Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69387 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 901, 40 U.S.C. 

3103) 

[FR Doc. 2014–27629 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880 

[LLWO301000.L13400000] 

RIN 1004–AE24 

Competitive Processes, Terms, and 

Conditions for Leasing Public Lands 

for Solar and Wind Energy 

Development and Technical Changes 

and Corrections 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2014, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

published in the Federal Register with 

a 60-day comment period a proposed 

rule, to facilitate responsible solar and 

wind energy development and to 

receive fair market value for such 

development. (79 FR 59021) The 

proposed rule would promote the use of 

preferred areas for solar and wind 

energy development and establish 

competitive processes, terms, and 

conditions (including rental and 

bonding requirements) for solar and 

wind energy development rights-of-way 

both inside and outside these preferred 

areas. The proposed rule would also 

make technical changes, corrections, 

and clarifications to existing rights-ofway regulations. Some of these changes 

would affect all rights-of-way and some 

provisions would affect particular types 

of actions, such as transmission lines 

with a capacity of 100 Kilovolts (kV) or 

more, or pipelines 10 inches or more in 

diameter. 

The BLM received requests to extend 

the comment period of this proposed 

rule. In response to these requests, the 

BLM is extending the comment period 

for 15 days beyond the end of the initial 

comment period. As a result of this 

extension, the comment period will now 

close on December 16, 2014. 

DATES: Send your comments on this 

proposed rule to the BLM on or before 

December 16, 2014. The BLM need not 

consider, or include in the 

administrative record for the final rule, 

comments that the BLM receives after 

the close of the comment period or 

comments delivered to an address other 

than those listed below (see ADDRESSES). 

ADDRESSES: Mail: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of 

Land Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 

1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: 1004–AE24. Personal or 

messenger delivery: Bureau of Land 

Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 

2134 LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, DC 20003. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at this Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Brady, Bureau of Land Management, at 

202–912–7312, for information relating 

to the BLM’s solar and wind renewable 

energy programs, or the substance of the 

proposed rule. For information 

pertaining to the changes made for any 

transmission line with a capacity of 100 

kV or more, or any pipeline 10 inches 

or more in diameter you may contact 

Lucas Lucero at 202–912–7342. For 

information on procedural matters or 

the rulemaking process you may contact 

Jean Sonneman at 202–912–7405. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, to contact 

the above individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comment Procedures 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments by any one of 

the several methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Please make your comments as 

specific as possible by confining them to 

issues directly related to the content of 

the proposed rule, and explain the basis 

for your comments. The comments and 

recommendations that will be most 

useful and likely to influence agency 

decisions are: 

1. Those supported by quantitative 

information or studies; and 

2. Those that include citations to, and 

analyses of, the applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The BLM is not obligated to consider 

or include in the Administrative Record 

for the rule comments received after the 

close of the comment period (see DATES) 

or comments delivered to an address 

other than those listed above (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the 

address listed under ADDRESSES during 

regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask in your comment to 

withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Janice M. Schneider, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27639 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 74 

[GN Docket Nos. 14–166 and 12–268; FCC 

14–145] 

Spectrum Access for Wireless 

Microphone Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document initiates a 

proceeding to address how to 

accommodate the long-term needs of 

wireless microphone users. Wireless 

microphones play an important role in 

enabling broadcasters and other video 

programming networks to serve 

consumers, including as they cover 

breaking news and broadcast live sports 

events. They enhance event productions 

in a variety of settings—including 

theaters and music venues, film studios, 

conventions, corporate events, houses of 

worship, and internet webcasts. They 

also help create high quality content 

that consumers demand and value. 

Recent actions by the Commission, and 

in particular the repurposing of 

broadcast television band spectrum for 

wireless services set forth in the 

Incentive Auction R&O, will 

significantly alter the regulatory 

environment in which wireless 

microphones operate, which 

necessitates our addressing how to 

accommodate wireless microphone 

users in the future. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 5, 2015, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

January 26, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Murray, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–0688, email: 

Paul Murray@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket Nos. 14–166 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69388 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and 12–268, by any of the following 

methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: Paul Murray, Office of 

Engineering and Technology, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 

6A162. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket Nos. 

