Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31585

proposing deletion of this Site, except

for the previously defined Excluded

Areas, from the NPL. Documents

supporting this action are available in

the Deletion Docket.

While EPA does not believe that any

future response actions in the areas to

be deleted from the NPL will be

necessary, if future conditions warrant

such action, the proposed deletion areas

of the Tobyhanna Army Depot site

remain eligible for future Fund-financed

response areas of the Tobyhanna Army

Depot site remain eligible for future

Fund-financed response actions.

Furthermore, this partial deletion does

not alter the status of the Excluded

Areas, the groundwater plumes at OU1

and OU5, which are not proposed for

deletion and remain on the NPL.

State Concurrence

In a letter dated January 11, 2001, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

through its Department of

Environmental Protection has concurred

on EPA’s final determination regarding

the partial deletion.

Dated: March 30, 2001.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3.

[FR Doc. 01–14620 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket 99–231; FCC 01–158]

Spread Spectrum Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the Commission’s rules to

improve spectrum sharing by

unlicensed devices operating in the 2.4

GHz band (2400—2483.5 MHz), provide

for introduction of new digital

transmission technologies, and

eliminate unnecessary regulations for

spread spectrum systems. We take these

actions to facilitate the continued

development and deployment of new

wireless devices for businesses and

consumers.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 27, 2001, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

September 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed through the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties

who chose to file comments by paper

should send comments to the

Commission’s Secretary, Magalie Roman

Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street SW., TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal

McNeil, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2408, TTY (202)

418–2989, e-mail: nmcneil@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Order, ET Docket 99–231, FCC 01–158,

adopted May 10, 2001 and released May

11, 2001. The full text of this document

is available for inspection and copying

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257),

445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20554. The complete text of this

document also may be purchased from

the Commission’s duplication

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Order

1. The Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Order (‘‘FNPRM’’)

propose to amend part 15 of the

Commission’s rules to improve

spectrum sharing by unlicensed devices

operating in the 2.4 GHz band (2400—

2483.5 MHz), provide for introduction

of new digital transmission

technologies, and eliminate unnecessary

regulations for spread spectrum

systems. Specifically, this FNPRM

proposes to revise the rules for

frequency hopping spread spectrum

systems operating in the 2.4 GHz band

to reduce the amount of spectrum that

must be used with certain types of

operation, and to allow new digital

transmission technologies to operate

pursuant to the same rules as spread

spectrum systems. It also proposes to

eliminate the processing gain

requirement for direct sequence spread

spectrum systems, which will provide

manufacturers with increased flexibility

and regulatory certainty in the design of

their products. We take these actions to

facilitate the continued development

and deployment of new wireless devices

for businesses and consumers.

2. The original Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’) 64 FR 38877,

July 20, 1999, in this proceeding, which

was initiated in response to a request

from the Home RF working group,

proposed to amend the rules to allow

frequency hopping spread spectrum

systems operating in the 2.4 GHz band

to use hopping channel bandwidths

wider than 1 MHz. The NPRM also

proposed to adopt a new method for

determining compliance with the

requirement that direct sequence

systems exhibit a minimum of 10 dB

processing gain. The First Report and

Order (‘‘First R&O’’) 65 FR 57557,

September 25, 2000, in this proceeding

amended the spread spectrum rules to

allow frequency hopping spread

spectrum transmitters in the 2.4 GHz

band to use bandwidths between 1 MHz

and 5 MHz at a reduced power output

of up to 125 mW. Frequency hopping

systems with a bandwidth of up to 1

MHz are required to use at least 75 nonoverlapping hopping frequencies. Use of

75 hopping frequencies is generally not

feasible for systems having a bandwidth

in excess of 1 MHz because the 2.4 GHz

band, which covers 2400–2483.5 MHz,

provides only 83.5 megahertz of

spectrum. Accordingly, the rules were

amended to permit systems using a

bandwidth greater than 1 MHz but less

than or equal to 5 MHz to use as few as

15 non-overlapping channels provided

that the total span of hopping channels

be at least 75 MHz. Therefore, while a

system using 5 MHz hopping channel

bandwidths is permitted to use as few

as 15 hopping frequencies, one using 3

MHz hopping channel bandwidths must

use at least 25 hopping frequencies to

comply with the rules.

