2003  Released:  June  26,  2003 
 Comment  Date:  90  days  from  publication  in  Federal  Register  Reply  Comment  Date:  120  days  from  publication  in  Federal  Register 


 By  the  Commission:  Chairman  Powell  issuing  a  statement. 
 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Heading  Para 


 I.  INTRODUCTION  ..................................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND  ....................................................................................................................  2 
 III.  PROPOSED  REVISIONS  ..................................................................................................  6 
 A.  Routine  Evaluation  and  Categorical  Exclusion  of  Transmitters,  Facilities  and  Operations6  B.  Requirements  for  Evaluating  SAR  for  Certain  Section  15.247  Unlicensed  Devices.......  17 


 C.  RF  Evaluation  Requirements  for  Transmitter  Modules....................................................  19  D.  Measurement  of  SAR  from  Multiple  Transmitters..........................................................  31 
 E.  Reference  to  OET  Bulletin  65  ..........................................................................................  33  F.  Special  Considerations  for  Occupational  Use  ..................................................................  36 
 G.  Labeling  Requirements  for  Consumer  Products...............................................................  41  H.  Compliance  Evaluation  Based  on  SAR  Limits.................................................................  44 
 I.  Spatial  Averaging  for  Evaluating  Compliance  .................................................................  45  J.  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service.......................................................................  48 
 K.  Transition  Period...............................................................................................................  49 
 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS  ............................................................................................  50 


 APPENDIX  A:  PROPOSED  RULES............................................................................................... 
 APPENDIX  B:  INITIAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS........................................ 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 2 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  By  this  action,  we  propose  to  amend  Parts  1  and  2  of  our  rules  relating  to  the  compliance  of  FCC-  regulated  transmitters  and  facilities  with  our  guidelines  for  human  exposure  to 


 radiofrequency  (RF)  energy.  Our  proposals  are  intended  to  ensure  that  the  public  is  appropriately  protected  from  any  potential  adverse  effects  from  RF  exposure  as  provided  by  the 
 exposure  limits  in  our  rules,  while  avoiding  any  unnecessary  burden  in  complying  with  our  RF  exposure  rules.  The  Commission  originally  adopted  rules  for  protecting  workers  and  members 
 of  the  public  from  potentially  harmful  exposure  to  RF  energy  almost  twentyseveral  years  ago,  and  we  have,  on  occasion,  updated  our  rules  as  more  relevant  information  has  become  available. 
 The  potentially  harmful  effects  of  RF  energy  are  well  characterized  as  the  result  of  excessive  heating  of  biological  tissue.  While  transmitters  and  devices  regulated  by  the  Commission 
 typically  would  not  result  in  levels  of  exposure  high  enough  to  cause  such  injury,  it  is  nevertheless  important  to  ensure  that  human  exposures  are  maintained  well  below  levels  that  are 
 suspected  to  be  even  potentially  harmful.  To  achieve  this,  we  are  proposing  modifications  in  those  rules  to  provide  more  efficient,  practical,  and  consistent  application  of  compliance 
 procedures..  More  specifically,  we  are  proposing  to:  1)  revise  and  harmonize  the  criteria  for  determining  whether  transmitters  used  in  a  number  of  services  are  subject  to  routine  evaluation 
 for  compliance  with  the  RF  exposure  limits  or  are  categorically  excluded  from  such  evaluations;  2)  clarify  the  procedures  for  evaluating  RF  exposure  from  mobile  and  portable  devices, 
 including  modular  transmitters;  3)  add  more  specific  definitions  and  compliance  procedures  relating  to  RF  exposure  of  workers  (occupational  exposure);  4)  develop  consistent  labeling 
 requirements  to  ensure  the  compliance  of  certain  types  of  RF  devices;  5)  consider  certain  issues  related  to  spatial  averaging  of  exposure,  including  how  to  account  for  localized  exposures 
 whose  spatial  peak  measurements  might  exceed  the  exposure  limits;  6)  make  certain  changes  in  our  rules  to  eliminate  inappropriate  references  or  to  make  evaluation  procedures  consistent  and 
 complete;  and  7)  provide  a  transition  period  for  the  implementation  of  any  new  rules.  We  invite  comment  and  suggestions  on  these  proposals  and  on  certain  additional  issues  related  to 
 compliance  with  RF  guidelines.  If  alternatives  are  suggested,  they  should  be  justified  with  detailed  documentation,  data  or  observations  relevant  to  potential  human  exposure  from  RF 
 emissions. 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  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.  1  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  RF  energy  emitted  by  FCC-  regulated  transmitters  and  facilities.  2 


 1  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  of  1969,  as  amended,  42  U.  S.  C.    4321-  4335. 
 2  See  47  CFR    1.  1307(  b). 
 (continued.) 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 3 
 3.  In  its  1996  Report  and  Order  and  its  1997  Second  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  in  ET  Docket  93-  62,  3  the  Commission  established  guidelines  for  evaluating  the  environmental 
 effects  of  radiofrequency  radiation.  These  guidelines  include  limits  for  Maximum  Permissible  Exposure  (MPE)  to  RF  radiation,  including  limits  for  both  whole-  body  and  partial-  body 
 exposures,  based  on  criteria  published  by  the  National  Council  on  Radiation  Protection  and  Measurements  (NCRP)  and  by  the  American  National  Standards  Institute/  Institute  of  Electrical 
 and  Electronics  Engineers,  Inc.  (ANSI/  IEEE).  The  Report  and  Order  also  modified  the  Commissions  policy  on  categorical  exclusions,  which  relieve  certain  radio  services  and 
 transmitters  from  requirements  for  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure. 
 4.  Since  adoption  and  implementation  of  these  guidelines,  it  has  become  apparent  that  additional  transmitters  and  devices  can  be  categorically  excluded  from  routine  evaluation  for 
 RF  compliance,  that  some  transmitters  and  devices  are  inappropriately  excluded,  and  that  certain  exclusion  criteria  can  be  harmonized  to  govern  similar  facilities  in  different  services.  In 
 addition,  it  appears  that  certain  aspects  of  our  rules  may  require  revision  to  clarify  the  responsibilities  of  our  licensees  and  grantees  and  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  FCC  limits  in  a 
 more  practical,  consistent  and  efficient  manner. 
 5.  This  Notice  makes  several  proposals  to  accomplish  these  goals,  and  we  are  requesting  comment  on  all  of  our  proposals.  These  proposals  are  related  only  to  the  Commissions 
 implementation  of  procedures  for  compliance  with  the  adopted  limits  for  human  exposure  from  fixed,  mobile  and  portable  transmitters  regulated  by  the  Commission.  This  Notice  does  not 
 invite  comment  regarding  the  exposure  limits  themselves,  which  have  been  developed  in  conjunction  with  other  agencies  and  organizations  that  have  primary  expertise  in  health  and 
 safety.  4 


 III.  PROPOSED  REVISIONS 
 A.  Routine  Evaluation  and  Categorical  Exclusion  of  Transmitters,  Facilities  and  Operations 


 6.  The  Commissions  environmental  rules  identify  particular  categories  of  existing  or  proposed  transmitting  facilities  for  which  licensees  and  applicants  are  required  to  conduct 
 routine  environmental  evaluation  to  determine  whether  these  facilities  comply  with  our  RF  guidelines.  All  other  transmitting  facilities  are  categorically  excluded  from  requirements  for 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 3  Report  and  Order,  ET  Docket  93-  62  (Guidelines  for  Evaluating  the  Environmental  Effects  of  Radiofrequency 
 Radiation),  11  FCC  Rcd  15123  (1996);  Second  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule 
 Making,  ET  Docket  93-  62  (WT  Docket  97-  192),  12  FCC  Rcd  13494  (1997). 


 4  We  note  that  a  petition  for  rule  making  to  revise  our  RF  exposure  guidelines  was  dismissed  in  2001.  Letter 
 from  Bruce  A.  Franca,  Acting  Chief  of  the  Commissions  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology,  to  James  R.  Hobson,  EMR  Network,  December  11,  2001.  A  petition  for  reconsideration  of  that  dismissal  is  pending. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 4 
 conducting  such  routine  evaluations  because  we  have  found  that  they  offer  negligible  potential  for  causing  exposures  in  excess  of  our  guidelines  based  on  factors  such  as  operating  power  and 
 human  accessibility.  Accessibility  is  usually  related  to  such  factors  as  the  height  above  ground  of  an  antenna  or  whether  an  antenna  is  mounted  on  a  tower  or  on  a  rooftop.  After  several  years 
 of  experience  in  analyzing  RF  exposure  potential  from  various  sources,  we  now  believe  that  certain  modifications  are  needed  to  make  our  RF  exposure  rules  more  consistent  across  service 
 categories,  to  ensure  that  RF  exposure  evaluations  are  not  required  in  circumstances  where  there  is  no  risk  of  harmful  exposure,  and  to  ensure  that  the  potential  for  exposure  is  not  overlooked  in 
 certain  cases  where  there  may  be  some  risk  of  RF  exposure  at  levels  that  exceed  our  guidelines. 
 7.  In  this  regard,  we  believe  that  the  current  environmental  rules  are  inconsistent  with  regard  to  the  treatment  of  accessibility  or  separation  distance  for  certain  fixed  transmitting 
 facilities.  5  In  some  instances,  transmitter  powers  and  separation  distances  are  specified  and  in  others  only  power  levels  are  specified.  For  example,  the  factors  currently  determining  whether 
 cellular  and  broadband  PCS  base  station  antennas  are  subject  to  routine  evaluation  or  are  categorically  excluded  from  evaluation  are  different  dependent  upon  whether  the  transmitting 
 antenna  is  located  on  a  tower  or  mounted  on  a  building  such  as  on  a  rooftop.  In  the  case  of  tower-  mounted  cellular  transmitting  antennas,  evaluation  of  RF  exposure  is  currently  required 
 only  if  the  height  above  ground  is  less  than  10  meters  and  the  total  transmitter  power  is  greater  than  1000  watts  effective  radiated  power  (ERP).  On  the  other  hand,  for  building-  mounted 
 cellular  transmitting  antennas,  evaluation  is  now  required  whenever  the  total  transmitter  power  exceeds  1000  watts  (ERP),  regardless  of  height  above  ground  or  separation  distance  from 
 publicly  accessible  areas.  The  requirements  for  broadband  PCS  are  similar  except  that  the  power  level  is  2000  watts  (ERP)  due  to  the  difference  in  allowed  exposure  limits  for  PCS 
 frequencies. 
 8.  We  believe  that  it  is  important  to  consider  both  total  transmitter  power  and  separation  distance  in  our  RF  exposure  requirements  and  exclusions.  Proximity  is  a  significant  factor  in 
 determining  whether  exposures  could  occur  in  excess  of  our  guidelines.  We  note  that  public  access  may  be  more  likely  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  building-  mounted  and  roof-  top  antennas 
 than  for  tower-  mounted  antennas.  We  therefore  now  believe  that  it  is  important  to  include  separation  distance  criteria  in  our  rules  for  all  transmitting  antennas,  including  building-mounted 
 antennas.  We  also  propose  to  change  the  current  height  above  ground  requirement  to  a  more  general  separation  distance  requirement.  We  tentatively  find  that  the  current  height 
 above  ground  separation  requirement  may  not  be  appropriate  in  all  cases  since  it  does  not  take  into  account  accessible  locations  that  may  be  adjacent  to  the  transmitting  antenna,  such  as 
 where  a  tower-  mounted  antenna  is  installed  next  to  a  building.  While  such  facilities  may  not  be  typical,  we  are  concerned  that  these  situations  could  present  a  potential  for  public  exposure 
 to  RF  emissions  and  should  not  be  categorically  excluded  from  evaluation. 


 5  In  this  context,  we  are  using  the  term  fixed  to  refer  to  those  transmitters  referenced  in  Table  1  of  47  CFR 
 1.  1307(  b)  that  are  not  considered  mobile  or  portable  as  defined  in  47  CFR  2.1091  and  2.  1093.  This  definition  includes  transmitters  that  are  physically  secured  at  one  location  on  a  temporary  basis.  An  example  of 


 such  a  case  would  be  a  mobile  wireless  base  station  used  to  accommodate  increased  call  volume  at  a  special  event. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 5 
 9.  We  are  also  concerned  that  the  current  separation  distances  and  power  levels  contained  in  the  rules  to  trigger  routine  evaluation  may  not  be  appropriate  in  all  situations.  Under  the 
 current  requirements,  a  cellular  transmitting  facility  with  a  transmitting  antenna  less  than  10  meters  high  would  be  categorically  excluded  and  not  subject  to  routine  evaluation  for  RF 
 exposure  even  if  it  operates  at  power  levels  that  approach  the  threshold  levels  for  routine  RF  evaluation,  for  example,  999  watts.  Such  exclusion  does  not  appear  warranted,  and  we  propose 
 to  amend  our  rules  to  eliminate  this  situation  by  providing  for  a  conservative  range  of  power  and  separation  distances,  as  further  detailed  below. 


 10.  Finally,  we  believe  that  requirements  for  routine  evaluation  and  categorical  exclusion  should  be  more  consistent  across  services.  We  note  that  the  current  rules  in  some  instances  are 
 inconsistent  with  regard  to  the  treatment  of  certain  services  with  similar  operating  and  exposure  characteristics.  For  example,  the  rules  require  routine  evaluation  in  the  case  of  broadband  PCS 
 if  the  total  power  is  more  than  2000  watts  (ERP)  (3280  watts  EIRP).  Other  services  that  operate  in  frequency  bands  above  1.5  GHz  where  the  RF  guidelines  are  similar  to  those  for  PCS,  such 
 as  the  Wireless  Communications  Service  at  2.3  GHz,  are  subject  to  routine  evaluation  if  the  total  power  is  more  than  1640  watts  EIRP.  6  We  believe  that  the  requirements  for  routine 
 evaluation  and  categorical  exclusion  should  be  consistent  across  similar  services  and  that,  as  proposed  below,  the  same  power  levels  and  separation  distances  should  apply. 


 11.  We  are  proposing  to  amend  the  rules  for  required  routine  evaluations  and  categorical  exclusions  for  fixed  antennas  to  address  the  above  concerns.  First,  we  propose  that  routine 
 evaluation  would  be  required  for  fixed  transmitting  facilities  where  the  separation  distance  from  publicly  accessible  areas  is  less  than  3  meters,  regardless  of  operating  frequency  or  power,  with 
 the  exception  of  transmitters  in  the  categories  discussed  below  in  paragraph  14.  Second,  we  propose  that  routine  evaluation  would  be  required  for  facilities  where  the  separation  distance 
 from  publicly  accessible  areas  is  less  than  10  meters  and  the  transmitting  power  is  100  watts  ERP  or  greater  for  services  operating  at  frequencies  below  1.  5  GHz  or  200  watts  ERP  or  greater 
 for  services  operating  at  frequencies  at  1.5  GHz  and  above.  Third,  we  propose  that  fixed  transmitting  facilities  be  categorically  excluded  from  routine  evaluation  if  the  separation 
 distance  to  publicly  accessible  areas  is  10  meters  or  greater.  The  above  proposed  separation  distances  and  power  levels  were  derived  taking  into  account  the  current  RF  safety  guidelines 
 and  the  technical  rules  governing  the  affected  transmitting  facilities  contained  in  the  Commissions  rules.  Separation  distance  in  this  context  is  defined  as  the  minimum  distance 
 from  the  radiating  structure  of  the  transmitting  antenna  in  any  direction  to  any  area  that  is  accessible  to  a  worker  or  to  a  member  of  the  general  public.  These  proposed  changes  would 
 apply  to  transmitting  facilities  in  the  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (Subpart  K  of  Part  21),  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service  (Subpart  H  of  Part  22),  the  Paging  and  Radiotelephone  Service 
 (Subpart  E  of  Part  22),  the  Personal  Communications  Services  (Part  24),  the  Wireless 
 6  In  addition,  we  note  that  the  present  rules  include  reference  to  categories  in  the  General  Wireless 
 Communications  Service  (GWCS)  operating  at  4.6  GHz.  However,  this  service  is  no  longer  authorized,  and  we  are  proposing  to  delete  all  references  to  this  service  from  47  CFR  1.  1307(  b)  as  well  as  from  47  CFR  2.  1091  and 


 2.  1093  (the  rule  parts  dealing  with  compliance  with  mobile  and  portable  devices).  Also,  in  this  regard,  a  recent  Commission  decision  also  requires  evaluation  of  mobile  and  portable  devices  operating  in  the  4.9  GHz  band  (see 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Third  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  00-  32). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 6 
 Communications  Service  (Part  27),  the  Experimental,  Auxiliary,  and  Special  Broadcast  and  Other  Program  Distributional  Services  (Subpart  I  of  Part  74),  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio 
 Services  Paging  Operations  (Part  90),  the  Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (Part  90),  the  Local  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (Subpart  L  of  Part  101),  and 
 the  24  GHz  Service  and  Digital  Electronic  Message  Service  (Subpart  G  of  Part  101).  We  also  propose  to  apply  these  requirements  to  terrestrial  repeater  stations  in  the  Satellite  Digital  Audio 
 Radio  Service  (SDARS)  authorized  under  Part  25.  The  proposed  changes  to  Section  1.1307(  b),  Table  1,  are  shown  in  Appendix  A. 