14–166 and 16–268, FCC 14–145, 

adopted September 30, 2014, and 

released September 30, 2014. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

examines wireless microphone users’ 

needs and technologies that can address 

them, and seek comment on a variety of 

existing and new spectrum bands that 

might accommodate those respective 

needs. The Commission seeks ways of 

improving access to the TV band 

spectrum that remains available for 

wireless microphones, as well as how to 

facilitate the transition of wireless 

microphones out of the 600 MHz Band 

spectrum repurposed for wireless 

services. In addition, it examines access 

to other spectrum bands where wireless 

microphones currently operate, propose 

various revisions, and seek comment on 

potential revisions that may better 

accommodate wireless microphones in 

these bands, while protecting the 

interests of other users that may operate 

in these bands. Further, the Commission 

seeks comment on proposals for 

authorizing wireless microphone 

operations in additional spectrum 

bands, consistent with its overall 

spectrum management goals. The 

Commission intends to enable the 

development of a suite of wireless 

microphone devices and applications, 

and to provide wireless microphone 

users with access to spectrum through 

efficient and effective sharing of the 

spectrum with other users. 

Bands Currently Available for Wireless 

Microphones 

2. Over the years, the Commission has 

authorized wireless microphone 

operations in different spectrum bands 

to accommodate the growing use of 

these devices by different users. The 

technical and operational rules for 

wireless microphone operations in these 

different bands have varied, depending 

on the band, and generally are designed 

to enable wireless microphone users to 

operate in shared bands along with 

other users. The Commission has 

authorized wireless microphones to 

operate both on a licensed basis, limited 

to specified users, and on an unlicensed 

basis. 

3. Recent actions affecting operations 

in the TV bands. In recent years, the 

Commission has taken several actions in 

three proceedings affecting the TV band 

spectrum—which have involved the 

repurposing of UHF TV band spectrum 

for wireless services in the 700 MHz 

band (channels 52–69, the 698–806 

MHz band), the development of rules for 

TV White Spaces (TVWS) devices in the 

TV bands, and the repurposing of the 

600 MHz Band that will follow the 

upcoming incentive auction—that have 

affected and will affect the future 

availability of spectrum for wireless 

microphone uses in these bands. As 

discussed throughout the NPRM, these 

proceedings inform the instant 

proceeding, providing the foundation 

for many of the issues that we are 

addressing as part of our comprehensive 

evaluation of how to accommodate 

wireless microphone uses both in the 

near and longer term. 

4. In January 2010, following the 

repurposing of TV channels 51–69 in 

the 700 MHz band for wireless services, 

the Commission adopted the TV Bands 

Wireless Microphones R&O and FNPRM 

(WT Dockets 08–166 and 08–167, ET 

Docket No. 10–24), 75 FR 9113, March 

1, 2010, which required that all wireless 

microphones cease operations on the 

700 MHz band no later than June 12, 

2010, one year after the end of the DTV 

transition. In that decision, the 

Commission also first authorized 

unlicensed wireless microphone 

operations in the TV band spectrum 

(channels 2–51, except channel 37), 

pursuant to a limited waiver and certain 

part 15 rules, pending adoption of final 

rules for unlicensed operations in the 

TV bands. 

5. In September 2010, the 

Commission adopted the TV White 

Spaces Second MO&O, 75 FR 75814, 

December 6, 2010, which took several 

actions that affected the availability of 

the TV band spectrum for wireless 

microphones, including adopting rules 

pursuant to which wireless microphone 

users and unlicensed TVWS device 

users would have access to unused TV 

band channels. Specifically, the 

Commission provided that the two 

unused television channels (where 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69389 

available) nearest channel 37 (above and 

below) would be designated for wireless 

microphone operations and not be made 

available for TVWS devices. The 

Commission also provided that, to the 

extent that unused TV channels were 

available for use by both wireless 

microphones and TVWS devices at a 

particular location, licensed wireless 

microphone operators and certain 

qualifying unlicensed wireless 

microphone operators could obtain 

interference protection from TVWS 

devices by reserving channels at the 

specified locations during the times of 

operation through use of the TV bands 

databases. 