3. Frequency Hopping Spread

Spectrum Systems. Thirteen parties

filed a Joint Petition for Clarification, or

in the Alternative, Partial

Reconsideration (‘‘Joint Petition’’) in

response to the First R&O requesting

that the Commission clarify its rules to

specify a minimum of 15 hopping

channels for any frequency hopping

system operating in the 2.4 GHz that

uses adaptive hopping techniques as

allowed under 47 CFR 15.247(h) and

limits its output power to 125 mW,

regardless of hopping channel

bandwidth. We propose to amend 47

CFR 15.247 by incorporating the

changes proposed in the Joint Petition.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the acceptability of this

proposal. Commenters are encouraged

to include technical analyses that

support claims that this change will

either improve or degrade sharing of

this spectrum. We particularly invite

comment as to whether use of adaptive

hopping techniques should be

mandatory and how we should

determine compliance with this

requirement when evaluating specific

devices for purposes of equipment

certification. Commenters are also

31586 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1 5 U.S.C. 603.

2See Joint Petition for Clarification or, in the

Alternative, Partial Reconsideration filed October

25, 2000 in ET Docket 99–231 on behalf of 3Comm,

Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Dell Computer,

IBM, Intel Corporation, Intersil, Lucent

Technologies, Microsoft, Nokia Inc., Silicon Wave,

Toshiba America Information Systems, and Texas

Instruments.

encouraged to examine alternative

operating parameters or conditions that

may achieve the same goals. For

example, the operating conditions in the

Joint Petition would allow a system

using 1 MHz bandwidth hopping

channels to use as little as 18% of the

available spectrum at 2.4 GHz to

implement adaptive hopping

techniques. Could the Commission

realize the goals of the petitioners by

requiring that adaptive hopping systems

use a minimum of 25% or 50% of the

band with a power reduction in

relationship to amount of spectrum

used? Could even fewer hops be used

efficiently and effectively with a

corresponding reduction in power?

Those commenters who do not agree

that the rule changes would be

beneficial to operation in the 2.4 GHz

band should provide an explanation.

4. Digital Transmission Systems. We

observe that new digital transmission

technologies have been developed that

have spectrum characteristics similar to

spread spectrum systems. Indeed,

proponents of some of these

technologies allege that their systems

meet the processing gain requirement of

47 CFR 15.247(e) for direct sequence

spread spectrum systems. However, the

current rules only provide for specific

types of spread spectrum technology

and do not provide latitude to permit

other types of technologies that have

similar spectrum characteristics. We

believe that the rules should be

modified to permit the operation of

these alternative digital technologies.

We propose to amend 47 CFR 15.247 to

provide for use of spread spectrum or

digital technologies. This proposed

change would apply for operations in

the current spread spectrum bands at

915 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz. Digital

technologies would be required to meet

the same technical requirements as

spread spectrum systems, as modified in

this proceeding. We believe that this

proposal will allow more and more

diverse products to utilize those bands

and thereby increase consumer choice.

It would provide the flexibility and

certainty needed to promote the

introduction of new, non-interfering

products into the band, without the

need for frequent rule changes to

address each specific new technology

that may be developed.

5. The rules for part 15 spread

spectrum systems limit maximum peak

output power to 1 watt. In addition, the

rules for direct sequence systems limit

peak power spectral density conducted

to the antenna to 8 dBm in any 3 kHz

band during any time interval of

continuous operation. This peak power

density limit is intended to control

interference by ensuring that the

transmitted energy in a direct sequence

system is not concentrated in any one

portion of the emission bandwidth. In

considering the appropriate power

limits for digital modulation systems, it

appears that the spectrum

characteristics of these systems are very

similar to the characteristics of direct

sequence spread spectrum systems.