 12.  For  transmitters  authorized  under  the  Experimental  Radio  Service  (Part  5)  and  under  Subparts  A,  G,  and  L  of  Part  74,  the  rules  currently  require  routine  evaluation  whenever  the 
 operating  power  of  the  transmitting  facility  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP  (164  W  EIRP).  7  To  ensure  that  categorically  excluded  transmitters  operating  at  less  than  this  power  level  do  not 
 pose  a  risk  of  causing  exposures  exceeding  our  limits,  we  are  proposing  to  add  a  separation  criterion  to  the  rules  for  these  transmitters.  The  most  restrictive  limit  for  general 
 population/  uncontrolled  exposure  to  RF  energy  is  0.2  mW/  cm  2  in  the  frequency  band  of  30  MHz    300  MHz.  Theoretical  calculations  indicate  that  this  exposure  level  could  be  exceeded 
 within  a  radius  of  approximately  2  to  3  meters  for  a  100  W  ERP  (164  W  EIRP)  transmitter.  In  the  interest  of  simplicity  and  practicality  in  determining  categorical  exclusions  for  these 
 services,  we  propose  to  revise  the  categorical  exclusions  for  Part  5  and  Part  74  (Subparts  A,  G  and  L)  to  specify  that  routine  evaluation  is  required  if  radiated  power  is  100  W  ERP  (164  W 
 EIRP)  or  more  or  if  members  of  the  general  public  can  approach  the  radiating  structure  of  the  antenna  at  a  distance  closer  than  3  meters.  So  if  the  separation  distance  is  3  meters  or  more,  and 
 the  radiated  power  is  less  than  100  W  ERP,  a  transmitter  would  be  categorically  excluded  from  routine  evaluation  under  this  proposed  rule.  We  seek  comment  on  this  separation  distance,  and 
 on  whether  multiple,  frequency-  dependent  separation  distances  should  be  introduced  into  our  rules  for  these  services.  Parties  proposing  alternative  or  multiple  separation  distances  should 
 provide  the  analytical  basis  for  their  propositions. 
 13.  In  the  case  of  operations  governed  by  Part  25  (Satellite  Communications),  Part  73  (Radio  Broadcast  Services)  and  Part  80  (Stations  in  the  Maritime  Services  -  ship  earth 
 stations  only),  such  facilities  are  now  subject  to  routine  evaluation  for  compliance  with  the  exposure  limits.  With  the  exception  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  which  governs  low  power  FM 
 (LPFM)  broadcast  stations,  we  propose  to  leave  these  requirements  unchanged  at  this  time,  in  view  of  the  generally  high  power  levels  of  Part  73  facilities  and  the  high  gain  antennas  and 
 potential  for  proximity  for  Part  25  transmitters  and  Part  80  ship  earth  station  transmitters.  Commenting  parties  may  address,  however,  whether  we  should  provide  for  some  categorical 
 exclusion  for  these  facilities  and  under  what  circumstances  exclusions  should  be  provided.  Such  comments  should  include  the  analytical  basis  for  any  specific  proposal.  Because  LPFM 
 stations  operate  at  power  levels  that  cannot  exceed  100  watts  ERP,  we  propose  a  categorical  exclusion  threshold  for  these  stations  in  cases  where  a  separation  distance  of  3  meters  is 


 7  47  CFR    1.1307(  b)  Table  1. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 7 
 maintained.  We  seek  comment  on  this  proposed  exclusion  for  LPFM  stations,  including  whether  we  should  adopt  a  separate  distance  criterion  for  10  watt  LPFM  stations. 
 14.  The  above  proposals  would  require  routine  evaluation  of  transmitters  that  operate  within  3  meters  of  publicly  accessible  areas.  However,  we  believe  it  is  appropriate  also  to 
 consider  establishing  a  categorical  exclusion  for  certain  very  low-  power  fixed  transmitters,  such  as  indoor  micro  base  stations  and  similar  fixed  devices.  This  exclusion  would  avoid 
 unnecessary  evaluation  of  such  transmitters  under  the  general  rule  for  transmitters  operating  within  3  meters  of  publicly  accessible  areas.  Accordingly,  for  devices  mounted  in  such  a  way 
 that  persons  are  normally  not  closer  than  20  cm  from  any  part  of  the  radiating  structure,  we  are  proposing  a  power  threshold  for  categorical  exclusion  of  1.5  W  ERP  for  transmitters  operating 
 at  frequencies  at  or  below  1.  5  GHz  and  3  W  ERP  for  fixed  transmitters  operating  at  frequencies  above  1.5  GHz.  These  values  are  consistent  with  the  power  exclusion  thresholds  we  already 
 have  in  place  for  mobile  devices.  8  Transmitters  operating  below  these  levels  would  not  be  subject  to  routine  evaluation  to  determine  compliance  with  our  RF  exposure  limits. 


 15.  We  believe  that  these  proposals  will  ensure  that  our  RF  exposure  rules  and  categorical  exclusions  are  more  consistently  applied  across  all  service  categories.  The  proposed  changes 
 attempt  to  strike  an  appropriate  balance  of  eliminating  RF  exposure  evaluations  in  circumstances  where  there  is  little  risk  of  harmful  exposure,  and  ensuring  that  evaluations  are 
 carried  out  and  that  the  potential  for  exposure  is  not  overlooked  in  cases  where  there  may  be  some  risk  of  RF  exposure  at  levels  that  exceed  our  guidelines.  We  recognize  that  the  above 
 separation  distances  and  power  limits  were  developed  using  conservative  assumptions  and  that  the  use  of  these  power  levels  and  distance  criteria  could  result  in  the  requirement  for  routine 
 evaluation  of  some  installations  that  are  unlikely  to  exceed  the  RF  exposure  guidelines.  We  tentatively  believe  that  the  advantages  in  simplicity  and  certainty  of  this  approach  outweigh  the 
 requirement  to  conduct  these  additional  evaluations.  We  seek  comment  on  the  power  and  distance  criteria  we  are  proposing,  and  on  whether  a  different  formulation  should  be  used  for 
 determining  categorical  exclusion  criteria.  Another  approach  could  be  to  provide  a  series  of  power  exclusion  thresholds  for  different  separation  distances,  e.  g.,  a  power  threshold  for  each 
 meter  between  3  and  10  meters,  or  to  specify  a  formula  that  relates  distance  to  operating  power,  based  on  the  appropriate  power  density  exposure  level  for  a  particular  service  or  frequency.  9 
 We  also  are  aware  that  licensees  in  some  services  either  are  currently  offering  or  intend  to  offer  in  the  near  future  fixed  wireless  services  for  which  customers  may  self-  install  subscriber-  end 
 transceivers.  10  We  seek  comment  on  how  best  to  apply  the  above  parameters  in  these  instances, 
 8  These  values  are  based  on  conservative  calculations  for  exceeding  the  FCCs  limits  for  maximum  permissible 
 exposure  (MPE)  at  a  distance  of  20  cm.  See  47  CFR    2.1091(  c).  Mobile  devices  are  transmitting  devices  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  a  transmitters  radiating  structure  and  the  body  of  the  user  or  nearby  persons.  See  47  CFR    2.  1091(  b). 


 9  For  example,  for  the  cellular  radio  band,  power  and  distance  criteria  for  categorical  exclusion  could  be  based  on 
 calculations  using  a  far-  field  equation.  This  would  result  in  a  formulation  relating  distance  to  the  square  root  of  the  total  radiated  power. 


 10  For  example,  such  offerings  are  being  considered  in  the  WCS,  MDS/  ITFS,  cellular,  and  PCS  services  (see  Notice 
 (continued.) 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 8 
 including  whether  labeling  11  may  be  considered  sufficient  to  ensure  compliance  with  distance  separation  requirements,  and  on  whether  other  approaches  may  be  more  appropriate. 
 16.  We  also  note  that  where  routine  evaluation  would  be  required  under  our  proposals,  this  evaluation  would  need  to  consist  of  only  what  is  necessary  to  verify  that  the  RF  exposure 
 guidelines  will  not  be  exceeded.  For  example,  where  a  directional  antenna  with  maximum  power  of  100  W  ERP  or  greater  is  publicly  accessible  within  10  meters  only  from  outside  of  the 
 main  beam  of  the  antenna,  and  therefore  would  expose  the  public  to  little  or  no  RF  emissions,  routine  evaluation  may  consist  of  no  more  than  verification  of  this  fact.  Another  alternative 
 would  be  to  write  the  rule  in  a  manner  that  categorically  excludes  antennas  that  are  publicly  accessible  within  the  specified  distance  only  outside  the  main  beam.  We  believe  that  this 
 alternative  would  result  in  a  more  complicated  rule  and  little,  if  any,  reduced  burden  on  private  parties.  We  seek  comment  on  this  analysis. 


 B.  Requirements  for  Evaluating  SAR  for  Certain  Section  15.247  Unlicensed  Devices 
 17.  Section  15.247  contains  the  rules  governing  the  use  of  spread  spectrum  transmitters  operating  in  the  902-  928  MHz,  2400-  2483.5  MHz  and  5725-  5850  MHz  bands.  These  unlicensed 


 devices  can  generally  operate  at  higher  power  levels  than  other  unlicensed  Part  15  devices  because  they  employ  spread  spectrum  technologies  that  spread  the  energy  over  a  wider  bandwidth, 
 thereby  reducing  the  potential  for  interference.  These  devices  may  operate  at  up  to  maximum  peak  output  power  levels  of  between  0.  125  and  1  watt,  depending  on  frequency  and  transmitter 
 characteristics.  12  Typical  devices  authorized  under  Section  15.  247  of  the  rules  include  cordless  telephones,  wireless  local  area  network  devices,  and  wireless  computer  peripherals.  Under  our 
 current  rules,  routine  RF  exposure  evaluation  of  Specific  Absorption  Rate  (SAR)  is  not  required  for  devices  authorized  under  Section  15.247.  However,  the  rules  do  require  that  these  devices  be 
 operated  in  a  manner  that  ensures  that  the  public  is  not  exposed  to  RF  energy  in  excess  of  our  exposure  limits.  13 


 18.  Given  the  power  levels  permitted  under  Section  15.247,  we  are  concerned  that  some  higher  powered  Section  15.247  devices,  in  particular  those  portable  devices  that  are  designed  to  be  used 
 close  to  a  users  body  while  in  operation,  such  as  a  cordless  telephone,  may  have  a  potential  for  exceeding  our  SAR  guideline  limit  and  therefore  should  be  subject  to  routine  RF  evaluation. 
 Accordingly,  we  propose  to  require  SAR  evaluation  of  consumer  devices  that  are  authorized  under 
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  WT  Docket  03-  66). 


 11  For  a  discussion  of  labeling  requirements,  see  Section  III,  G,  infra. 


 12  Devices  authorized  under  47  CFR  15.247  may  transmit  with  up  to  1.0  W  peak  (conducted)  output  power  as 
 allowed  by  our  rules,  although  most  devices  authorized  to  date  operate  with  less  power. 
 13  47  CFR    15.  247(  b)(  4).  Specific  Absorption  Rate  (SAR)  limits  are  defined  in  1.  1310  and  2.1093  of  our 
 rules. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 9 
 Section  15.247,  and  designed  for  use  within  20  cm  of  the  body,  if  the  maximum  peak  output  power  of  the  device  exceeds  100  milliwatts  (mW).  The  100  mW  value  is  based  on  our  evaluation  of  those 
 portable  devices  for  which  SAR  data  has  been  required  or  requested  to  be  submitted.  Specifically,  for  several  years,  we  have  required  that  cellular  telephones  and  PCS  devices  be  evaluated  for  SAR, 
 and  we  have  recently  examined  SAR  data  from  a  small  sample  of  devices  authorized  under  Section  15.247  that  operate  in  the  900  MHz  and  2400  MHz  bands.  All  of  these  data  suggest  that  if  peak 
 power  levels  are  at  or  below  100  mW,  it  would  be  unlikely  that  the  device  would  exceed  our  SAR  limit  of  1.6  W/  kg  for  consumer  devices.  We  only  have  limited  SAR  data  for  devices  at  5.  8  GHz 
 and  request  comment  on  whether  100  mW  or  some  other  value  should  be  used  for  Section  15.247  unlicensed  portable  devices  that  operate  at  5  GHz.  We  believe  that  this  approach  will  ensure  that 
 the  public  is  not  exposed  in  excess  of  our  SAR  limits  for  portable  devices  authorized  under  Section  15.247  of  the  rules. 


 C.  RF  Evaluation  Requirements  for  Transmitter  Modules 
 19.  An  increasingly  important  issue  with  respect  to  evaluating  RF  exposure  devices  concerns  modular  RF  emitters  (  transmitter  modules)  designed  to  be  used  in  host  products  or  in 


 combination  with  other  RF  devices.  These  transmitter  modules  are  increasingly  being  designed  for  installation  in  a  variety  of  consumer  electronic  products,  either  as  add-  on  features  by  the 
 manufacturer  or  as  after-  market  accessories  to  be  installed  by  the  consumer.  Such  transmitters  are  used  to  provide,  for  example,  wireless  headset  (speaker  and  headphone)  connections  to  PCS 
 and  cellular  radiotelephones;  wireless  connections  to  local  area  networks  (LANs)  for  desktop  and  laptop  computers;  and  wireless  connections  to  service  provider  networks  for  personal 
 digital  assistants  (PDAs)  and  other  devices.  The  current  Commission  requirements  and  general  policies  for  authorization  of  Part  15  unlicensed,  low-  power  transmitter  modules  are  described  in 
 Public  Notice  DA  00-  1407.  14  However,  RF  exposure  compliance  procedures  are  not  described  in  that  Public  Notice,  and  we  have  received  numerous  inquiries  regarding  the  requirements  for 
 determining  compliance  with  our  RF  exposure  guidelines  for  these  devices. 
 20.  The  utility  and  flexibility  of  use  of  such  transmitter  modules  would  be  greatly  reduced  if  an  individual  certification  were  needed  for  each  different  use  of  a  given  module,  particularly 
 in  situations  where  a  module  or  its  installation  presents  no  meaningful  potential  for  exposure  in  excess  of  our  guidelines.  We  also  recognize  that  manufacturers  appear  particularly  interested 
 regarding  parameters  under  which  a  module  may  be  approved  on  a  host-  independent  basis,  that  is,  so  that  it  can  be  used  in  many  different  devices  without  subjecting  these  devices  to  new  or 
 additional  RF  exposure  evaluation.  Accordingly,  we  seek  to  gather  information  aimed  at  providing  rules  and  guidelines  for  the  approval  and  safe  use  of  modular  transmitters  with  a 
 minimum  of  regulatory  burden. 
 General  Requirements  for  Transmitter  Modules 


 14  Public  Notice  (DA  00-  1407),  15  FCC  Rcd  25,  415  (2000). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 10 
 21.  We  propose  to  base  our  requirements  for  evaluation  and  categorical  exclusion  of  transmitter  modules  on  the  power  levels  of  the  modules,  combined  with  the  installation 
 configurations  and  situations  for  which  they  would  be  used.  While  we  recognize  the  benefits  of  modular  transmitter  design  and  do  not  wish  to  discourage  its  use  or  impose  unnecessary 
 regulatory  burdens  on  manufacturers,  we  also  remain  cognizant  of  our  responsibility  to  ensure  that  the  public  is  not  exposed  to  RF  energy  in  excess  of  our  guidelines.  In  general,  we  propose 
 to  permit  the  authorization  of  transmitter  modules  where  they  comport  with  our  categorical  exclusion  requirements  or  where  they  have  been  measured  and  shown  to  comply  with  the  RF 
 guidelines  and  it  can  be  shown  that  the  use  of  the  modular  transmitter  in  additional  host  devices  would  not  result  in  noncompliance.  For  example,  we  would  propose  to  authorize  any 
 Section  15.247  unlicensed  device  as  a  transmitter  module  provided  that  the  operating  configurations  and  exposure  conditions  of  the  host  products  are  identified  and  the  maximum 
 peak  conducted  output  power  is  100  mW  or  less.  When  a  module  is  approved  for  any  host  product  configurations  and  exposure  conditions,  a  host  may  incorporate  multiple  modules  for 
 simultaneous  transmission  without  additional  approval.  Since  RF  energy  absorption  is  frequency  dependent,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  the  proposed  100  mW  threshold  is  suitable 
 for  ensuring  compliance  at  all  frequencies.  We  would  also  permit  transmitters  that  have  been  successfully  evaluated  for  compliance  to  be  certified  as  a  Part  15  transmitter  module  provided  it 
 can  be  shown  that  compliance  can  be  maintained  in  any  intended  application  of  the  transmitter.  In  this  regard,  we  request  comment  on  what  factors  should  be  included  in  ensuring  compliance 
 of  the  transmitter  module  in  various  host  devices.  For  example,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  measurements  in  a  certain  number  of  typical  host  devices  or  whether  we 
 should  condition  grant  to  configurations  where  the  host  device  is  physically  similar.  Another  approach  would  be  to  permit  the  use  of  approved  modules  in  additional  host  devices  under 
 our  permissive  change  rules.  For  example,  a  module  authorized  for  operation  in  a  particular  host  device  could  be  approved  for  operation  in  another  host  as  a  Class  I  Permissive  Change  if 
 the  measured  SAR  values  for  the  module  are  the  same  or  less  when  operating  in  the  new  host  device.  15  Since  no  filing  with  the  Commission  is  required  for  a  Class  I  Permissive  Change,  such 
 an  approach  would  allow  manufacturers  to  add  additional  host  devices  without  having  to  go  through  lengthy  and  unnecessary  filings  and  approvals.  We  seek  comment  on  this  option,  and 
 on  whether  we  should  instead  permit  such  modification  only  by  a  Class  II  Permissive  Change,  which  requires  prior  approval.  16  We  also  seek  comment  on  what  information  should  be 
 included  in  the  installation  instructions  provided  with  the  transmitter  module  such  as  minimum  separation  distances,  antenna  requirements,  etc. 