6. In the Incentive Auction R&O, 79 

FR 48441, August 15, 2014, the 

Commission adopted rules to 

implement the broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction, which will 

involve reorganizing the existing 

television band and repurposing a 

portion of the UHF television band for 

new wireless broadband services, and 

which will affect wireless microphone 

operations across the current TV bands. 

The Commission took several actions to 

accommodate wireless microphone 

operations, including making rule 

revisions to provide additional 

opportunities for wireless microphone 

operations in the bands that will remain 

allocated for television following the 

incentive auction, permitting wireless 

microphone operations in the newlydesignated 600 MHz Band guard bands, 

and providing for a transition period to 

give wireless microphone users that will 

need to cease operating in the spectrum 

repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless 

services sufficient time to replace their 

equipment and move operations to other 

spectrum bands available for wireless 

microphone uses. 

7. Finally, concurrent with adoption 

of the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission adopted the TV Bands 

Wireless Microphones Second R&O to 

broaden the eligibility for wireless 

microphone operations in the TV bands 

to include entities that regularly utilize 

a substantial number of wireless 

microphones for large events and 

productions and which have the same 

needs for interference protection as 

existing LPAS licensees. Specifically, 

the Commission expanded Part 74 LPAS 

eligibility to include qualifying 

professional sound companies and 

operators of large venues that routinely 

use 50 or more wireless microphones. 

8. Table of bands in which wireless 

microphones are authorized today. In 

the following table, the Commission set 

forth the bands in which wireless 

microphones and related audio devices 

generally operate today pursuant to the 

Commission’s rules. 

Frequency band Licensed/unlicensed Rule part 

26.1–26.48 MHz (VHF) ................................................................................... Licensed ..................................................... Part 74. 

161.625–161.775 MHz (VHF) ......................................................................... Licensed ..................................................... Part 74. 

Portions of 169–172 MHz band (VHF) ........................................................... Licensed ..................................................... Part 90. 

88–108 MHz (FM) ........................................................................................... Unlicensed .................................................. Part 15. 

450–451, 455–456 MHz (UHF) ...................................................................... Licensed ..................................................... Part 74. 

54–72, 76–88, 174–216, 470–608, 614–698 MHz (VHF and UHF) .............. Licensed and unlicensed ........................... Part 74 and Part 15 

(waiver). 

944–952 MHz (UHF) ....................................................................................... Licensed ..................................................... Part 74. 

902–928 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz (ISM bands) ................................................ Unlicensed .................................................. Part 15. 

1920–1930 MHz (unlicensed PCS) ................................................................ Unlicensed .................................................. Part 15. 

Ultra-wideband (3.1–10.6 GHz) ...................................................................... Unlicensed .................................................. Part 15. 

9. Additional spectrum resources 

used by wireless microphone operators. 

Apart from operating wireless 

microphones in the bands where 

wireless microphones are specifically 

authorized, as identified in the table 

above, some wireless microphone users 

have gained access to other bands for 

temporary operations under specified 

conditions. For instance, in recent years 

professional sound engineering 

companies providing major event 

productions (e.g., major sports events) 

have obtained conditional access to the 

1435–1525 MHz band for wireless 

microphone operations on a temporary, 

location-specific basis pursuant to timelimited grants of Special Temporary 

Authority (STA). In seeking temporary 

access to this spectrum, which is 

allocated for Aeronautical Mobile 

Telemetry (AMT) services, these parties 

have represented that the spectrum 

resources otherwise available to them at 

those locations are insufficient to enable 

them to provide the desired level of 

coverage for scheduled events, and they 

must fully coordinate their operations 

with representatives of the AMT service. 