Accordingly, it appears that digital

systems may exhibit no more potential

to cause interference to other devices

than direct sequence systems. With this

in mind, we invite comment on whether

digitally modulated systems should be

allowed to operate at the same power

levels as direct sequence spread

spectrum systems, namely 1 watt

maximum output power with power

spectral density not exceeding 8 dBm in

any 3 kHz band. However, we also

invite comment as to whether the

flexibility we are allowing for digitally

modulated systems warrants a reduction

in permitted power levels to reduce the

likelihood of any adverse impact on

other systems operating in this

spectrum, similar to the reduced power

levels adopted for wide-band frequency

hopping systems. If we find it necessary

to reduce the allowed power for

digitally modulated systems, should we

make any changes in the power level

adjustments for point-to-point operation

in § 15.247(b)(3)?

6. The proposals made herein would

more closely align the § 15.247 rules

with the U–NII rules. We seek comment

on whether the same result would be

achieved by amending the U–NII rules

to include the 915 MHz and 2.4 GHz

bands. The upper limit of the 5.725–

5.825 GHz U–NII band would also need

to be expanded to 5.850 GHz in order

to realign the standards with those

presently permitted under § 15.247. We

specifically invite comment on any

detrimental impact this could have on

manufacturers.

7. Direct Sequence Processing Gain.

The processing gain requirement was

adopted more than ten years ago as a

means to ensure that manufacturers

would not take advantage of the higher

power levels afforded spread spectrum

devices by designing systems with wide

bandwidths where much of the energy

transmitted is not needed for

communication. As the spread spectrum

industry has matured it is not clear that

this requirement continues to be

necessary. Manufacturers have an

incentive to design their systems to

include processing gain in order for

their devices to operate properly when

located near other radio frequency

devices. In addition, it has become

increasingly difficult to determine the

true processing gain of certain direct

sequence spread spectrum systems. We

observe that uncertainties about the

processing gain requirement can be a

significant impediment to the

introduction of new technologies. In

light of these factors, we are now

proposing to eliminate the processing

gain requirement for direct sequence

spread spectrum systems. We invite

comment on this proposal.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

8. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act,1 the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Order (Further Notice). Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA.

Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making.

A. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules

9. This Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking proposes changes that

remove unnecessary regulatory barriers

to the introduction of new wireless

devices using spread spectrum and

other digital technologies. The

proposals will also improve sharing of

the spectrum by wireless devices

operating in the 2.4 GHz band (2400–

2483.5 MHz). Specifically, the FNPRM

proposes to relax the frequency hopping

spread spectrum rules in § 15.247 in

accordance with a Joint Petition for

Clarification, or in the Alternative,

Partial Reconsideration filed by thirteen

parties.2 The proposed changes would

permit all frequency hopping systems in

the 2.4 GHz band to use as few as fifteen

hopping channels instead of the

seventy-five hopping channels some

systems are now required to use.

Systems using the minimum number of

channels will be required to employ

adaptive hopping techniques in order to

avoid transmitting on occupied

frequencies.

10. The FNPRM seeks comments

regarding alternative operating

parameters or conditions for frequency

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31587

3 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

4 Id. 601(3). 5 Id. 632. 6See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334220 (SIC

Code 3663). Although SBA now uses the NAICS

classifications, instead of SIC, the size standard

remains the same.

7See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of

Transportation, Communications and Utilities

(issued May 1995), SIC category 3663 (NAICS Code

334220).

hopping systems that may achieve the

same goals. For example, the operating

conditions in the Joint Petition would

allow a system using 1 MHz bandwidth

hopping channels to use as little as 18%

of the available spectrum at 2.4 GHz to

implement adaptive hopping

techniques. The FNPRM asks whether

the Commission could realize the goals

of the petitioners by requiring that

adaptive hopping systems use a

minimum of 25% or 50% of the band

with a power reduction in relationship

to amount of spectrum used.

11. The FNPRM also proposes to

modify the rules for non-frequency

hopping spread spectrum systems in the

915 MHz (902–928 MHz), 2.4 GHz, and

5.7 GHz (5725–5850 MHz) bands to

accommodate developing systems that

use digital modulation techniques.