 Requirements  for  Host-  Independent  Transmitter  Modules 
 22.  We  also  believe  that  developing  requirements  for  permitting  transmitter  modules  in  any  host  device  would  provide  benefits  to  manufacturers  and  consumers.  At  the  same  time,  we 
 recognize  that  different  categories  of  host  devices  have  significantly  different  operating  characteristics  that  would  affect  RF  compliance  evaluation  and  should  be  taken  into  account. 


 15  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.1043  for  description  of  permissive  changes. 
 16  We  note  that  Class  2  permissive  changes  can  be  authorized  by  Telecommunications  Certification  Bodies, 
 typically  in  a  matter  of  days. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 11 
 We  therefore  propose  to  permit  host-  independent  transmitter  modules  within  three  broad  categories. 
 23.  Radiotelephones.  For  radiotelephones,  pagers,  and  other  devices  that  are  used  in  close  proximity  to  the  head  or  body,  we  propose  that  SAR  evaluation  should  not  be  required  subsequent 
 to  the  addition  of  any  modular  transmitter  that  operates  at  or  below  2  mW  (peak  radiated  or  conducted  output  power).  We  believe  that  the  addition  of  such  very  low  power  modular 
 transmitters  to  hand-  held  phones  or  devices  is  unlikely  to  contribute  significantly  to  the  overall  SAR  level  of  a  device  and  thus  not  affect  its  compliance.  Under  this  proposal,  for  example,  a 
 Bluetooth  module  could  be  added  to  a  compliant  cellular  or  PCS  phone  without  the  need  for  re-evaluation  or  recertification.  We  seek  comment  on  the  applicability  of  the  proposed  2  mW  limit 
 across  all  frequencies.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  there  should  be  a  limit  on  the  number  of  such  modular  transmitters  that  can  be  added  to  a  compliant  hand-  held  phone  or  device  before  a  re-evaluation 
 is  appropriate. 
 24.  For  modular  transmitters  operating  at  power  levels  above  2  mW  in  a  hand-  held  phone,  pager  or  similar  device,  we  propose  that  they  be  evaluated  in  combination  with  the  host  device.  If 
 the  combination  is  demonstrated  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  SAR  limit,  we  propose  that  such  a  demonstration  of  compliance  can  then  be  applied  to  such  modules  in  similar  host  devices  that  have 
 been  tested  and  certified  for  similar  configurations.  We  seek  comment  on  how  to  appropriately  define  such  an  authorization.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  the  permissible  power  of  a 
 module  to  be  added  to  a  hand-  held  phone  without  requiring  recertification  should  be  tied  to  the  pre-existing  SAR  level  of  the  host  phone  model. 


 25.  Laptop  (Notebook)  Computers.  The  likelihood  of  RF  exposure  due  to  direct  contact  with  the  body  is  less  for  laptop  portable  computers  than  for  hand-  held  phones,  since  there  is  usually 
 some  additional  space  between  the  transmitting  elements  and  the  body.  Moreover,  the  exposure  potential  varies  appreciably  depending  on  the  location  of  the  transmit  antenna  within  the  computer. 
 Transmit  antennas  located  within  the  keyboard  portion  of  a  laptop  have  the  capacity  to  be  operated  close  to  the  body,  whereas  antennas  located  on  the  screen  portion  can  be  20  cm  or  more  distant 
 from  any  part  of  the  body.  As  discussed  below,  we  believe  that  rules  should  reflect  these  differences. 


 26.  For  transmitting  modules  that  may  be  added  to  the  keyboard  section  of  a  laptop  computer,  we  believe  it  is  unlikely  that  the  SAR  level  of  the  combined  device  would  change  significantly  as 
 long  as  the  peak  conducted  or  radiated  power  is  no  more  than  10  mW.  The  available  power  from  such  a  modular  transmitter  we  believe  would  be  too  low  to  cause  significant  energy  deposition  in 
 the  body.  It  is  also  unlikely,  in  general,  that  the  transmitters  power  would  be  misdirected  toward  the  body,  because  this  would  adversely  affect  the  functionality  and  operability  of  the  device. 
 Therefore,  we  propose  that  any  modular  RF  transmitter  designed  to  be  used  in  the  keyboard  portion  of  a  laptop  computer  need  not  undergo  RF  exposure  analysis  if  it  operates  at  less  than  10  mW  (peak 
 radiated  power).  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  there  should  be  a  limit  on  the  number  of  such  modules  or  other  transmitters  that  can  be  added  to  a  laptop  computer  before  evaluation  is  required. 


 27.  For  transmitting  modules  where  the  radiating  element  is  to  be  mounted  in  the  screen  portion  of  a  laptop,  we  believe  that  the  power  threshold  level  for  evaluation  can  be  considerably 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 12 
 higher.  Accordingly,  we  propose  that  for  radiators  mounted  in  laptops  such  that  the  radiating  element  will  be  more  than  20  cm  from  the  users  body,  17  a  power  level  up  to  200  mW  be  permitted 
 without  requiring  an  RF  evaluation.  18  We  believe  that  such  a  transmitter  can  be  added  to  any  laptop  without  raising  an  issue  related  to  compliance  with  our  limits  for  RF  exposure.  We  request 
 comment  on  whether  these  power  thresholds  are  appropriate  at  all  frequencies  and  in  all  laptop  applications,  and  whether  there  should  be  some  limit  on  the  number  of  such  modules  that  can  be 
 incorporated  into  a  laptop  without  concern  for  RF  exposure  in  excess  of  our  limits. 
 28.  Personal  Digital  Assistants  (PDAs)  and  Similar  Hand-  held  Devices.  The  potential  for  exposure  from  modular  RF  transmitters  used  in  personal  digital  assistants  (PDAs)  raises  issues 
 similar  to  those  associated  with  exposure  from  modules  in  portable  computers  and  hand-  held  phones.  One  significant  difference,  however,  is  that  todays  PDAs  are  most  often  used  as  hand-held 
 devices,  not  immediately  next  to  the  torso  of  the  human  body.  While  the  partial-  body  SAR  limit  for  the  head  and  most  of  the  body  is  1.  6  W/  kg  averaged  over  one  gram  of  tissue,  the  SAR  limit 
 for  the  extremities,  such  as  the  hands,  is  4.0  W/  kg  averaged  over  ten  grams.  This  means  that  if  a  PDA  is  used  exclusively  as  a  hand-  held  device,  evaluation  of  exposure  to  the  head  and  other  parts 
 of  the  body  is  not  relevant  and  the  higher  exposure  limit  for  extremities  applies.  However,  we  are  aware  that  at  least  some  PDAs  can  be  used  in  the  transmit  mode  while  worn  on  the  body,  and  some 
 have  been  approved  for  use  as  hand-  held  phones.  In  those  cases,  the  more  restrictive  limit  of  1.6  W/  kg  would  apply. 


 29.  Accordingly,  for  transmitting  modules  that  are  to  be  incorporated  into  a  PDA,  we  propose  to  use  a  threshold  value  of  25  mW  as  an  exclusion  threshold  for  requiring  SAR  evaluation  of  hand-held 
 PDAs.  This  value  is  two  and  one-  half  times  the  value  we  proposed  for  modules  in  the  keyboard  section  of  laptop  computers,  recognizing  that  the  exposure  limit  for  extremities  is  two  and 
 one-  half  times  the  body  limit.  This  limit  would  apply  only  if  the  PDA  is  used  exclusively  as  a  hand-  held  device. 


 30.  For  PDAs  that  are  designed  to  be  used  in  contact  with  the  head  or  worn  against  the  body,  we  propose  to  use  the  same  2  mW  threshold  for  additional  transmitting  modules  that  we  are 
 proposing  for  modules  used  in  mobile  phones.  We  request  comment  on  whether  our  approach  proposed  for  PDAs  is  reasonable,  and  whether  we  can  distinguish  treatment  according  to  the 
 functionality  of  a  particular  PDA.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  higher  power  thresholds  might  be  warranted  for  SAR  evaluation  on  the  basis  of  extremity  exposure.  If  such  proposals  are  made,  we 


 17  This  criterion  is  based  on  how  the  Commission  distinguishes  between  mobile  and  portable  devices  for 
 purposes  of  RF  exposure  evaluation.  Mobile  devices  are  defined  as  those  designed  to  be  used  in  such  a  way  that  a  separation  distance  of  at  least  20  cm  is  normally  maintained  between  the  transmitters  radiating  structure(  s)  and 


 the  body  of  the  user  or  nearby  persons.  Portable  devices  are  defined  as  those  designed  to  be  used  with  separation  distances  of  less  than  20  cm.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.  1091  and  2.  1093. 
 18  We  recognize  that  this  power  level  is  different  from  those  power  thresholds  currently  in  effect  for  categorical 
 exclusion  of  mobile  devices  from  routine  evaluation  (see  47  CFR  2.  1091(  c)).  However,  the  existing  thresholds  were  designed  for  stand  alone  mobile  transmitters.  The  proposed  power  level  would  apply  to  situations  where 


 the  possible  presence  of  multiple  modular  transmitters,  such  as  in  a  laptop  computer,  suggests  that  a  more  conservative  power  threshold  would  be  needed. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 13 
 seek  comment  on  appropriate  power  levels,  and  any  conditions  that  should  be  placed  on  the  configuration  of  PDAs. 
 D.  Measurement  of  SAR  from  Multiple  Transmitters 
 31.  Questions  have  been  raised  with  regard  to  the  procedures  for  SAR  evaluation  in  devices  with  multiple  transmitters.  We  first  note  that  when  multiple  RF  transmitters  operate  simultaneously 


 in  a  device,  they  typically  use  different  frequencies.  For  example,  a  laptop  computer  may  contain  Bluetooth  or  other  transmitters.  Evaluation  of  compliance  for  such  devices  is  dependent  on  the 
 specific  transmitter  frequency.  19  Laboratory  SAR  measurement  techniques  require  the  dielectric  properties  of  tissue-  simulating  media  to  follow  the  same  frequency-  dependency  to  correctly 
 measure  the  SAR.  Transmitters  operating  at  different  frequencies  cannot  be  evaluated  simultaneously,  because  existing  test  systems  (tissue-  simulating  media  and  field  probe  calibration) 
 can  only  be  configured  for  a  limited  frequency  range  for  each  measurement.  The  tissue-  simulating  liquid  used  in  the  head  or  body  model  must  be  changed,  depending  on  the  frequency,  to  accurately 
 reflect  the  RF  energy  absorbed  by  body  tissue  in  that  frequency  range.  As  a  result,  devices  with  multiple  transmitters  operating  at  widely  varying  frequencies  must  be  evaluated  one  transmitter  at  a 
 time. 
 32.  One  convenient  way  to  evaluate  the  SAR  of  a  single  device  with  multiple  transmitters  using  present  measurement  systems  is  to  add  together  the  SAR  values  individually  obtained  for 
 each  transmitter  in  order  to  estimate  the  total  SAR  for  a  given  device.  This,  however,  may  overestimate  RF  exposure  if  different  transmitters  generate  their  maximum  exposure  at  different 
 locations  in  the  body.  Since  this  issue  has  not  been  extensively  addressed  elsewhere,  we  seek  to  establish  guidelines  for  evaluating  SAR  for  such  devices.  In  the  absence  of  a  better  predictive 
 model,  we  propose  to  specify  that  the  maximum  RF  exposure  levels  of  all  multiple  antennas  within  a  single  portable  or  mobile  device  that  could  functionally  transmit  at  the  same  time  be 
 added  together  in  order  to  determine  RF  exposure  values  for  the  device.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  it  would  be  appropriate  and  practical  with  present  SAR  measurement  systems  to 
 sum  the  SAR  values  at  individual  evaluation  grid  points  prior  to  computing  the  1-  g  average  SAR,  as  opposed  to  simply  summing  the  1-  g  averaged  SAR  values  of  each  transmitter.  We 
 request  that  commenting  parties  provide  detailed  information  and  supporting  documentation  regarding  any  proposals  for  measuring  RF  exposure  from  multiple-  transmitter  devices.  We  also 
 are  interested  in  whether  transmitters  operating  simultaneously  in  close  proximity  to  each  other  could  affect  the  RF  exposure  characteristics  of  each  other  in  a  way  that  might  not  be  reflected  in 
 the  SAR  levels  of  each  transmitter  when  operating  and  evaluated  independently.  We  seek  comment  on  the  prevalence  and  predictability  of  this  potential  phenomenon. 


 19  See  Supplement  C  to  OET  Bulletin  65. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 14 
 E.  Reference  to  OET  Bulletin  65 
 33.  For  purposes  of  evaluating  compliance  with  the  guidelines  for  localized  exposure  measured  by  SAR,  the  Commissions  rules  require  that  portable  devices  are  to  be  tested  or  evaluated  based  on 


 technically  acceptable  protocols,  procedures  and  standards.  20  Specific  guidance  on  acceptable  procedures  is  provided  in  a  supplement  to  the  FCCs  OET  Bulletin  65  (  Supplement  C).  21 
 Supplement  C  provides  specific  direction  as  to  the  procedures  that  are  appropriate  for  analysis  of  SAR  from  wireless  handsets.  The  procedures  set  forth  therein  are  intended  to  generally  reflect 
 procedures  for  SAR  analysis  for  hand-  held  phones  being  developed  by  a  committee  of  the  Institute  of  Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers,  Inc.,  (IEEE).  22  Staff  from  both  the  FCC  and  the  U.  S.  Food 
 and  Drug  Administration  (FDA)  have  been  active  participants  on  this  committee,  and  this  IEEE  recommended  practice  will  represent  several  years  of  work  by  the  worlds  leading  experts  in  this 
 field. 
 34.  To  avoid  confusion  as  to  what  constitutes  acceptable  procedures  for  evaluating  SAR  for  portable  devices,  we  are  proposing  to  revise  our  rules  addressing  this  matter,  so  that  they  no  longer 
 refer  to  a  specific  document,  which  can  become  outdated.  Rather,  we  propose  to  include  a  more  generic  reference  to  Supplement  C  in  the  rules,  so  that  as  SAR  evaluation  guidelines  are  refined  by 
 experts,  they  can  be  accommodated  more  quickly  by  our  procedures  without  waiting  for  rule  amendment.  Accordingly,  for  portable  devices,  we  propose  to  delete  the  sentence  in  Section 
 2.1093(  d)(  3)  of  our  rules  that  refers  to  IEEE  standard  C95.  3-  1991  and  refer  instead  to  the  most  current  edition  of  Supplement  C  to  OET  Bulletin  65,  issued  by  the  Commissions  Office  of 
 Engineering  and  Technology.  23  For  mobile  devices,  we  propose  to  add  a  similar  reference  to  Bulletin  65  in  the  introductory  text  of  Section  2.1091(  d).  In  addition,  we  propose  to  amend  Section 
 2.1093  to  indicate  that  computational  modeling  may  be  used  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  SAR  limits  only  if  supported  by  adequate  documentation.  This  is  consistent  with 
 section  1.  1307(  b)(  2)  of  our  rules,  which  provides  the  Commission  with  the  discretion  to  request  SAR  measurement  data  when  a  compliance  showing  is  based  on  computational  modeling.  We 
 invite  comment  on  these  proposals. 


 20  47  CFR    2.  1093(  d). 
 21  Supplement  C  to  OET  Bulletin  65,  first  edition  (97-  01)  released  August  25,  1997,  revised  edition  (01-  01) 
 released  June  29,  2001.  This  document  can  be  downloaded  from  the  Commissions  website  in  either  MS  Word  or  Adobe  Acrobat  .pdf  format  at:  www.  fcc.  gov/  oet/  rfsafety. 


 22  IEEE  Standards  Coordinating  Committee  34  (SCC34),  Subcommittee  2.  DRAFT  Recommended  Practice  for 
 Determining  the  Peak  Spatial-  Average  Specific  Absorption  Rate  (SAR)  in  the  Human  Body  Due  to  Wireless  Communications  Devices:  Experimental  Techniques.  IEEE  Standard  1528-  200X. 