Systems using digital modulation

techniques would be required to meet

the same technical requirements as

spread spectrum systems, as modified in

this proceeding. The Commission

believes that this proposal will allow

more and more diverse products to

utilize those bands and thereby increase

consumer choice. It would also provide

the flexibility and certainty needed to

promote the introduction of new, noninterfering products into the band,

without the need for frequent rule

changes to address each specific new

technology that may be developed. This

proposal would more closely align the

§ 15.247 spread spectrum rules with the

§ 15.407 U–NII rules. Therefore, we seek

comment on whether the same result

would be achieved by amending the U–

NII rules to include the 915 MHz and

2.4 GHz bands.

12. Finally, the FNPRM proposes to

eliminate the processing gain

requirement for direct sequence spread

spectrum systems. The processing gain

requirement was adopted more than ten

years ago as a means to ensure that

manufacturers would not take advantage

of the higher power levels afforded

spread spectrum devices by designing

systems with wide bandwidths where

much of the energy transmitted is not

needed for communication. As the

spread spectrum industry has matured it

is not clear that this requirement

continues to be necessary.

Manufacturers have an incentive to

design their systems to include

processing gain in order for their

devices to operate properly when

located near other radio frequency

devices.

B. Legal Basis

13. The proposed action is taken

pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

14. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of, and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that may be affected by

the proposed rules, if adopted.3 The

Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

business concern’’ under section 3 of

the Small Business Act.4 A small

business concern in its field of

operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

SBA.5

15. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to unlicensed

communications devices manufacturers.

Therefore, we will utilize the SBA

definition applicable to manufacturers

of Radio and Television Broadcasting

and Communications Equipment.

According to the SBA regulations,

unlicensed transmitter manufacturers

must have 750 or fewer employees on

order to qualify as a small business

concern.6 Census Bureau data indicates

that there are 858 U.S. companies that

manufacture radio and television

broadcasting and communications

equipment, and that 778 of these firms

have fewer than 750 employees and

would be classified as small entities.7

We do not believe this action would

have a negative impact on small entities

that manufacture unlicensed spread

spectrum devices. Indeed, we believe

the actions should benefit small entities

because it should make available

increased business opportunities to

small entities. We request comment on

these assessments.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

16. Part 15 transmitters are already

required to be authorized under the

Commission’s certification procedure as

a prerequisite to marketing and

importation. See 47 CFR 15.101, 15.201,

15.305, and 15.405. Additionally,

manufacturers of direct sequence spread

spectrum systems must submit a

determination of system processing gain

to the Commission in order to obtain

product certification.

17. The proposed regulations will add

permissible methods of operation for

frequency hopping spread spectrum

systems. No new reporting or

recordkeeping requirements are

proposed for the manufacturers of

frequency hopping spread spectrum

devices. However, the rules proposed in

the Further Notice would eliminate the

requirement that manufacturers of direct

sequence systems submit evidence of

compliance with a minimum processing

gain. Therefore, the proposed rules

reduce the reporting and recordkeeping

burdens placed on all manufacturers,

including small entities. None of the

proposals would require alteration of

any existing products.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

18. 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: (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.

19. At this time, the Commission does

not believe the proposals contained in

the Further Notice will have a

significant economic impact on small

entities. The Further Notice does not

propose new device design standards.

Instead, it relaxes the rules with respect

to the types of devices which are

allowed to operate pursuant to the

spread spectrum regulations. There is

no burden of compliance with the

proposed changes. Manufacturers may

continue to produce devices which

comply with the former rules and, if

desired, design devices to comply with

the new regulations. The proposed rules

will apply equally to large and small

entities. Therefore, there is no

inequitable impact on small entities.

Finally, the FNPRM does not

recommend a deadline for

implementation. We believe that the

proposals are relatively simple and do

not require a transition period to

31588 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

implement. An entity desiring to take

advantage of the relaxed regulations

may do so at any time.

20. Unless our views are altered by

comments, we find that the proposed

rule changes contained in this FNPRM

will not present a significant economic

burden to small entities. Therefore it is

not necessary at this time to propose

alternative rules. Notwithstanding our

finding, we request comment on

alternatives that might minimize the

amount of adverse economic impact, if

any, on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule

21. None.

22. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301,

302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), the

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

is hereby Adopted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Proposed Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

Part 15 as follows:

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY

DEVICES

1. The authority citation for part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304,

307, 336 and 544A.