 23  Once  the  IEEE  SCC34  recommended  practice  for  SAR  evaluation  is  completed  and  officially  issued  by  the  IEEE,  we 
 expect  to  consider  whether  to  adopt  it,  by  reference,  as  the  standard  practice  required  for  evaluating  compliance  with  the  FCCs  SAR  limits  in  conjunction  with  our  Supplement  C.  However,  the  IEEE  standard  has  not  yet  been  officially 


 released  by  the  IEEE. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 15 
 35.  In  a  related  development,  we  note  that  another  committee  of  the  IEEE,  Subcommittee  4  of  Standards  Coordinating  Committee  28  (SCC28),  has  adopted  a  revised  SAR  limit  that  would  apply 
 to  the  pinna  of  the  human  ear.  24  This  revised  SAR  limit  is  directly  relevant  to  the  evaluation  of  SAR  in  the  human  head  from  hand-  held  mobile  phones.  Therefore,  we  expect  to  consider  adopting 
 this  revised  SAR  limit  once  it  is  officially  issued  by  the  IEEE,  since  our  current  limits  for  localized  SAR  are  based  primarily  on  IEEE  recommendations.  Although  we  are  not  making  a  specific 
 proposal  at  this  time  regarding  this  issue,  we  nevertheless  invite  comment  on  what  consideration  we  should  give  to  this  revision. 


 F.  Special  Considerations  for  Occupational  Use 
 36.  The  Commissions  RF  guidelines  incorporate  two  tiers  of  exposure  limits,  one  for  the  general  public  (  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure)  and  another,  less  restrictive,  tier  of 


 limits  for  workers  (  occupational/  controlled  exposures).  25  The  occupational  exposure  limits  are  set  well  below  the  threshold  considered  by  experts  to  be  potentially  harmful,  but  are  higher  than 
 those  for  the  general  population.  The  difference  in  the  acceptable  exposure  levels  is  based  on  the  premise  that  workers  are  aware  of  their  exposure  and  have  the  knowledge  and  means  to  effectively 
 control  their  exposure  and  also  on  the  greater  potential  for  continuous  exposure  on  the  part  of  the  public. 


 37.  The  occupational/  controlled  limits  in  our  rules  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.  The  limits  for  occupational/  controlled  exposure  also  apply  in  situations  when  an  individual  is  transient 
 through  a  location  where  occupational/  controlled  limits  apply  provided  he  or  she  is  made  aware  of  the  potential  for  exposure.  26  The  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure  limits  apply  in 
 situations  in  which  the  general  public  may  be  exposed,  or  in  which  persons  that  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.  27 
 38.  To  make  it  easier  for  our  licensees  and  grantees  to  interpret  their  responsibilities,  we  propose  to  explain  in  a  note  to  Section  1.  1310  of  our  rules  that  fully  aware  means  that  an 
 exposed  individual  has  received  written  and  verbal  information  concerning  the  potential  for  RF  exposure  and  has  received  training  regarding  appropriate  work  practices  relating  to  controlling 
 or  mitigating  his  or  her  exposure.  As  specified  in  the  rules,  transient  individuals  must  simply  be 
 24  The  pinna  is  the  projecting  portion  of  the  external  human  ear.  The  revision  revises  the  SAR  limit  for  this  part 
 of  the  body  by  subjecting  it  to  the  relaxed  SAR  limits  applied  by  the  IEEE  to  parts  of  the  body  classified  as  extremities. 


 25  See  47  CFR    1.1310,  2.  1091,  2.1093. 
 26  47  CFR    1.  1310  Table  1  Note  1. 
 27  47  CFR    1.  1310  Table  1  Note  2. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 16 
 made  aware  of  their  exposure.  This  could  be  achieved  by  means  of  written  and/  or  verbal  information,  including,  for  instance,  appropriate  signage.  We  propose  to  specify  that  exercise 
 control  means  that  an  exposed  individual  is  able  to  reduce  or  avoid  exposure  by  administrative  or  engineering  work  practices,  such  as  use  of  personal  protective  equipment  or  time-  averaging 
 of  exposure.  28 
 39.  With  respect  to  fixed  transmitters,  we  have  found  in  implementing  our  RF  exposure  guidelines  over  the  past  several  years  that  in  some  cases  licensees  have  failed  to  take  note  of  the 
 fact  that  they  are  responsible  for  compliance  with  both  the  occupational/  controlled  limits  as  well  as  the  general  population/  uncontrolled  limits.  Some  licensees  have  determined,  by 
 calculations  or  by  other  means,  that  they  comply  with  the  limits  for  the  general  public  and  have  then  assumed  that  they  are  fully  compliant  with  our  exposure  limits  or  otherwise  categorically 
 excluded  from  further  action.  In  these  cases,  licensees  have  often  not  considered  their  responsibilities  to  ensure  compliance  for  workers  who  may  have  access  to  areas  in  closer 
 proximity  to  antenna  sites.  We  propose  to  add  the  following  language  to  Section  1.1310  of  our  rules,  as  a  reminder  of  this  obligation:  Licensees  and  applicants  are  generally  responsible  for 
 compliance  with  both  the  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits  and  the  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure  limits  in  Table  1  as  they  apply  to  transmitters  under  their 
 jurisdiction.  Licensees  and  applicants  should  be  aware  that  the  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits  apply  especially  in  situations  were  workers  may  have  access  to  areas  in  very 
 close  proximity  to  antennas  where  access  to  the  general  public  may  be  restricted. 
 40.  With  respect  to  portable  and  mobile  devices,  we  are  proposing  that  labels  may  be  used  to  satisfy  the  requirements  for  making  workers  aware  of  the  potential  for  exposure.  We  note  that  the 
 Telecommunications  Industry  Association  (TIA)  is  developing  labeling  guidelines  for  manufacturers  to  follow  in  this  regard.  29  Consistent  with  TIAs  efforts,  we  are  proposing  to  allow  a 
 label  to  be  used  to  fulfill  the  requirement  for  making  workers  aware  of  the  potential  for  exposure.  The  label  must  indicate  that  the  device  is  for  occupational  use  only,  refer  the  user  to  specific 
 information  on  RF  exposure  (e.  g.,  in  a  user  manual),  and  note  that  the  label  and  its  information  is  required  for  FCC  RF  exposure  compliance.  The  rules  would  also  state  that  the  label  must  be  legible 
 and  clearly  visible  to  a  user.  We  further  propose  to  require  that  the  instructional  material  provide  the  user  with  information  on  how  to  use  the  device  in  such  a  way  as  to  ensure  compliance  with  the 
 applicable  occupational/  controlled  limit,  e.  g.,  instructions  as  to  proper  device  position,  duty  factor  requirements,  proper  use  of  accessories,  etc.  We  are  proposing  that  a  sample  of  the  label, 
 illustrating  its  location  on  the  device,  and  the  accompanying  instructional  material  be  filed  with  the 


 28  For  purposes  of  developing  training  programs  for  employees,  we  note  that  several  resources  are  becoming 
 available  to  provide  guidance  on  appropriate  RF  safety  programs.  These  resources  include  services  provided  by  commercial  vendors  as  well  as  information  available  through  governmental  and  other  Internet  Web  sites. 


 Furthermore,  a  committee  of  the  IEEE,  Subcommittee  2  of  Standards  Coordinating  Committee  28,  is  now  in  the  process  of  drafting  an  IEEE  Recommended  Practice  for  the  development  of  an  RF  safety  program.  IEEE  SCC28, 
 SC2. 
 29  TSB-  133  Draft,  Telecommunications  Industry  Association. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 17 
 Commission  along  with  the  application  for  equipment  authorization.  We  propose  to  modify  Sections  2.1091(  d)(  3)  and  2.1093(  d)(  1)  accordingly,  and  we  invite  comment  on  these  proposals. 
 G.  Labeling  Requirements  for  Consumer  Products 
 41.  The  rules  currently  require  labels  for  certain  consumer  products  that  use  wireless  technology  advising  users  of  RF  exposure  information.  These  labeling  requirements  apply  to  all 


 subscriber  transceiver  antennas  in  the  following  services:  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (Subpart  K  of  Part  21),  Experimental,  Auxiliary,  and  Special  Broadcast  and  Other  Program  Distributional 
 Services  (Subpart  I  of  Part  74,  ITFS  only),  Digital  Electronic  Message  Service  (24  GHz,  Subpart  G  of  Part  101)  and  Local  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (Subpart  L  of  Part  101).  Licensees  in  these 
 services  are  required  to  attach  a  label  to  subscriber  transceiver  antennas  that:  (1)  provides  adequate  notice  regarding  potential  radiofrequency  safety  hazards,  e.  g.,  information  regarding  the  safe 
 minimum  separation  distance  required  between  persons  and  transceiver  antennas;  and  (2)  references  the  applicable  FCC-  adopted  limits  for  radiofrequency  exposure  specified  in  1.1310  of 
 the  Rules. 
 42.  We  are  not  proposing  to  change  the  specifications  of  the  information  that  must  be  provided  on  labels  when  they  are  required.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  there  are  conditions 
 under  which  we  could  forgo  labeling  requirements,  similar  to  the  approach  by  which  we  provide  categorical  exclusions  from  our  requirements  for  routine  evaluation  for  RF  exposure. 
 Elsewhere  in  this  Notice,  we  are  inviting  comment  on  whether  a  power  threshold  for  routine  evaluation  of  transmitters  authorized  under  Section  15.247  that  are  designed  with  the  potential 
 to  be  closer  than  20  cm  from  the  body  or  from  nearby  persons  should  be  100  mW  conducted  or  radiated  peak  power.  For  fixed  transmitters  that  are  designed  to  be  at  least  20  cm  from  users  or 
 nearby  persons,  we  are  proposing  power  thresholds  of  1.  5  W  ERP  for  transmitters  operating  at  or  below  1.5  GHz  and  3  W  ERP  for  those  operating  at  frequencies  above  1.  5  GHz. 
 Accordingly,  we  propose  to  use  these  same  criteria  for  triggering  the  labeling  requirements  for  fixed  consumer  devices,  and  to  apply  the  labeling  requirements  equivalently  across  all  service 
 categories  for  which  labeling  requirements  currently  apply  (see  para.  41,  above).  30  We  also  propose  a  new  labeling  requirement  for  fixed  consumer  transceivers  in  the  39  GHz  services 
 governed  by  Part  101,  Subpart  C,  which  operate  similarly  to  the  other  consumer  devices  affected  by  these  rules.  This  would  provide  parties  with  relief  from  the  labeling  requirements  where  such 
 labeling  would  not  appear  necessary.  We  also  propose  to  not  require  labeling  of  such  devices  if  the  responsible  party  demonstrates  by  any  appropriate  means  that  MPE  or  SAR  limits  could  not  be 
 exceeded  regardless  of  distance  from  the  antenna.  We  seek  comment  on  the  propriety  of  these  criteria  for  each  of  these  services,  whether  different  criteria  are  appropriate  for  some  services  or 
 some  circumstances,  and  whether  there  are  other  services  to  which  these  or  other  labeling  requirements  should  apply.  For  example,  should  these  or  other  labeling  requirements  apply  to 
 cellular,  PCS,  and  other  CMRS  licensees  that  choose  to  offer  consumer-  based  fixed  service?  We 


 30  We  believe  that  these  power  thresholds  are  conservative  for  typical  applications  such  as  the  main-  beam  of  a 
 high-  gain  antenna,  based  on  far-  field  theoretical  calculations  at  a  distance  of  20  cm  in  the  main  transmitted  beam. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 18 
 also  seem  comment  on  whether  the  term  subscriber  adequately  encompasses  the  potential  users  of  such  transceiver  antennas. 
 43.  In  other  actions  where  compliance  of  subscriber  transceiver  antennas  with  our  RF  exposure  rules  has  been  discussed,  we  have  noted  the  desirability  of  having  such  antennas  professionally 
 installed  in  such  a  way  as  to  minimize  the  likelihood  of  exposures  in  excess  of  our  safety  limits,  for  example,  by  mounting  antennas  in  relatively  inaccessible  areas.  31  We  also  have  encouraged  the 
 incorporation  of  safety  cut-  off  devices  in  such  antennas  which  would  reduce  power  or  shut  down  the  transmitter  when  the  transmitted  beam  was  blocked,  e.  g.,  by  a  child  who  would  not  be  able  to 
 read  a  label.  32  We  have  also  noted  that  instructional  materials  should  be  provided  to  users  and  installers  that  advise  as  to  safety  precautions  and  minimum  separation  distances.  33  We  have  not 
 made  any  of  these  measures  mandatory  by  requiring  them  in  our  rules,  and  we  are  not  proposing  to  do  so  at  this  time.  We  are  uncertain  of  the  costs  of  such  measures  in  all  cases,  and  whether  there  is 
 sufficient  increase  in  effectiveness  over  labeling  to  justify  such  costs  in  all  cases.  34  We  invite  comment,  however,  on  whether  we  should  adopt  additional  mandatory  requirements,  such  as  those 
 described  above,  for  certain  types  of  RF  consumer  products. 


 H.  Compliance  Evaluation  Based  on  SAR  Limits. 
 44.  The  Commissions  RF  exposure  guidelines  are  based  on  exposure  criteria  published  by  the  National  Council  on  Radiation  Protection  and  Measurements  (NCRP)  and  the  Institute  of 


 Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers  (IEEE).  35  Both  the  NCRP  and  the  IEEE  specify  exposure  criteria  in  terms  of  allowed  levels  for  Specific  Absorption  Rate  (SAR).  In  turn,  reference  levels 
 for  Maximum  Permissible  Exposure  (MPE)  were  derived  by  the  NCRP  and  the  IEEE,  based  on  the  SAR  limits.  The  MPE  values  are  expressed  in  units  of  field  strength  and  power  density. 
 Section  1.1310  of  the  Commissions  rules  specifies  the  criteria  to  be  used  for  evaluating  compliance  with  the  RF  exposure  guidelines.  However,  due  to  an  oversight,  Section  1.1310 
 directly  refers  only  to  the  MPE  values  for  field  strength  and  power  density,  not  the  SAR  values.  This  section  should  also  specify  the  SAR  values  from  which  the  MPE  values  were  derived. 


 31  For  example,  see  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  WT  Docket  No.  99-  217,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  22983,  23035-  36  (2000). 
 32  Id. 


 33  Id. 
 34  The  International  Bureau  has  conditioned  certain  license  authorizations  for  consumer  premises  satellite  transmit 
 terminals  and  required  that  such  transmit  terminals  must  be  professionally  installed.  In  addition,  the  Commission  recently  requested  comment  on  whether  professional  installation  should  be  required  for  consumer  transmit 


 terminals  that  operate  in  the  Ku-  band  and  are  less  than  1.2  meters  in  diameter  or  operate  in  the  C-  band  and  are  less  than  4.5  or  3.  7  meters  in  diameter.  See,  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  IB  Docket  00-  248,  (2000 
 Biennial  Regulatory  Review    Streamlining  and  Other  Revisions  of  Part  25  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Governing  the  Licensing  of,  and  Spectrum  Usage  by,  Satellite  Network  Earth  Stations  and  Space  Stations),  17  FCC  Rcd 
 18,  585,  (2002)  at  page  18,  605. 
 35  See  47  CFR  1.  1310. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 19 
 This  has  become  important  because  there  may  be  instances  when  an  applicant  may  wish  to  perform  an  SAR  evaluation  in  lieu  of  determining  power  density  or  field  strength,  in  particular 
 in  cases  where  the  MPE  values  may  be  overly  conservative.  In  such  cases,  applicants  should  be  given  the  option  of  performing  an  SAR  evaluation,  if  appropriate.  Therefore,  we  propose  to 
 amend  Section  1.1310  to  reference  the  underlying  whole-  body  and  partial-  body  SAR  values  for  exposure  criteria,  and  to  allow  for  evaluation  of  SAR  in  lieu  of  power  density  or  field  strength 
 evaluation  for  demonstrating  compliance.  We  invite  comment  on  this  proposal. 


 I.  Spatial  Averaging  for  Evaluating  Compliance 
 45.  As  currently  discussed  in  OET  Bulletin  65,  compliance  with  the  Commissions  MPE  limits  for  fixed  antennas  is  generally  based  on  the  concept  of  spatially  averaging  power 


 density  or  field  strength  squared,  as  recommended  in  IEEE  and  NCRP  standards  and  publications.  36  However,  there  has  been  some  confusion  as  to  when  spatial  averaging  is 
 appropriate  in  situations  where  near-  field  exposures  may  exist  or  in  areas  where  a  power  density  or  field  strength  level  needs  to  be  measured  very  close  to  an  antenna. 


 46.  There  can  be  situations  where  a  localized  (  spatial  peak)  field  intensity  exceeds  our  MPE  limits  near  an  antenna  where  public  or  worker  access  is  possible,  while  a  spatially-averaged 
 measurement  over  the  area  indicates  compliance.  It  is  possible  that  such  localized  hot  spots  could  lead  to  SAR  values  in  the  body  of  a  nearby  person  that  exceed  the  partial-body 
 value  for  SAR  adopted  by  the  FCC  while  not  exceeding  the  whole-  body  limit.  This  can  be  relevant  to  exposures  from  both  fixed  antennas  and  antennas  used  for  mobile  devices, 
 since  our  rules  allow  evaluation  of  exposure  to  mobile  devices  (as  defined  in  our  rules)  in  terms  of  field  strength  or  power  density.  We  seek  comment  on  the  best  way  to  ensure  compliance  in 
 such  situations,  other  than  requiring  burdensome  SAR  evaluations  for  localized  and/  or  whole-body  SAR,  which  could  be  impractical  and  costly.  Therefore,  we  seek  comment  on  the  issue  of 
 when  spatial  averaging  of  exposures  is  appropriate  and  how  to  deal  with  localized  exposures  in  situations  where  spatial  peak  measurements  may  exceed  the  MPE  limit  values. 


 47.  We  also  seek  comment  on  procedures  for  determining  whole-  body  spatial  averaging.  Current  procedures  involve  averaging  readings  made  in  several  positions  relative  to  the  RF 
 source,  including  situations  in  which  single  emitters  are  present  and  those  in  which  multiple  emitters  are  present  where  no  one  RF  source  predominates.  We  seek  comment  on  this 
 approach,  including  whether  using  the  maximum  of  such  readings  would  be  more  appropriate.  We  also  seek  comment  on  such  topics  as  the  influence  the  body  of  the  observer  may  have  on  the 
 field  being  measured  and  the  position  of  the  body  of  the  observer  relative  to  the  RF  source.  We  are  aware  that  several  scanning  protocols  have  been  proposed  for  instruments  that  either  allow 
 automatic  averaging  or  require  measurements  at  specific  points  along  a  vertical  line.  Several  studies  have  been  carried  out  on  this  topic,  but  definitive  guidance  has  not  been  generally 
 available  from  the  IEEE  or  other  organizations,  although  this  topic  is  discussed  in  the  latest 


 36  See  IEEE  C95.1,  1999  Edition  (Section  6.6);  NCRP  Report  119. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 20 
 version  of  IEEE  C95.1-  1999.  Therefore,  we  invite  comment  on  whether  the  FCC  should  adopt  or  recommend  a  specific  technique  or  procedure  for  whole-  body  spatial  averaging  to  determine 
 compliance  with  our  exposure  limits,  and,  if  so,  what  technique  or  procedure  should  be  adopted.  Such  guidance  could  be  issued  in  the  form  of  a  Public  Notice  or  could  be  incorporated  into  a 
 new  edition  of  OET  Bulletin  65. 


 J.  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service. 
 48.  The  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service  (MICS)  authorizes  the  use  of  medically  implanted  transmitters  for  providing  diagnostic  and  therapeutic  information  about  a  patient  to 


 health  care  professionals.  37  We  have  been  made  aware  of  an  inconsistency  in  our  rules  regarding  requirements  for  MICS  transmitters  to  comply  with  Commission  guidelines  on  RF 
 exposure.  Section  95.603  (47  CFR  95.603)  of  the  Commissions  rules  requires  that  applications  for  equipment  authorization  of  devices  operating  under  this  section  must  include  a 
 report  showing  the  results  of  computational  modeling  of  patient  exposure  using  finite  difference  time  domain  (FDTD)  techniques.  In  addition,  this  rule  part  states  that  the  Commission  may  also 
 request  the  submission  of  measurement  data  for  Specific  Absorption  Rate  (SAR).  On  the  other  hand,  Section  1.  1307(  b)(  2)  of  the  rules  specifies  that  compliance  may  be  demonstrated  by  either 
 FDTD  analysis  or  the  submission  of  measurement  SAR  data,  with  the  Commission  retaining  the  option  of  requesting  measurement  data  to  support  an  FDTD  analysis,  if  appropriate.  The  latter 
 rule  is  the  correct  one.  In  other  words,  an  applicant  should  have  the  option  of  demonstrating  compliance  by  use  of  either  computational  techniques  or  by  a  laboratory  measurement  study. 
 We  therefore  propose  to  revise  Section  95.  603  to  make  it  consistent  with  Section  1.1307(  b)(  2).  For  completeness,  we  also  propose  to  add  identical  language  to  Section  2.  1093  (47  CFR 
 2.  1093)  dealing  with  compliance  of  portable  devices. 


 K.  Transition  Period. 
 49.  We  recognize  that  a  certain  period  of  time  will  be  needed  by  licensees  and  applicants  to  become  familiar  with  any  changes  to  our  rules  that  could  require  additional  routine  evaluation 


 for  some  previously  categorically  excluded  transmitters  and  devices.  We  are  proposing  to  provide  a  transition  period  of  six  months  after  any  new  rules  are  adopted  in  this  proceeding 
 before  they  become  effective.  We  seek  comment  on  the  appropriate  length  of  this  transition  period. 


 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS 
 50.  As  required  by  Section  603  of  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  5  U.  S.  C.    603,  the  Commission  has  prepared  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible 


 economic  impact  on  small  entities  of  the  policies  and  rules  proposed  in  this  document.  The  IRFA  is  set  forth  in  Appendix  C.  Written  public  comments  are  requested  on  the  IRFA.  These 
 comments  must  be  filed  in  accordance  with  the  same  filing  deadlines  as  comments  filed  in  this 
 37  47  CFR  95.  1201  et  seq. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 21 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  as  set  forth  in  paragraph  38,  but  they  must  have  a  separate  and  distinct  heading  designating  them  as  responses  to  the  IRFA. 
 51.  This  NPRM  contains  either  a  proposed  or  modified  information  collection.  As  part  of  its  continuing  effort  to  reduce  paperwork  burdens,  we  invite  the  general  public  and  the  Office  of 
 Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  to  take  this  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  information  collections  contained  in  this  NPRM,  as  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995,  Public 
 Law  104-  13.  Public  and  agency  comments  are  due  at  the  same  time  as  other  comments  on  this  NPRM;  OMB  comments  are  due  60  days  from  date  of  publication  of  this  NPRM  in  the  Federal 
 Register.  Comments  should  address:  (a)  whether  the  proposed  collection  of  information  is  necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  functions  of  the  Commission,  including  whether  the 
 information  shall  have  practical  utility;  (b)  the  accuracy  of  the  Commissions  burden  estimates;  (c)  ways  to  enhance  the  quality,  utility,  and  clarity  of  the  information  collected;  and  (d)  ways  to 
 minimize  the  burden  of  the  collection  of  information  on  the  respondents,  including  the  use  of  automated  collection  techniques  or  other  forms  of  information  technology. 


 52.  This  is  a  permit-  but-  disclose  notice  and  comment  rule  making  proceeding.  Ex  parte  presentations  are  permitted,  except  during  the  Sunshine  Agenda  period,  provided  they  are 
 disclosed  as  provided  in  the  Commissions  rules.  See  generally  47  CFR    1.1202,  1.1203,  and  1.2306(  a). 


 53.  Pursuant  to  Sections  1.415  and  1.419  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47  CFR    1.415  and  1.419,  interested  parties  may  file  comments  on  or  before  [90  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the 
 Federal  Register]  and  reply  comments  on  or  before  [120  days  from  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register].  Comments  may  be  filed  using  the  Commissions  Electronic  Comment  Filing 
 System  (ECFS),  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  e-  file/  ecfs.  html,  or  by  filing  paper  copies.  See  Electronic  Filing  of  Documents  in  Rulemaking  Proceedings,  63  Fed.  Reg.  24121  (1998). 


 54.  Comments  filed  through  the  ECFS  can  be  sent  as  an  electronic  file  via  the  Internet  to  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  e-  file/  ecfs.  html.  Generally,  only  one  copy  of  an  electronic  submission  must 
 be  filed.  If  multiple  docket  or  rulemaking  numbers  appear  in  the  caption  of  this  proceeding,  however,  commenters  must  transmit  one  electronic  copy  of  the  comments  to  each  docket  or 
 rulemaking  number  referenced  in  the  caption.  In  completing  the  transmittal  screen,  commenters  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  for  e-  mail  comments,  commenters  should  send  an  e-  mail  to  ecfs@  fcc.  gov,  and 
 should  include  the  following  words  in  the  body  of  the  message,  get  form.  A  sample  form  and  directions  will  be  sent  in  reply.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  by  paper  must  file  an  original  and  four 
 copies  of  each  filing.  If  more  than  one  docket  or  rule  making  number  appear  in  the  caption  of  this  proceeding,  commenters  must  submit  two  additional  copies  for  each  additional  docket  or 
 rulemaking  number. 
 55.  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).  The  Commission's  contractor,  Vistronix,  Inc.,  will 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 22 
 receive  hand-  delivered  or  messenger-  delivered  paper  filings  for  the  Commission's  Secretary  at  236  Massachusetts  Avenue,  N.  E.,  Suite  110,  Washington,  D.  C.  20002. 
 -The  filing  hours  at  this  location  are  8:  00  a.  m.  to  7:  00  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  mail,  Express  Mail,  and  Priority  Mail  should  be  addressed  to  445  12th  Street,  SW,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554. 
 -All  filings  must  be  addressed  to  the  Commission's  Secretary,  Office  of  the  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission. 
 56.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  by  paper  should  also  submit  their  comments  on  diskette.  Such  a  submission  should  be  on  a  3.5-  inch  diskette  formatted  in  an  IBM  compatible  format  using 
 Microsoft  Word  or  compatible  software.  The  diskette  should  be  accompanied  by  a  cover  letter  and  should  be  submitted  in  read  only  mode.  The  diskette  should  be  clearly  labeled  with  the 
 commenters  name,  proceeding  (including  the  lead  docket  number),  type  of  pleading  (comment  or  reply  comment),  date  of  submission,  and  the  name  of  the  electronic  file  on  the  diskette.  The  label 
 should  also  include  the  following  phrase  Disk  Copy    Not  an  Original.  Each  diskette  should  contain  only  one  partys  pleading,  preferably  in  a  single  electronic  file.  In  addition,  commenters 
 must  send  diskette  copies  to  the  Commissions  copy  contractor,  Qualex  International,  445  !2th  Street,  S.  W.,  Room  CY-  B402,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554. 


 57.  Alternative  formats  (computer  diskette,  large  print,  audio  cassette  and  Braille)  are  available  to  persons  with  disabilities  by  contacting  Brian  Millin  at  (202)  418-  7426,  TTY  (202) 
 418-  4365,  or  via  e-  mail  to  bmillin@  fcc.  gov.  This  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  can  also  be  downloaded  at  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  oet. 


 58.  Written  comments  by  the  public  on  the  proposed  and/  or  modified  information  collections  are  due  at  the  same  time  as  comments  on  the  NPRM.  Written  comments  must  be 
 submitted  by  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  on  the  proposed  and/  or  modified  information  collections  on  or  before  [90  days  after  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register]. 
 In  addition  to  filing  comments  with  the  Secretary,  a  copy  of  any  comments  on  the  information  collection(  s)  contained  herein  should  be  submitted  to  Judy  Boley,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission,  Room  1-  C804,  445  12  th  Street,  SW,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554,  or  via  the  Internet  to  jboley@  fcc.  gov  and  to  Kim  Johnson,  OMB  Desk  Officer,  10236  NEOB,  725    17  th  Street, 
 N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20503,  or  via  the  Internet  to  Kim_  A._  Johnson@  omb.  eop.  gov  (spaces  in  address  are  underscores). 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 23 
 59.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  pursuant  to  the  authority  contained  in  Sections  4(  i),  301,  303(  f),  and  303  (r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  USC  Sections 
 154(  i),  301,  303(  f),  and  303(  r),  this  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  IS  ADOPTED. 
 60.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commissions  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  NPRM,  including 
 the  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration. 


 61.  For  further  information  regarding  this  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  contact  Robert  F.  Cleveland,  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology,  (202)  418-  2422,  e-  mail  rclevela@  fcc.  gov,  or 
 the  Commissions  RF  Safety  Program  at  (202)  418-  2464  or  rfsafety@  fcc.  gov. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 24 
 APPENDIX  A:  PROPOSED  RULES 
 For  the  reasons  set  forth  above,  Parts  1  and  2  of  title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  are  proposed  to  be  amended  as  follows: 


 PART  1    PRACTICE  AND  PROCEDURE 
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  1  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  151,  154,  303,  and  309(  j)  unless  otherwise  noted. 
 2.  Section  1.  1307(  b)  is  revised  by  modifying  Table  1  and  paragraphs  1.1307(  b)(  1)  and  1.1307(  b)(  2)  to  read  as  follows: 


 1.1307  Actions  that  may  have  a  significant  environmental  effect,  for  which  Environmental  Assessments  (EAs)  must  be  prepared. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (b)  *  *  * 
 (1)  The  appropriate  exposure  limits  in    1.1310  and  2.  1093  of  this  chapter  are  generally  applicable  to  all  facilities,  operations  and  transmitters  regulated  by  the  Commission.  However,  a 
 determination  of  compliance  with  the  exposure  limits  in  1.  1310  or  2.  1093  of  this  chapter  (routine  environmental  evaluation),  and  preparation  of  an  EA  if  the  limits  are  exceeded,  is 
 necessary  only  for  the  facilities,  operations  and  transmitters  indicated  in  Table  l,  or  those  specified  in  paragraph  (b)(  2)  of  this  section.  All  other  facilities,  operations  and  transmitters  are 
 categorically  excluded  from  making  such  studies  or  preparing  an  EA,  except  as  indicated  in  (b)(  1)(  ii)  below  and  in  paragraphs  (c)  and  (d)  of  this  section.  The  term  power  in  column  2  of 
 Table  1  refers  to  total  operating  power  of  the  transmitting  operation  in  question  in  terms  of  effective  radiated  power  (ERP),  effective  isotropically  radiated  power  (EIRP),  or  peak  envelope 
 power  (PEP),  as  defined  in  2.1  of  this  chapter.  The  phrase  total  transmit  power  of  all  channels  when  used  in  column  2  of  Table  1  means  the  sum  of  the  ERP  or  EIRP  of  all  co-  located 
 simultaneously  operating  transmitters  owned  and  operated  by  a  single  licensee.  When  applying  criteria  of  Table  1,  radiation  in  all  directions  should  be  considered.  For  the  case  of  transmitting 
 facilities  using  sectorized  transmitting  antennas,  the  criteria  are  to  be  applied  to  all  transmitting  channels  in  a  given  sector,  noting  that  for  a  highly  directional  antenna  there  is  relatively  little 
 contribution  to  ERP  or  EIRP  summation  for  other  directions.  See  Section  1.  1310  for  general  information  on  compliance  with  the  FCCs  limits  for  RF  exposure. 


 (i)  Table  1  applies  to  fixed  transmitters.  For  purposes  of  applying  these  rules,  a  fixed  transmitter  is  defined  as  one  that  is  physically  secured  at  one  location  and  is  not  able  to  be  easily  moved  to  another 
 location.  This  definition  includes  transmitters  that  are  physically  secured  at  one  location  on  a  temporary  basis.  An  example  of  this  latter  case  would  be  a  wireless  base  station  installed 
 temporarily  to  accommodate  increased  call  volume  at  a  special  event. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 25 
 (ii)  Fixed  transmitters  in  any  service  are  not  required  to  undergo  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure,  and  the  provisions  of  Table  1  do  not  apply,  if  the  transmitter  is  mounted  such  that 
 persons  cannot  be  closer  than  20  cm  from  any  part  of  the  radiating  structure  and  if  the  operating  power  of  the  transmitter  is  less  than  1.5  W  effective  radiated  power  (ERP),  for  transmitters  operating 
 at  frequencies  at  or  below  1.5  GHz,  or  less  than  3  W  ERP  for  operating  frequencies  above  1.5  GHz.  Compliance  with  exposure  guidelines  for  fixed  transmitters  can  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of 
 labels  specifying  minimum  separation  distance  and/  or  proper  antenna  installation. 
 (iii)  Labeling  requirements:  With  the  exception  of  (iv)  below,  licensees  in  service  categories  with  labeling  requirements  are  required  to  attach  a  label  to  a  fixed  subscriber  transceiver  antenna 
 if:  (1)  the  transceiver  is  mounted  such  that  persons  cannot  be  closer  than  20  cm  from  any  part  of  the  radiating  structure  and  the  operating  power  of  the  transmitter  is  greater  than  1.5  W  ERP,  for 
 transmitters  operating  at  frequencies  at  or  below  1.  5  GHz,  or  greater  than  3  W  ERP  for  operating  frequencies  above  1.5  GHz;  or,  (2)  the  transceiver  is  designed  with  the  potential  to  be  mounted 
 closer  than  20  cm  from  the  body  or  from  nearby  persons  and  the  operating  power  is  greater  than  100  mW  conducted  or  radiated  peak  power.  The  label  must  provide  adequate  notice  regarding 
 potential  radiofrequency  safety  hazards,  e.  g.,  information  regarding  the  safe  minimum  distance  required  between  users  and  antennas;  and  reference  the  applicable  FCC-  adopted  limits  for 
 radiofrequency  exposure  specified  in    1.1310  of  this  chapter.  Such  labels  must  be  clearly  visible  and  legible  to  nearby  persons. 


 (iv)  Labels  are  not  required  on  any  fixed  subscriber  transceiver  antennas  if  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  appropriate  partial  body  SAR  limits  specified  in  2.1093  of  this  chapter  cannot  be  exceeded 
 by  persons  immediately  adjacent  to  the  antenna.  Also,  labels  are  not  required  on  any  fixed  subscriber  transceiver  antenna  if  the  transmitter  is  mounted  such  that  persons  can  never  be  closer 
 than  20  cm  from  any  part  of  the  radiating  structure  and  the  device  can  be  shown  to  comply  with  the  MPE  limits  for  field  strength  and/  or  power  density  at  a  distance  of  20  cm  or  more. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 26 
 TABLE  1:  FIXED  TRANSMITTERS,  FACILITIES  AND  OPERATIONS  SUBJECT  TO  ROUTINE  ENVIRONMENTAL  EVALUATION 
 SERVICE  (TITLE  47  CFR  RULE  PART)  EVALUATION  REQUIRED  IF: 


 Experimental  Radio  Services  (Part  5)  (1)  Transmit  power  is  100  W  ERP  (164  W  EIRP)  or  more 
 or 
 (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m 


 Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (Subpart  K  of  Part  21)  (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200 
 W  ERP  (328  W  EIRP) 
 or 
 (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m 


 Labeling:  In  addition,  MDS  licensees  are  required  to  comply  with  the  labeling 
 requirements  set  forth  in  Sections  1.1307(  b)(  1)(  iii)  and  (iv)  of  this  Chapter. 