2. Amend § 15.247 as follows:

a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory

text, (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)

and (d).

b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(3) and

(b)(4) as paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5).

c. Add a new paragraph (b)(3), and

revise new paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5).

d. Remove paragraph (e).

e. Redesignate paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).

f. Revise new paragraphs (e), (f), and

(g) (The Note following redesignated

paragraph (g) is unchanged.).

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

§ 15.247 Operation within the bands 902–

928 MHz, 2400–2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5850

MHz.

(a) Operation under the provisions of

this section is limited to frequency

hopping and direct sequence spread

spectrum systems and digitally

modulated intentional radiators that

comply with the following provisions:

(1) * * *

(ii) Frequency hopping systems

operating in the 5725–5850 MHz band

shall use at least 75 hopping

frequencies. The maximum 20 dB

bandwidth of the hopping channel is 1

MHz. The average time of occupancy on

any frequency shall not be greater than

0.4 seconds within a 30 second period.

(iii) Frequency hopping systems in

the 2400–2483.5 MHz band shall use at

least 75 non-overlapping channels,

except that as few as 15 nonoverlapping channels may be used for

systems that intelligently modify their

hopsets in accordance with paragraph

(g) of this section. Hopsets modified in

this manner must be re-determined at

least once every 30 seconds. The

average time of occupancy on any

channel shall not be greater than 0.4

seconds within a period of 0.4 seconds

multiplied by the number of hopping

channels employed.

(2) Systems using direct sequence

spread spectrum and digital modulation

techniques may operate in the 902–928

MHz, 2400–2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5850

MHz bands.

(b) * * *

(1) For frequency hopping systems in

the 2400–2483.5 MHz band employing

at least 75 hopping channels, and all

frequency hopping systems in the 5725–

5850 MHz band: 1 Watt. For all other

frequency hopping systems in the 2400–

2483.5 band: 0.125 Watt

* * * * *

(3) For systems using digital

modulation in the 902–928 MHz, 2400–

2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5780 MHz

bands: 1 Watt.

(4) Except as shown below in this

paragraph (b)(4), if transmitting

antennas of directional gain greater than

6 dBi are used, the peak output power

from the intentional radiator shall be

reduced below the stated values in

paragraph (b)(3) by the amount in dB

that the directional gain of the antenna

exceeds 6 dBi.

(i) Systems operating in the 2400–

2483.5 MHz band that are used

exclusively for fixed, point-to-point

operations may employ transmitting

antennas with directional gain greater

than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak

output power of the intentional radiator

is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that

the directional gain of the antenna

exceeds 6 dBi.

(ii) Systems operating in the 5725–

5850 MHz band that are used

exclusively for fixed, point-to-point

operations may employ transmitting

antennas with directional gain greater

than 6 dBi without any corresponding

reduction in transmitter peak output

power.

(iii) Fixed, point-to-point operation,

as used in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and

(b)(4)(ii) of this section, excludes the use

of point-to-multipoint systems,

omnidirectional applications, and

multiple co-located intentional radiators

transmitting the same information. The

operator of the spread spectrum

intentional radiator or, if the equipment

is professionally installed, the installer

is responsible for ensuring that the

system is used exclusively for fixed,

point-to-point operations. The

instruction manual furnished with the

intentional radiator shall contain

language in the installation instructions

informing the operator and the installer

of this responsibility.

(5) Systems operating under the

provisions of this section shall be

operated in a manner that ensures that

the public is not exposed to radio

frequency energy levels in excess of the

Commission’s guidelines. See

§ 1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter.

(c) In any 100 kHz bandwidth outside

the frequency band in which the spread

spectrum or digitally modulated

intentional radiator is operating, the

radio frequency power than is produced

by the intentional radiator shall be at

least 20 dB below that in the 100 kHz

bandwidth within the band that

contains the highest level of the desired

power, based on either an RF conducted

or a radiated measurement. Attenuation

below the general limits specified in

§ 15.209(a) is not required. In addition,

radiated emissions which fall in the

restricted bands, as defined in

§ 15.205(a), must also comply with the

radiated emission limits specified in

§ 15.209(a) (see § 15.205(c)).