 Paging  and  Radiotelephone  Service  (Subpart  E  of  Part  22)  (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP 
 (164  W  EIRP)  for  VHF,  UHF,  and  900  MHz  channels,  or  greater  than  200  W  ERP  (328  W 
 EIRP)  for  2.  1  GHz  channels 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m 


 Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service  (Subpart  H  of  Part  22)  (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP 
 (164  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 27 
 Table  1  (cont.) 
 Personal  Communications  Services  (Part  24)  Narrowband  PCS  (subpart  D): 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP 


 (164  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Broadband  PCS  (subpart  E): 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200  W  ERP 


 (328  W  EIRP). 
 or 
 (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Satellite  Communications  (Part  25)  All  Included. 
 For  DARS  terrestrial  repeater  stations  only: 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200  W  ERP 


 (328  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Labeling:  In  addition,  for  NGSO  subscriber  equipment,  licensees  are  required  to  comply 
 with  the  labeling  requirements  set  forth  in  Sections  1.  1307(  b)(  1)(  iii)  and  (iv)  of  this 
 Chapter. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 28 
 Table  1  (cont.) 
 Wireless  Communications  Service  (Part  27)  700  MHz  service: 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP 


 (164  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 2.3  GHz  service: 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200  W  ERP 


 (328  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Radio  Broadcast  Services  (Part  73)  All  included,  except  Subpart  G. 
 For  subpart  G  only:  Separation  distance  less  than  3  m  (assuming  ERP  100  W  or  less) 


 Experimental,  auxiliary,  and  special  Broadcast  and  other  program 
 Distributional  services  (Part  74) 
 Subparts  A,  G,  L: 
 (1)  Transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP  (164  W  EIRP) 


 or 
 (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Subpart  I: 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200  W  ERP 


 (328  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Labeling:  In  addition,  ITFS  licensees  are  required  to  comply  with  the  labeling 
 requirements  set  forth  in  Sections  1.1307(  b)(  1)(  iii)  and  (iv)  of  this  Chapter. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 29 
 Table  1  (cont.) 
 Stations  in  the  Maritime  Services  (Part  80)  Ship  earth  stations  only. 


 Private  Land  Mobile  Radio  Services  Paging  Operations 
 &  Specialized  Mobile  Radio 
 (Part  90) 


 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP 
 (164  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Amateur  Radio  Service  (Part  97)  Transmitter  output  power  >  levels  specified  in    97.13(  c)(  1)  of  this  chapter 


 Fixed  Microwave  Service  (Part  101)  For  frequencies  at  or  below  1500  MHz:  (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and 
 transmit  power  is  greater  than  100  W  ERP  (164  W  EIRP) 


 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 For  frequencies  above1500  MHz: 
 (1)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  10  m  and  transmit  power  is  greater  than  200  W  ERP 


 (328  W  EIRP) 
 or  (2)  Separation  distance  is  less  than  3  m. 


 Labeling:  In  addition,  licensees  in  the  LMDS,  24  GHz  and  DEMS,  and  39  GHz 
 Service  are  required  to  comply  with  the  labeling  requirements  set  forth  in  Sections 
 1.1307(  b)(  1)(  iii)  and  (iv)  of  this  Chapter. 


 NOTE:  The  term  separation  distance  in  Table  1  is  defined  to  mean  the  minimum  distance  from  any  part  of  the  radiating  structure  of  a  transmitting  antenna  in  any  direction  to  any  area  that 
 may  be  entered  by  a  member  of  the  general  public.  Workers  meeting  the  criteria  for  occupational/  controlled  exposures  may  access  such  areas  consistent  with  appropriate  engineering 
 and/  or  administrative  controls  that  result  in  compliance  with  FCC  occupational/  controlled  limits  without  triggering  the  need  for  routine  evaluation. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 30 
 (2)  Except  as  provided  under  Sections  2.  1091  and  2.1093,  mobile  and  portable  devices  that  operate  in  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service,  the  Personal  Communications  Services  (PCS), 
 the  Satellite  Communications  Services,  the  Wireless  Communications  Service,  the  Maritime  Services  (ship  earth  stations  only),  and  the  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Service  authorized  under 
 subpart  H  of  part  22,  part  24,  part  25,  part  27,  part  80,  and  part  90,  respectively,  of  this  chapter,  are  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization 
 or  use,  as  specified  in    2.1091  and  2.  1093  of  this  chapter.  Cordless  telephones  and  portable  transmitters,  millimeter  devices,  unlicensed  PCS  and  unlicensed  NII  devices  authorized  under 
 15.  247,  15.  253,  15.255,  15.319  and  15.407  of  this  chapter  are  also  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use.  However, 
 routine  evaluation  for  portable  devices  authorized  under  15.247  is  required  only  if  the  maximum  peak  output  power  of  the  device  exceeds  100  milliwatts  (100  mW).  Portable 
 transmitting  equipment  for  use  in  the  Wireless  Medical  Telemetry  Service  (WMTS)  authorized  under  Part  95  of  this  chapter  is  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  as  specified  in 
   2.  1093  and  95.  1125  of  this  chapter.  Equipment  authorized  for  use  in  the  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service  (MICS)  as  a  medical  implant  transmitter  (as  defined  In  Appendix  1  to 
 Subpart  E  of  part  95  of  this  chapter)  is  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use,  as  specified  in  2.  1093  of  this  chapter.  All 
 other  mobile,  portable  and  unlicensed  transmitting  devices  are  categorically  excluded  from  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  under  2.1091  and  2.1093  prior  to  equipment 
 authorization  or  use,  except  as  specified  in    1.1307(  c)  and  1.1307(  d)  of  this  chapter. 


 (3)  *  *  * 
 (i)  *  *  * 
 (ii)  *  *  * 


 3.  Introductory  language  and  Notes  (1)  and  (2)  to  Table  1  in  Section  1.1310  are  revised  and  a  new  Note  (3)  to  Table  1  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 


   1.  1310  Radiofrequency  radiation  exposure  limits. 
 The  limits  for  Maximum  Permissible  Exposure  (MPE)  listed  in  Table  1  shall  be  used  to  evaluate  the  environmental  impact  of  radiofrequency  (RF)  radiation  as  specified  in    1.1307(  b),  except  as 
 specified  below  and  except  in  the  case  of  portable  devices,  as  defined  in  2.  1093  of  this  chapter,  and  fixed  transmitters  that  are  mounted  so  that  persons  may  normally  be  within  20  cm  of  any  part 
 of  the  radiating  structure.  The  latter  devices  and  transmitters  shall  be  evaluated  according  to  the  provisions  of  2.1093  of  this  chapter.  The  MPE  values  in  Table  1  are  derived  from  a  Specific 
 Absorption  Rate  (SAR)  limit  for  occupational/  controlled  exposure  of  0.4  W/  kg,  as  averaged  over  the  whole-  body,  and  an  SAR  limit  for  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure  of  0.08  W/  kg,  as 
 averaged  over  the  whole-  body.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  adopted  exposure  limits  for  spatial  peak  SAR.  In  general,  and  in  lieu  of  compliance  with  the  MPE  values  in  Table  1, 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 31 
 compliance  can  generally  also  be  demonstrated  with  respect  to  the  allowed  limits  for  SAR.  The  SAR  limits  are  as  follows.  (1)  Limits  for  occupational/  controlled  exposure:  0.4  W/  kg  as  averaged 
 over  the  whole-  body  and  spatial  peak  SAR  not  exceeding  8  W/  kg  as  averaged  over  any  1  gram  of  tissue  (defined  as  a  tissue  volume  in  the  shape  of  a  cube);  exceptions  are  the  hands,  wrists,  feet 
 and  ankles  where  the  spatial  peak  SAR  shall  not  exceed  20  W/  kg,  as  averaged  over  any  10  grams  of  tissue  (defined  as  a  tissue  volume  in  the  shape  of  a  cube).  (2)  Limits  for  general 
 population/  uncontrolled  exposure:  0.08  W/  kg  as  averaged  over  the  whole-  body  and  spatial  peak  SAR  not  exceeding  1.6  W/  kg  as  averaged  over  any  1  gram  of  tissue  (defined  as  a  tissue  volume  in 
 the  shape  of  a  cube);  exceptions  are  the  hands,  wrists,  feet  and  ankles  where  the  spatial  peak  SAR  shall  not  exceed  4  W/  kg,  as  averaged  over  any  10  grams  of  tissue  (defined  as  a  tissue  volume  in 
 the  shape  of  a  cube).  Detailed  information  on  evaluating  compliance  with  all  of  these  exposure  limits  can  be  found  in  the  FCC's  OET  Bulletin  Number  65,  "Evaluating  Compliance  with  FCC-Specified 
 Guidelines  for  Human  Exposure  to  Radiofrequency  Electromagnetic  Fields,"  and  in  supplements  to  Bulletin  65,  all  available  at  the  FCCs  Internet  Web  site: 
 www.  fcc.  gov/  oet/  rfsafety. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 NOTE  1  to  TABLE  1:  The  occupational/  controlled  limits  of  Table  1  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  an  individual  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  individual  has  received  written  and  verbal  information  concerning  the  potential  for  RF  exposure.  With  the  exception  of  transient  individuals  as  specified  above,  it  also 
 means  that  an  exposed  individual  has  received  comprehensive  training  regarding  appropriate  work  practices  relating  to  controlling  or  mitigating  his  or  her  exposure.  Such  training  is  not  required  for 
 transient  individuals,  but  they  must  receive  written  or  verbal  information  and  notification  (for  example,  warning  signs)  concerning  their  exposure  potential  and  appropriate  means  available  to 
 mitigate  their  exposure.  The  phrase  exercise  control  means  that  an  exposed  individual  is  allowed  to  reduce  or  avoid  exposure  by  administrative  or  engineering  work  practices,  such  as  use  of 
 personal  protective  equipment  or  time-  averaging  of  exposure. 
 NOTE  2  to  TABLE  1:  The  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposures  apply  in  situations  in  which  the  general  public  may  be  exposed,  or  in  which  persons  that  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. 


 NOTE  3  to  TABLE  1:  Licensees  and  applicants  are  generally  responsible  for  compliance  with  both  the  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits  and  the  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure 
 limits  in  Table  1  as  they  apply  to  transmitters  under  their  jurisdiction.  Licensees  and  applicants  should  be  aware  that  the  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits  apply  especially  in  situations 
 were  workers  may  have  access  to  areas  in  very  close  proximity  to  antennas  where  access  to  the  general  public  may  be  restricted. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 32 
 PART  2    FREQUENCY  ALLOCATIONS  AND  RADIO  TREATY  MATTERS;  GENERAL  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS 
 The  authority  citation  for  Part  2  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  302a,  303,  and  336,  unless  otherwise  noted. 
 1.  Section  2.  1091  is  amended  by  adding  new  paragraphs  (c)(  1),  (c)(  2),  and  by  revising  (d)  and  (d)(  3)  to  read  as  follows: 


   2.  1091  Radiofrequency  radiation  exposure  evaluation:  mobile  devices. 
 (a)  *  *  * 
 (b)  *  *  * 
 (c) 
 Mobile  devices  that  operate  in  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service,  the  Personal  Communications  Service  (PCS),  the  Satellite  Communications  Services,  the  Wireless 
 Communications  Service,  the  Maritime  Services,  the  Specialized  Mobiile  Radio  Service,  authorized  under  subpart  H  of  part  22  of  this  chapter,  part  24  of  this  chapter,  part  25  of  this 
 chapter,  part  27  of  this  chapter,  part  80  of  this  chapter  (ship  earth  station  devices  only),  and  part  90  of  this  chapter  are  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to 
 equipment  authorization  or  use  if  they  operate  at  frequencies  of  1.5  GHz  or  below  and  their  effective  radiated  power  (ERP)  is  1.5  watts  or  more,  or  if  they  operate  at  frequencies  above  1.  5 
 GHz  and  their  ERP  is  3  watts  or  more.  Unlicensed  personal  communications  service  devices,  unlicensed  millimeter  wave  devices  and  unlicensed  NII  devices  authorized  under  15.253, 
 15.  255,  and  subparts  D  and  E  of  part  15  of  this  chapter  are  also  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use  if  their  ERP  is 
 3  watts  or  more  or  if  they  meet  the  definition  of  a  portable  device  as  specified  in  2.  1093(  b)  requiring  evaluation  under  the  provisions  of  that  section.  All  other  mobile  and  unlicensed 
 transmitting  devices  are  categorically  excluded  from  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use,  except  as  specified  in    1.1307(  c)  and 
 1.1307(  d)  of  this  chapter.  Applications  for  equipment  authorization  of  portable  transmitting  devices  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  must  contain  a  statement  confirming 
 compliance  with  the  limits  specified  in  paragraph  (d)  of  this  section  as  part  of  their  application.  Technical  information  showing  the  basis  for  this  statement  must  be  submitted  to  the  Commission 
 upon  request. 
 (1)  When  antennas  for  Part  15  modular  transmitters  (  transmitter  modules)  that  operate  at  power  levels  of  200  mW  or  less  (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power)  are  designed  to  be 
 incorporated  into  a  laptop  (  notebook)  computer  such  that  they  will  be  located  at  a  distance  of  at  least  20  cm  from  the  body  of  a  user  (the  configuration  necessary  to  be  classified  as  a  mobile 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 33 
 device)  evaluation  of  the  modular  transmitter  for  compliance  with  the  Commissions  RF  exposure  limits  is  not  required.  Evaluation  for  compliance  with  the  Commissions  RF  exposure 
 limits  is  required  for  modular  transmitters  operating  in  excess  of  200  mW  (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power). 


 (2)  In  general,  the  maximum  RF  exposure  of  a  combination  device  (host  device  plus  modules)  can  be  determined  by  adding  the  frequency-  dependent  RF  exposure  levels  of  all  antennas 
 incorporated  within  a  single  combination  device  that  could  functionally  transmit  at  the  same  time.  Such  antennas  can  be  considered  to  be  mobile  transmitting  devices  for  purposes  of 
 evaluating  compliance  as  long  as  the  20  cm  separation  criterion  defined  in  (b)  of  this  section  is  met. 


 (d)  The  limits  to  be  used  for  evaluation  of  mobile  devices  are  the  limits  for  Maximum  Permissible  Exposure  (MPE)  specified  in    1.1310  of  this  chapter.  Appropriate  methodologies 
 for  evaluating  exposure  from  mobile  devices  are  described  in  the  most  current  edition  of  OET  Bulletin  65.  All  unlicensed  personal  communications  service  (PCS)  devices  and  unlicensed  NII 
 devices  shall  be  subject  to  the  limits  for  general  population/  uncontrolled  exposure. 
 (1)  *  *  * 
 (2)  *  *  * 
 (3)  If  appropriate,  compliance  with  exposure  guidelines  for  devices  in  this  section  can  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  labels  and  by  providing  users  with  information  concerning  minimum 
 separation  distances  from  transmitting  structures  and  proper  installation  of  antennas.  Labels  should  be  legible  and  clearly  visible  to  the  user  of  the  device.  Labels  used  on  devices  that  are 
 subject  to  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits  must  indicate  that  the  device  is  for  occupational  use  only,  must  refer  the  user  to  specific  information  on  RF  exposure,  such  as  that 
 provided  in  a  user  manual,  and  must  note  that  the  label  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  label,  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.  For  occupational  devices,  details  of  any 
 special  training  requirements  pertinent  to  limiting  RF  exposure  should  also  be  submitted.  Holders  of  grants  for  mobile  devices  to  be  used  in  occupational  settings  are  encouraged,  but  not 
 required,  to  coordinate  with  end-  user  organizations  to  ensure  appropriate  RF  safety  training. 
 (4)  *  *  * 


 2.  Section  2.  1093  is  amended  by  adding  new  paragraphs  (c)(  1)    (c)(  6)  and  (d)(  1)(  i)  and  by  revising  (d)(  3)  to  read  as  follows: 
   2.  1093  Radiofrequency  radiation  exposure  evaluation:  portable  devices. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 34 
 (a)  *  *  * 
 (b)  *  *  * 
 (c)  Portable  devices  that  operate  in  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service,  the  Personal  Communications  Service  (PCS),  the  Satellite  Communications  Services,  the  Wireless 
 Communications  Service,  the  Maritime  Services,  the  Specialized  Mobiile  Radio  Service,  the  Wireless  Medical  Telemetry  Service  (WMTS)  and  the  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service 
 (MICS),  authorized  under  subpart  H  of  part  22  of  this  chapter,  part  24  of  this  chapter,  part  25  of  this  chapter,  part  27  of  this  chapter,  part  80  of  this  chapter  (ship  earth  station  devices  only),  part 
 90  of  this  chapter,  subparts  H  and  I  of  part  95,  and  unlicensed  personal  communication  service,  unlicensed  NII  devices  and  millimeter  wave  devices  authorized  under  subparts  D  and  E,  15.253 
 and  15.255  of  part  15  of  this  chapter  are  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use.  Portable  devices  authorized  under  15.247  of 
 part  15  of  this  chapter  are  subject  to  routine  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use  if  the  maximum  peak  output  power  of  the  device  exceeds  100  milliwatts 
 (100  mW).  Evaluation  of  MICS  transmitters  may  be  demonstrated  by  use  of  computational  modeling  or  laboratory  measurement  techniques.  Unless  otherwise  specified  in  this  chapter, 
 other  portable  transmitting  devices  are  categorically  excluded  from  routine  environmental  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  prior  to  equipment  authorization  or  use,  except  as  specified  in 
   1.  1307(  c)  and  1.  1307(  d)  of  this  chapter.  Applications  for  equipment  authorization  of  portable  transmitting  devices  subject  to  routine  environmental  evaluation  must  contain  a  statement 
 confirming  compliance  with  the  limits  specified  in  paragraph  (d)  of  this  section  as  part  of  their  application.  Technical  information  showing  the  basis  for  this  statement  must  be  submitted  to  the 
 Commission  upon  request. 
 (1)  Unlicensed  transmitters  authorized  under  15.247  may  be  authorized  as  transmitter  modules  for  use  in  various  host  devices  provided  that  the  configurations  and  exposure 
 conditions  of  host  products  are  identified  and  provided  the  maximum  peak  conducted  output  power  is  100  milliwatts  (100  mW)  or  less.  Such  transmitters  may  be  authorized  as  modules 
 when  they  have  been  shown  to  comply  with  our  RF  exposure  guidelines  and  when  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  use  of  the  module  in  additional  host  devices  would  not  result  in  non-compliance. 


 (2)  When  a  modular  transmitter  (  transmitter  module)  is  designed  to  be  used  in  a  hand-  held  wireless  portable  telephone  or  in  a  portable  digital  assistant  (  PDA)  that  can  be  used  in  contact 
 with  the  head  or  body,  and  the  operating  power  level  of  the  module  is  2  mW  or  less  (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power),  if  the  phone  or  PDA  (  host  device)  has  been  previously 
 shown  to  be  compliant  with  the  Commissions  limits  for  SAR,  no  additional  SAR  evaluation  of  the  combined  device  (host  plus  module)  is  required.  When  a  modular  transmitter  is  designed  to 
 be  used  in  a  hand-  held  wireless  portable  telephone  or  in  a  PDA  that  can  be  used  in  contact  with  the  head  or  body,  and  the  operating  power  level  of  the  module  is  greater  than  2  mW  (peak  EIRP 
 or  peak  conducted  output  power),  the  combined  device  (host  plus  module)  must  be  evaluated  for  SAR  in  the  normal  operating  configuration.  If  the  combined  device  is  demonstrated  to  be  in 
 compliance  with  the  Commissions  SAR  limits,  this  demonstration  of  compliance  can  be  applied 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 35 
 to  such  modules  designed  to  be  used  in  similar  host  devices  that  have  been  tested  and  certified  for  similar  configurations. 
 (3)  When  modular  transmitters  (  transmitter  modules)  operating  at  power  levels  of  10  mW  or  less  (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power)  are  designed  to  be  used  in  the  keyboard 
 portion  of  a  laptop  (  notebook)  computer  evaluation  for  compliance  with  the  Commissions  limits  for  SAR  is  not  required. 


 (4)  When  modular  transmitters  (  transmitter  modules)  operating  at  power  levels  of  25  mW  or  less  (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power)  are  designed  to  be  used  in  a  PDA,  designed 
 only  to  be  held  in  the  hand,  evaluation  for  compliance  with  the  Commissions  limits  for  SAR  is  not  required. 


 (5)  When  a  modular  transmitter  is  designed  to  be  used  in  a  PDA  (the  host  device)  that  is  only  used  when  held  in  the  hand,  and  the  operating  power  level  of  the  module  is  greater  than  25  mW 
 (peak  EIRP  or  peak  conducted  output  power),  the  combined  device  (host  plus  module)  must  be  evaluated  for  SAR  in  the  normal  operating  configuration.  If  the  combined  device  is 
 demonstrated  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  Commissions  SAR  limits,  this  demonstration  of  compliance  can  be  applied  to  such  modules  designed  to  be  used  in  similar  host  devices  that  have 
 been  tested  and  certified  for  similar  configurations. 
 (6)  For  a  combination  device  that  incorporates  at  least  one  modular  transmitter  in  addition  to  the  host  transmitter,  when  the  relevant  exclusion  thresholds  described  in  (i)  -  (iii)  of  this  section  are 
 not  applicable,  evaluation  of  SAR  of  the  combination  device  can  be  determined  by  adding  the  maximum  RF  exposure  levels  of  all  antennas  incorporated  within  a  single  combination  device 
 that  could  functionally  transmit  at  the  same  time. 
 (d)  *  *  * 
 (1)  *  *  * 
 (i)  Labels  placed  directly  on  portable  devices  designed  only  for  occupational  use  can  be  used  as  part  of  an  applicants  evidence  of  compliance  with  occupational/  controlled  exposure  limits. 
 Such  labels  should  be  legible  and  clearly  visible  to  the  user  of  the  device.  They  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  label  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  label,  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. 
 (2)  *  *  * 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 36 
 (3)  Compliance  with  SAR  limits  can  be  demonstrated  by  either  laboratory  measurement  techniques  or  by  computational  modeling.  The  latter  must  be  supported  by  adequate 
 documentation.  The  methodologies  that  shall  be  used  for  evaluating  SAR  for  wireless  handsets  and  similar  devices  are  described  in  the  most  current  edition  of  Supplement  C  to  OET  Bulletin 
 65,  issued  by  the  Commissions  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology. 
 (4)  *  *  * 
 (5)  *  *  * 


 3.  Section  95.  603  is  amended  by  revising  (f)  as  follows: 
   95.  603  Certification  required. 
 (a)    (e)  *  *  * 
 (f)  Each  Medical  Implant  Communications  Service  transmitter  (a  transmitter  that  operates  or  is  intended  to  operate  in  the  MICS)  must  be  certificated  except  for  medical  implant  transmitters 
 that  are  not  marketed  for  use  in  the  United  States,  but  which  otherwise  comply  with  the  MICS  technical  requirements  and  are  operated  in  the  United  States  by  individuals  who  have  traveled  to 
 the  United  States  from  abroad.  Medical  implant  transmitters  (as  defined  in  appendix  1  to  subpart  E  of  part  95  of  this  chapter)  are  subject  to  the  radiofrequency  radiation  exposure  requirements 
 specified  in    1.1307  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  finite  difference  time  domain  computational  modeling  or  by  laboratory  measurement  techniques.  Where  a  showing  is  based  on  computational  modeling,  the 
 Commission  retains  the  discretion  to  request  that  specific  absorption  rate  (SAR)  data  also  be  submitted. 


 (g)  *  *  * 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 37 
 APPENDIX  B:  INITIAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 
 As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  of  1980  (RFA),  38  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  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  provided  in  paragraph  58  in  this  NPRM.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  this  NPRM,  including  this  IRFA,  to  the 
 Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration  (SBA).  39  In  addition,  the  NPRM  and  IRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  40 


 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Proposed  Rules 
 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.  41 
 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.  42 


 The  Notice  proposes  to  amend  Parts  1  and  2  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. 


 38  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601  -  612et.  seq.,  has  been  amended  by  the  Small  Business 
 Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA)  Contract  With  America  Advancement  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  857847  (1996).  )  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the  Small  Business  Regulatory 


 Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA). 
 39  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a). 


 40  See  id. 
 41  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  of  1969,  as  amended,  42  U.  S.  C.  4321-  4335. 
 42  See  47  CFR  1.1307(  b). 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 38 
 B.  Legal  Basis 
 The  proposed  action  is  authorized  under  Sections  4(  i),  301,  303(  f)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  Sections  154(  i),  301,  303(  f)  and  303(  r). 


 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,  if  adopted.  43  The  RFA 
 generally  defines  the  term  "small  entity"  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  "small  business,"  "small  organization,"  and  "small  governmental  jurisdiction."  44  In  addition,  the  term 
 "small  business"  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  term  "small  business  concern"  under  the  Small  Business  Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632,  unless  the  Commission  has  developed  one  or  more  definitions 
 that  are  appropriate  to  its  activities.  45  A  "small  business  concern"  is  one  that:  (1)  is  independently  owned  and  operated;  (2)  is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation;  and  (3)  meets 
 any  additional  criteria  established  by  the  Small  Business  Administration  ("  SBA").  46 
 A  small  organization  is  generally  "any  not-  for-  profit  enterprise  which  is  independently  owned  and  operated  and  is  not  dominant  in  its  field."  47  Nationwide,  as  of  1992,  there  were 
 approximately  275,  801  small  organizations.  48  "Small  governmental  jurisdiction"  49  generally  means  "governments  of  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special 
 districts,  with  a  population  of  less  than  50,000."  50  As  of  1992,  there  were  approximately  85,006  governmental  entities,  total,  in  the  United  States.  51  This  number  includes  38,  978  cities,  counties, 


 43  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3). 
 44  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  6). 
 45  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3)  (incorporating  by  reference  the  definition  of  "small  business  concern"  in  15  U.  S.  C.    632). 
 Pursuant  to  the  RFA,  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."  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3). 


 46  15  U.  S.  C.    632. 
 47  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  4). 
 48  U.  S  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Census,  1992  Economic  Census,  Table  6  (special  tabulation  of  data 
 under  contract  to  the  Office  of  Advocacy  of  the  U.  S.  Small  Business  Administration). 
 49  47  CFR    1.1162. 


 50  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5). 
 51  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Governments. 
 (continued.) 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 39 
 and  towns;  of  these,  37,  566,  or  96%,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,  000.  52  The  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  this  ratio  is  approximately  accurate  for  all  governmental  entities.  Thus,  of 
 the  85,006  governmental  entities,  we  estimate  that  81,  600  (96%)  are  small  entities.  Nationwide,  as  of  1992,  there  were  4.44  million  small  business  firms,  according  to  SBA  data.  53 


 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  IRFA,  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  proposed  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. 


 MASS  MEDIA  SERVICES 
 Multichannel  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (MMDS),  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  (MDS),  Instruction  Television  Fixed  Service  (ITFS)  and  Local  Multipoint  Distribution 
 Service  (LMDS).  MMDS  systems,  often  referred  to  as  wireless  cable,  transmit  video  programming  to  subscribers  using  the  microwave  frequencies  of  the  MDS  and  ITFS.  54  MDS  and 
 ITFS  are  authorized  to  operate  in  the  2.  5-  2.69  GHz  band.  In  addition,  MDS  entities  have  licenses  in  the  2.15-  2.162  GHZ  band.  Wireless  cable  systems  combine  multiple  MDS  (i.  e., 
 multichannel  MDS)  frequencies  and  ITFS  frequencies  to  transmit  video  programming  and  high-speed  internet  access  to  residential  subscribers  in  limited  areas.  This  delivery  technology  is  also 
 known  as  MMDS. 
 In  connection  with  the  1996  MDS  auction,  the  Commission  defined  small  businesses  as  entities  that  had  annual  average  gross  revenues  of  less  than  $40  million  in  the  previous  three 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 52  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Governments. 


 53  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1992  Census  of  Transportation,  Communications,  and 
 Utilities,  UC  92-  S-  1,  Subject  Series,  Establishment  and  Firm  Size,  Table  2D,  Employment  Size  of  Firms.  54  Amendment  of  Parts  21  and  74  of  the  Commissions  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  and  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Report  and 
 Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  9589,  9593    7  (1995). 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 40 
 calendar  years.  55  This  definition  of  a  small  entity  in  the  context  of  MDS  auctions  has  been  approved  by  the  SBA.  56  The  MDS  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.  MDS  also  includes  licensees  of  stations  authorized  prior  to  the 
 auction.  In  that  regard,  the  SBA  has  developed  a  definition  of  small  entities  for  cable  and  other  subscription  programming,  which  includes  all  such  companies  generating  $12.5  million  or  less  in 
 annual  receipts.  57  This  definition  includes  multipoint  distribution  services,  and  thus  applies  to  MDS  licensees  and  wireless  cable  operators  that  did  not  participate  in  the  MDS  auction. 
 Information  available  indicates  that  there  are  approximately  850  of  these  licensees  and  operators  that  do  not  generate  revenue  in  excess  of  $11  million  annually.  Therefore,  for  purposes  of  the 
 IRFA,  we  find  there  are  approximately  850  or  more  small  MDS  providers  as  defined  by  the  SBA  and  the  Commissions  auction  rules. 


 The  SBA  definition  of  small  entities  for  Cable  and  Other  Program  Distribution,  which  includes  such  companies  generating  $12.5  million  in  annual  receipts,  appears  applicable  to 
 ITFS.  58  There  are  presently  2,032  ITFS  licensees.  All  but  100  of  these  licenses  are  held  by  educational  institutions.  Educational  institutions  are  included  in  the  definition  of  a  small 
 business.  59  However,  we  do  not  collect  annual  revenue  data  for  ITFS  licensees,  and  are  not  able  to  ascertain  how  many  of  the  100  non-  educational  licensees  would  be  categorized  as  small  under 
 the  SBA  definition.  Thus,  we  tentatively  conclude  that  at  least  2,  032  licensees  are  small  businesses. 


 LMDS  is  a  fixed  broadband  point-  to-  multipoint  microwave  service  that  provides  for  two-way  video  telecommunications.  60  In  addition  to  the  1996  MDS  auction,  the  auction  of  the  1,  030 
 LMDS  licenses  began  on  February  18,  1998,  and  closed  on  March  25,  1998.  The  Commission  defined  small  entity  for  LMDS  licenses  as  an  entity  that  has  average  gross  revenues  of  less 
 than  $40  million  in  the  three  previous  calendar  years.  61  An  additional  classification  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  calendar  years.  62  These  regulations  defining  small  entity  in  the  context  of  LMDS  auctions  have  been  approved  by  the 
 SBA.  63  There  were  93  winning  bidders  that  qualified  as  small  entities  in  the  LMDS  auctions.  A 
 55  47  C.  F.  R.    21.961(  b)(  1). 


 56  See  Amendment  of  Parts  21  and  74  of  the  Commissions  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  and  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253, 


 Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  9589  (1995).  57  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  code  517510. 
 58  Id. 
 59  Small  entity  under  SBREFA  includes  not  only  small  businesses,  but  nonprofit  organizations  and 


 governmental  organizations  such  as  cities,  counties,  towns,  townships,  villages,  school  districts,  or  special  districts,  with  populations  of  less  than  50,  000.  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5). 
 60  See  Local  Multipoint  Distribution  Service,  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  12545  (1997). 
 61  Id. 
 62  Id. 
 63  See  Letter  to  Daniel  Phythyon,  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (FCC)  from  A.  Alvarez, 


 Administrator,  SBA  (January  6,  1998). 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 41 
 total  of  93  small  and  very  small  business  bidders  won  approximately  277  A  Block  licenses  and  387  B  Block  licenses.  On  March  27,  1999,  the  Commission  re-  auctioned  161  licenses;  there 
 were  40  winning  bidders.  Based  on  this  information,  we  conclude  that  the  number  of  small  LMDS  licenses  will  include  the  93  winning  bidders  in  the  first  auction  and  the  40  winning 
 bidders  in  the  re-  auction,  for  a  total  of  133  small  entity  LMDS  providers  as  defined  by  the  Commissions  auction  rules  and  approved  by  the  SBA.  The  LMDS  service  could  be  impacted 
 by  the  proposed  revisions  of  our  rules,  particularly  with  respect  to  consumer  subscriber  transceivers  that  may  be  subject  to  labeling  requirements. 


 In  sum,  there  are  approximately  a  total  of  2,  000  MDS/  MMDS/  LMDS  stations  currently  licensed.  Of  the  approximate  total  of  2,000  stations,  we  estimate  that  there  are  1,  595 
 MDS/  MMDS/  LMDS  providers  that  are  small  businesses  as  deemed  by  the  SBA  and  the  Commissions  auction  rules. 


 MARITIME  SERVICES 
 The  proposed  rules  would  not  change  the  current  rules  that  affect  licensees  using  ship  earth  stations  in  the  Maritime  Services.  The  Commission  has  not  developed  a  definition  of  small 
 entities  applicable  to  licensees  of  ship  earth  stations.  Therefore,  the  Commission  is  unable  at  this  time  to  make  a  precise  estimate  of  the  number  of  licensees  of  ship  earth  stations  which  are  small 
 businesses. 


 INTERNATIONAL  SERVICES 
 The  Commission  has  not  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  applicable  to  licensees  in  the  international  services.  However,  the  SBA  has  developed  a  size  standard  for  a  small  business 
 within  the  category  of  Other  Telecommunications.  Under  that  SBA  size  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  $12.5  million  or  less  in  average  annual  receipts.  64  According  to  Census 
 Bureau  data  for  1997,  there  were  a  total  of  439  other  communications  services  providers,  operating  for  the  entire  year.  65  Of  the  439,  a  total  of  430  had  annual  receipts  of  less  than  $10.  0 
 million.  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  most  Other  Telecommunications  providers  are  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  rules  and  policies  adopted  herein. 