(d) For direct sequence spread

spectrum and digitally modulated

systems, the peak power spectral

density conducted from the intentional

radiator to the antenna shall not be

greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band

during any time interval of continuous

transmission.

(e) For the purposes of this section,

hybrid systems are those that employ a

combination of both frequency hopping

and direct sequence or digital

modulation techniques. The frequency

hopping operation of the hybrid system,

with the direct sequence or digital

modulation operation turned off, shall

have an average time of occupancy on

any frequency not to exceed 0.4 seconds

within a time period in seconds equal

to the number of hopping frequencies

employed multiplied by 0.4. The direct

sequence or the digital modulation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31589

operation of the hybrid system, with the

frequency hopping operation turned off,

shall comply with the power density

requirements of paragraph (d) of this

section.

(f) Frequency hopping systems are not

required to employ all available

hopping channels during each

transmission. However, the system,

consisting of both the transmitter and

the receiver, must be designed to

comply with all of the regulations in

this section should the transmitter be

presented with a continuous data (or

information) stream. In addition, a

system employing short transmission

bursts must comply with the definition

of a frequency hopping system and must

distribute its transmissions over the

minimum number of hopping channels

specified in this section.

(g) The incorporation of intelligence

within a frequency hopping system that

permits the system to recognize other

users within the spectrum band so that

it individually and independently

chooses and adapts its hopsets to avoid

hopping on occupied channels is

permitted. The coordination of

frequency hopping systems in any other

manner for the express purpose of

avoiding the simultaneous occupancy of

individual hopping frequencies by

multiple transmitters is not permitted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14526 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 22 and 24

[WT Docket No. 01–108; FCC 01–153]

Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review

To Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules

Affecting the Cellular Radiotelephone

Service and the Commercial Mobile

Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission, pursuant to its year 2000

Biennial Review of regulations,

proposes to modify or eliminate

regulations that have become outdated

as a result of technological change,

increased competition in the

Commercial Mobile Radio Services

(CMRS), supervening changes to related

Commission rules, or a combination of

these factors. The Commission focuses

its review on the cellular rules, although

it also considers modification or

elimination of certain other rules that

affect all Public Mobile Services. The

NPRM specifically addresses the

following rules: cellular service

requirements and limitations; cellular

technical rules, including the analog

cellular compatibility standard, the

electronic serial number rule,

channelization requirements,

modulation requirements and in-band

emissions limitations, the wave

polarization requirement, assignment of

system identification numbers,

determination of cellular geographic

service area, and service

commencement and construction

periods; the incidental services rule;

and the cellular anti-trafficking rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

July 2, 2001; reply comments are due on

or before August 1, 2001. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due on or before July 2, 2001. Written

comments must be submitted by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the modified information

collection(s) on or before August 13,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file

comments by paper should send

comments to the Commission’s

Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, SW.; TW–A325; Washington, DC

20554. Comments filed through the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer,

Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lauren Van Wazer at (202) 418–0030

(Wireless Telecommunications Bureau).

For additional information concerning

the information collection(s) contained

in this document, contact Judy Boley at

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) in WT Docket

No. 01–108, FCC 01–153, adopted May

3, 2001 and released May 17, 2001. The

complete text of the document is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, (202) 857–3800, 445 12th

Street, SW., CY–B400, Washington, DC

20554. The document is also available

via the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/

fcc01153.pdf. This Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking contains proposed

information collection(s) subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. This NPRM contains proposed

revisions to existing information

collections. The Commission, as part of

its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

information collection(s) 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 Notice; OMB

notification of action is due 60 days

from date of publication of this NPRM

in the Federal Register. Comments

should address: (a) Whether the

proposed modifications to existing

information collections are necessary for

the proper performance of the functions

of the Commission, including whether

the information shall have practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission’s 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.

2. The information collection

requirements of 47 CFR 22.901, which

is contained in OMB 3060–0508 (66 FR

109), is being proposed for elimination.

Further, the Commission proposes to

revise the information collection

associated with 47 CFR 22.937, which is

also contained in OMB 3060–0508. By

revising 47 CFR 22.937 to eliminate the

financial demonstration requirement for

all cellular licensees who are not

competing with cellular renewal

licensees, the Commission thus

eliminates the information collection