 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 


 64  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System  (NAICS)  code  517410. 
 64  13  CFR  121.201,  NAICS  codes  48531,  513322,  51334,  and  51339. 


 65  Id. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 42 
 broadcast  stations  operate  using  relatively  high  power  levels,  it  is  likely  that  they  could  all  be  impacted  by  our  rule  revisions. 
 Satellite  Telecommunications.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  for  Satellite  Telecommunications  Carriers,  which  consists  of  all  such  companies  having  $12.5 
 million  or  less  in  annual  receipts.  66  In  addition,  a  second  SBA  size  standard  for  Other  Telecommunications  includes  "facilities  operationally  connected  with  one  or  more  terrestrial 
 communications  systems  and  capable  of  transmitting  telecommunications  to  or  receiving  telecommunications  from  satellite  systems,"  67  and  also  has  a  size  standard  of  annual  receipts  of 
 $12.  5  million  or  less.  According  to  Census  Bureau  data  for  1997,  there  were  324  firms  in  the  category  Satellite  Telecommunications,  total,  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  68  Of  this  total,  273 
 firms  had  annual  receipts  of  $5  million  to  $9,  999,  999  and  an  additional  24  firms  had  annual  receipts  of  $10  million  to  $24,  999,  990.  69  Thus,  under  this  size  standard,  the  majority  of  firms  can 
 be  considered  small.  In  addition,  according  to  Census  Bureau  data  for  1997,  there  were  439  firms  in  the  category  Satellite  Telecommunications,  total,  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  70  Of  this 
 total,  424  firms  had  annual  receipts  of  $5  million  to  $9,  999,  999  and  an  additional  6  firms  had  annual  receipts  of  $10  million  to  $24,  999,  990.  71  Thus,  under  this  second  size  standard,  the 
 majority  of  firms  can  be  considered  small. 
 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  revised  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  revised  rules. 


 66  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System  (NAICS)  code  517410  (formerly  513340). 
 67  Id.  NAICS  code  517910  (formerly  513390). 
 68  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  Receipt  Size  of  Firms  Subject  to 
 Federal  Income  Tax:  1997,  Table  4,  NAICS  code  517410  (issued  Oct.  2000).  69  Id. 


 70  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  Receipt  Size  of  Firms  Subject  to 
 Federal  Income  Tax:  1997,  Table  4,  NAICS  code  517910  (issued  Oct.  2000). 
 71  Id. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 43 
 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  revised  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  revised  rules. 


 WIRELESS  AND  COMMERCIAL  MOBILE  SERVICES 
 Cellular  and  Other  Wireless  Telecommunications.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  for  wireless  firms  within  the  two  broad  economic  census  categories  of  Paging  72 
 and  Cellular  and  Other  Wireless  Telecommunications.  73  Under  both  SBA  categories,  a  wireless  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  For  the  census  category  of  Paging,  Census 
 Bureau  data  for  1997  show  that  there  were  1,320  firms  in  this  category,  total,  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  74  Of  this  total,  1,303  firms  had  employment  of  999  or  fewer  employees,  and  an 
 additional  17  firms  had  employment  of  1,000  employees  or  more.  75  Thus,  under  this  category  and  associated  small  business  size  standard,  the  great  majority  of  firms  can  be  considered  small.  For 
 the  census  category  Cellular  and  Other  Wireless  Telecommunications  firms,  Census  Bureau  data  for  1997  show  that  there  were  977  firms  in  this  category,  total,  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  76 
 Of  this  total,  965  firms  had  employment  of  999  or  fewer  employees,  and  an  additional  12  firms  had  employment  of  1,  000  employees  or  more.  77  Thus,  under  this  second  category  and  size 
 standard,  the  great  majority  of  firms  can,  again,  be  considered  small. 


 72  13  CFR    121.201,  NAICS  code  517211. 
 73  13  CFR    121.201,  NAICS  code  517212. 
 74  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  Employment  Size  of  Firms  Subject 
 to  Federal  Income  Tax:  1997,  Table  5,  NAICS  code  513321  (issued  Oct.  2000). 
 75  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  Firms  with  1,000  employees  or  more. 
 76  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  Employment  Size  of  Firms  Subject 
 to  Federal  Income  Tax:  1997,  Table  5,  NAICS  code  513322  (issued  Oct.  2000). 
 77  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  Firms  with  1,000  employees  or  more. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 44 
 Private  and  Common  Carrier  Paging.  In  the  Paging  Third  Report  and  Order,  we  adopted  criteria  for  defining  small  businesses  and  very  small  businesses  for  purposes  of  determining  their 
 eligibility  for  special  provisions  such  as  bidding  credits  and  installment  payments.  78  We  have  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.  Additionally,  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  $3  million  for  the  preceding  three  years.  79  The  SBA  has  approved  these  definitions.  80  An  auction  of  Metropolitan 
 Economic  Area  licenses  commenced  on  February  24,  2000,  and  closed  on  March  2,  2000.  81  Of  the  985  licenses  auctioned,  440  were  sold.  Fifty-  seven  companies  claiming  small  business  status 
 won.  A  second  auction  commenced  on  October  30,  2001  and  closed  on  December  5,  2001.  82  One  hundred,  thirty-  two  entities  claiming  small  or  very  small  business  status  won  a  total  of 
 3,724  licenses.  At  present,  there  are  approximately  4,500  Private-  Paging  site-  specific  licenses  and  5,100  Common  Carrier  Paging  site  specific  licenses.  According  to  the  most  recent  in  the 
 Telecommunications  Provider  Locator,  608  carriers  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  either  paging  or  other  mobile  services,  which  are  placed  together  in  the  data.  83 
 We  do  not  have  data  specifying  the  number  of  these  carriers  that  are  not  independently  owned  and  operated  or  have  more  than  1,500  employees,  and  therefore  are  unable  at  this  time  to 
 estimate  with  greater  precision  the  number  of  paging  carriers  that  would  qualify  as  small  business  concerns  under  the  SBA's  definition.  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  there  are  fewer 
 than  608  small  paging  carriers  that  may  be  affected  by  these  revised  rules.  We  estimate  that  the  majority  of  private  and  common  carrier  paging  providers  would  qualify  as  small  entities  under 
 the  SBA  definition.  All  may  be  impacted  by  these  proposed  rule  revisions. 
 Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (SMR).  Pursuant  to  47  CFR  90.  814(  b)(  1),  the  Commission  has  defined  small  business  for  purposes  of  auctioning  900  MHz  SMR  licenses,  800  MHz  SMR 
 licenses  for  the  upper  200  channels,  and  800  MHz  SMR  licenses  for  the  lower  230  channels  on  the  800  MHz  band,  as  a  firm  that  has  had  average  annual  gross  revenues  of  $15  million  or  less  in 
 the  three  preceding  calendar  years.  84  The  SBA  has  approved  this  small  business  size  standard  for 
 78  220  MHz  Third  Report  and  Order,  62  FR  16004  (April  3,  1997),  at  paragraphs  291-  295. 


 79  700  MHz  Guard  Band  Auction  Closes,  Public  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  18026  (2000). 
 80  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future  Development  of  Paging 
 Systems,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  10030,  at  paragraph  98-  107  (1999). 


 81  Revision  of  Part  22  and  Part  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  Future  Development  of  Paging 
 Systems,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  10030,  at  paragraph  98  (1999). 


 82  Lower  and  Upper  Band  Auction  Closes,  Public  Notice  16  FCC  Rcd  21821  (2001). 
 83  See  Letter  to  Amy  Zoslov,  Chief,  Auctions  and  Industry  Analysis  Division  from  A.  Alvarez,  Administrator, 


 SBA  (December  2,  1998). 
 84  47  CFR  90.814(  b)(  1). 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 45 
 the  800  MHz  and  900  MHz  auctions.  85  Sixty  winning  bidders  for  geographic  area  licenses  in  the  900  MHz  SMR  band  qualified  as  small  business  under  the  $15  million  size  standard.  The 
 auction  of  the  525  800  MHz  SMR  geographic  area  licenses  for  the  upper  200  channels  began  on  October  28,  1997,  and  was  completed  on  December  8,  1997.  86  Ten  winning  bidders  for 
 geographic  area  licenses  for  the  upper  200  channels  in  the  800  MHz  SMR  band  qualified  as  small  businesses  under  the  $15  million  size  standard.  87  An  auction  of  800  MHz  SMR  geographic 
 area  licenses  for  the  General  Category  channels  began  on  August  16,  2000  and  was  completed  on  September  1,  2000.  Of  the  1,050  licenses  offered  in  that  auction,  1,030  licenses  were  sold. 
 Eleven  winning  bidders  for  licenses  for  the  General  Category  channels  in  the  800  MHz  SMR  band  qualified  as  small  business  under  the  $15  million  size  standard.  In  an  auction  completed  on 
 December  5,  2000,  a  total  of  2,800  Economic  Area  licenses  in  the  lower  80  channels  of  the  800  MHz  SMR  service  were  sold.  Of  the  22  winning  bidders,  19  claimed  small  business  status. 
 Thus,  40  winning  bidders  for  geographic  licenses  in  the  800  MHz  SMR  band  qualified  as  small  businesses.  In  addition,  there  are  numerous  incumbent  site-  by-  site  SMR  licenses  on  the  800  and 
 900  MHz  band.  All  may  be  impacted  by  these  proposed  rule  revisions. 
 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.  The  Commission  has  not  developed  a  definition  of  small  entity  specifically  applicable  to  PLMR  licensees  due  to  the  vast 
 array  of  PLMR  users.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  a  licensee  is  a  small  business  as  defined  by  the  SBA,  each  licensee  would  need  to  be  evaluated  within  its  own  business  area. 
 Therefore,  the  Commission  is  unable  at  this  time  to  estimate  the  number  of  small  businesses  which  could  be  impacted  by  the  rules. 


 Fixed  Microwave  Services.  Microwave  services  include  common  carrier,  88  private-  operational  fixed,  89  and  broadcast  auxiliary  radio  services.  90  At  present,  there  are  approximately  22,015 
 common  carrier  fixed  licensees  and  61,  670  private  operational-  fixed  licensees  and  broadcast  auxiliary  radio  licensees  in  the  microwave  services.  The  Commission  has  not  yet  defined  a  small 


 85  See  Letter  to  Thomas  J.  Sugrue,  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (FCC)  from  A.  Alvarez, 
 Administrator,  SBA  (August  10,  1999). 
 86  See  Letter  to  Daniel  B.  Phython,  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (FCC)  from  A.  Alvarez, 
 Administrator,  SBA  (October  27,  1997). 
 87  Id. 


 88  47  CFR  101  et  seq.  (formerly,  part  21  of  the  Commission's  Rules). 
 89  Persons  eligible  under  parts  80  and  90  of  the  Commission's  rules  can  use  Private  Operational-  Fixed  Microwave 
 services.  See  47  CFR  parts  80  and  90.  Stations  in  this  service  are  called  operational-  fixed  to  distinguish  them  from  common  carrier  and  public  fixed  stations.  Only  the  licensee  may  use  the  operational-  fixed  station,  and  only  for 


 communications  related  to  the  licensee's  commercial,  industrial,  or  safety  operations. 
 90  Auxiliary  Microwave  Service  is  governed  by  part  74  of  Title  47  of  the  Commission's  Rules.  See  47  CFR  74  et  seq. 
 As  discussed  earlier,  there  should  be  no  impact  on  this  class  of  transmitters. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 46 
 business  with  respect  to  microwave  services.  For  purposes  of  this  FRFA,  we  will  use  the  SBA's  definition  applicable  to  cellular  and  other  telecommunications  firms  --  i.  e.,  an  entity  with  no 
 more  than  1,500  persons.  91  We  estimate  that  all  of  the  Fixed  Microwave  licensees  (excluding  broadcast  auxiliary  licensees)  would  qualify  as  small  entities  under  the  SBA  definition  for 
 cellular  and  other  telecommunications  firms.  Some  of  these  services  could  be  impacted  by  the  proposed  revisions  of  our  rules,  particularly  those  which  utilize  consumer  subscriber  transceivers 
 that  may  be  subject  to  labeling  requirements. 
 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  services  include  the  citizen's  band  (CB)  radio  service,  general  mobile  radio  service  (GMRS),  radio  control  radio  service,  and  family  radio  service  (FRS).  92  Since  the  CB, 
 GMRS,  and  FRS  licensees  are  individuals,  no  small  business  definition  applies  for  these  services.  We  are  unable  at  this  time  to  estimate  the  number  of  other  licensees  that  would  qualify 
 as  small  under  the  SBA's  definition.  However,  in  general,  there  should  be  little  impact  of  these  proposed  rule  revisions  on  these  services. 


 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.  The  SBA  has  approved  these  definitions.  93  The  FCC  auctioned  geographic  area  licenses  in  the  WCS  service. 
 In  the  auction,  there  were  seven  winning  bidders  that  qualified  as  very  small  business  entities,  and  one  that  qualified  as  a  small  business  entity.  We  conclude  that  the  number  of  geographic 
 area  WCS  licensees  which  could  be  impacted  includes  these  eight  entities. 


 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements 
 The  proposals  being  made  in  this  item,  may  require  additional  reporting  regarding  compliance  with  our  RF  exposure  limits  for  certain  facilities,  operations  and  transmitters,  such  as  some  wireless  base 
 stations  and  some  antennas  at  multiple  transmitter  sites.  In  other  cases,  current  reporting  requirements  are  being  relaxed.  Also,  we  are  proposing  to  require  that  in  order  for  the 


 91  13  CFR  121.201,  NAICS  codes  517211,  517212.513321,  513322,  51333. 
 92  Licensees  in  the  Citizens  Band  (CB)  Radio  Service,  General  Mobile  Radio  Service  (GMRS),  Radio  Control  (R/  C) 
 Radio  Service  and  Family  Radio  Service  (FRS)  are  governed  by  Subpart  D,  Subpart  A,  Subpart  C,  and  Subpart  B,  respectively,  of  part  95  of  the  Commission's  Rules.  47  CFR  95.  401  through  95.428;  95.  1  through  95.  181; 


 95.  201  through  95.225;  47  CFR  95.  191  through  95.  194. 
 93  See  Letter  to  Amy  Zoslov,  Chief,  Auctions  and  Industry  Analysis  Division  from  A.  Alvarez,  Administrator, 
 SBA  (December  2,  1998). 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 47 
 occupational/  controlled  SAR  or  MPE  limits  to  be  used  in  evaluating  compliance  for  a  portable  or  mobile  device,  certain  conditions  must  be  met,  that  may  include  placing  a  label  on  a  device  that 
 provides  a  user  with  specific  information  on  RF  exposure.  We  are  also  proposing  that  a  sample  of  the  label  and  instructional  material  be  filed  with  the  Commission  along  with  the  application  for 
 equipment  authorization. 
 We  are  also  proposing  to  adopt  a  general  labeling  requirement  for  certain  high-  gain  subscriber  across  all  services  that  will  be  consistent  and  ensure  compliance  of  consumer  products  with  our  RF 
 safety  guidelines.  When  equipment  authorization  is  required,  we  are  proposing  that  a  sample  of  the  label  and  illustrations  showing  its  location  should  be  filed  with  the  Commission  along  with  the 
 application  for  a  grant  of  equipment  authorization. 


 E.  Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered 
 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  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.  94  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). 


 F.  Federal  Rules  that  May  Duplicate,  Overlap,  or  Conflict  With  the  Proposed  Rule 
 None. 


 94  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  c). 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  132 
 48 
 STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  MICHAEL  K.  POWELL 
 RE:  In  the  Matter  of  Proposed  Changes  in  the  Commission's  Rules  Regarding  Human  Exposure  to  Radiofrequency  Electromagnetic  Fields 
 Earlier  this  month,  I  announced  the  launch  of  the  Commissions  Environmental  and  Historic  Preservation  Action  Plan.  The  goal  of  the  plan  is  to  improve  our  ability  to  protect 
 valuable  historic  and  environmental  resources,  while  at  the  same  time  accelerating  the  process  of  deploying  necessary  communications  infrastructure. 


 Todays  action  takes  an  important  step  in  updating  our  rules  to  reflect  technology  development  and  more  efficient  ways  of  carrying  out  our  statutory  responsibilities.  The  current 
 rules  contain  requirements  for  evaluating  human  exposure  to  RF  energy  emitted  by  FCC-regulated  transmitters  and  facilities  and  date  back  to  1996/  1997.  Since  that  time,  it  has  become 
 apparent  that  certain  aspects  of  our  rules  may  warrant  further  revision  to  clarify  the  responsibilities  of  our  licensees  and  grantees  and  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  FCC  limits  in  a 
 more  practical,  reasonable  and  efficient  manner.  This  NPRM  makes  several  proposals  to  accomplish  that  goal. 


 The  proposals  were  developed  based  on  extensive  consultation  with  industry,  standards  groups,  and  consumers.  Working  together,  we  have  developed  a  set  of  proposals  that  will 
 facilitate  deployment  of  new  technologies.  The  proposals  are  intended  to  correct  inconsistencies,  clarify  definitions,  and  standardize  guidelines  on  laboratory  testing  requirements. 
 Formatted:  ParaNum,  Don't  hyphenate,  Tabs:  -1",  Left  +  -0.5", 
 Left 
48