Overview of Operations Today 

10. Most wireless microphones users 

today operate their devices on a 

secondary basis in the TV bands, with 

most operations occurring in the UHF 

TV bands. This use can be attributed to 

several factors. The TV bands have long 

been licensed for wireless microphone 

operations by broadcasters and similar 

program producers, where they have 

had access to many unused television 

channels. In addition, this spectrum has 

favorable propagation conditions, the 

signals do not suffer significantly as a 

result of body loss, antenna sizes are 

manageable, and there is relatively 

lower power consumption leading to 

longer battery life—all of which can be 

helpful for many wireless microphone 

purposes. Manufacturers have supplied 

numerous devices, operating on varying 

segments of the TV bands that provide 

a range of users with wireless 

microphones suitable for their different 

needs. Although there has at times been 

a shortage of sufficient available 

channels in major cities and congested 

areas, where unused channels are 

limited and numerous microphones 

might be needed for particular events, 

the overall availability of spectrum in 

the TV bands has enabled wireless 

microphone users generally to address 

their needs. 

Overall Framework for Addressing 

Wireless Microphone Needs 

11. The Commission seeks to develop 

a full record and framework for 

understanding the various needs of 

different wireless microphone users and 

the types of microphones that 

effectively can address those needs. 

Users and Uses 

12. Given that many different types of 

users employ wireless microphones in a 

variety of settings, we seek to develop 

a more complete record on the various 

different users of wireless microphones 

and to better understand their particular 

needs for wireless microphones. 

Wireless microphone operations range 

from professional uses, with the need 

for numerous high-performance 

microphones along with other 

microphones, to the need for a handheld 

microphone to transmit voice 

communications, to a range of different 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69390 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

uses and needs for different numbers of 

microphones in a given setting. 

13. The Commission seeks comment 

on the different groups of wireless 

microphone operators and their various 

uses of microphones, including the 

particular applications served by the 

microphones, the types and number of 

devices used, the extent to which the 

devices are analog or digital, the settings 

in which they are used, and the 

frequency bands they use. The 

Commission asks that the different user 

groups, or the manufacturers of 

products for these groups, provide 

detailed information about the 

particular nature of wireless 

microphone uses by different groups of 

users. 

14. The Commission starts by asking 

for specific information from 

broadcasters, who have relied heavily 

on access to the TV bands, regarding 

their wireless microphone uses and 

needs. For instance, what are their 

specific needs for wireless microphones 

with regard to ENG? What kinds of 

wireless microphones are used, and to 

what extent are the TV bands currently 

used for these microphones? What is the 

full range of types of devices and 

applications needed? What is the range 

of quality of microphones that are 

needed, in terms of performance quality, 

voice representation, latency, etc. The 

Commission asks that commenters 

discuss the different types of wireless 

microphones that may be needed in for 

different applications, including the 

microphones that need to have high 

audio quality as well as those that do 

not require such high fidelity. 

Recognizing that different numbers of 

microphones may be used in different 

settings both in studio and on an 

itinerant basis, what number of 

microphones are used in which 

settings? Do broadcasters make use of 

bands outside of the TV bands, and if 

so, in what ways and for what type of 

applications? The Commission asks 

commenters to provide information on 

the range of devices and types of 

applications that they employ, and the 

bands in which they operate. 

15. Similarly, The Commission 

requests information from the other 

licensed users of the TV bands, 

including movie and cable program 

producers, other content producers, as 

well as the newly eligible sound 

engineering companies and large venue 

operators, about their uses and needs. It 

asks for comment on the same types of 

issues, including current uses, the 

operational environment in which they 

may operate, the numbers that may be 

used, the range in quality of 

microphones used, the bands used for 

different wireless microphone 

applications, etc. 

16. In addition the Commission seeks 

comment from other wireless 

microphone users, large and small, that 

use wireless microphones in numerous 

settings. As discussed, these users 

include convention and conference 

centers, corporations, schools, houses of 

worship, theme parks, music bands, 

internet webcasts, karaoke bars, and 

numerous other users. What are their 

particular wireless microphone uses, 

what types of devices do they use, the 

numbers used depending on the 

settings, in which bands, etc.? 

17. As noted, users range from the 

professional user, who may employ 

many microphones and coordinate their 

operations with other uses in the band, 

to the amateur user who may use only 

one microphone. We seek general 

comment on how the Commission 

should be thinking about these different 

types of users as it evaluates how to 

accommodate these users and uses over 

the long term. 

18. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the nature of the demand 

for wireless microphones by various 

wireless microphone users. Have users 

been employing more wireless 

microphones in recent years? Has 

demand for their use changed, and is it 

growing? It requests that commenters 

provide a full explanation of the nature 

of their wireless microphone uses today 

and what they anticipate their uses will 

be in the future. 

Suitability of Different Bands 

19. The Commission seeks comment 

on additional ways in which it could 

accommodate various wireless 

microphone operations in different 

bands, which include a range of 

frequencies as low as the television VHF 

bands and as high as 7 GHz. These 

bands also vary in terms of potentially 

available bandwidth, including some 

with very small channel bandwidth. In 

addition, some of these bands are 

available for wireless microphone use 

only on a licensed basis, while others 

only an unlicensed basis. 

20. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the nature of different bands, 

including the propagation features that 

are associated with them, should inform 

our consideration of how to 

accommodate wireless microphones. 

For what types of applications is lower 

band spectrum most suitable? What 

types of uses can be effective in middle 

or higher frequency bands? How much 

bandwidth is necessary for different 

types of wireless microphone uses? 

What kinds of applications are most 

suitable for unlicensed operations? 

Development, Manufacturing, and 

Distribution of New Types of Wireless 

Microphones 

21. As the Commission explores how 

to accommodate wireless microphones 

uses in different bands, it seeks 

comment on the factors that 

manufacturers take into account as they 

consider and evaluate whether to 

develop and manufacture new devices 

for distribution in the near and longer 

term. The Commission seeks general 

comment here on these various factors, 

and expects that commenters also 

would address these considerations 

with regard to the discussion specific 

bands and proposals in Section III of the 

NPRM. 

22. As manufacturers consider 

developing new wireless microphone 

devices in different bands, to what 

extent do the propagation features, the 

size of band, that potential availability 

(or lack of availability) of different 

segments of the band, the extent to 

which the band allows licensed or 

unlicensed uses, the technical rules 

(existing or as revised), the certainty 

that the band will continue to be 

available over the long term, or other 

aspects contribute to the likelihood that 

new devices will be made for a 

particular band? What factors do 

manufactures consider with respect to 

developing different types of wireless 

microphones for different users and 

applications, whether for highest audio 

quality or for communications that does 

not require such performance quality? 

What kinds of economic factors do 

manufacturers consider? How important 

are economies of scale? To what extent 

will manufacturers develop 

microphones that are designed only for 

niche markets? To what extent do 

considerations of the harmonization of 

potential harmonization of our rules 

with those of other countries affect a 

manufacturer’s decision to develop new 

microphones? 

23. In addition, assuming the 

Commission was to adopt revised rules, 

or make available additional spectrum 

for access by wireless microphone 

operators, it seeks comment on 

manufacturer’s expectations regarding 

the time-to-market for newly developed 

devices. What factors would enable 

devices to be developed and introduced 

quickly into the marketplace? Based on 

these factors, are certain bands more 

likely candidates for nearer term 

introduction of devices than others? 

What factors would result in 

introduction of new devices only over 

the longer term? What are reasonable 

timelines for the development, 

manufacture, marketing, and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69391 

distribution for new wireless 

microphones, and what factors 

contribute to shorter or longer 

timelines? The Commission invites 

comment on any other related factors 

that we should consider. 

Transition Issues 

24. With the likelihood of there being 

less UHF television band spectrum 

available for wireless microphone 

operators following the incentive 

auction, the Commission invites general 

comment on a range issues affecting 

transitioning of wireless microphone 

users—whether to the use of different 

devices operating outside of repurposed 

600 MHz Band spectrum, or the use of 

devices in different bands that can 

effectively serve their needs in a more 

efficient fashion. 

25. Although the precise amount of 

TV bands spectrum that will be 

repurposed will be known only 

following the auction, we anticipate that 

many wireless microphone users will 

need to move their operations out of the 

repurposed spectrum no later than 39 

months following issuance of the 

Channel Reassignment PN. At the same 

time, many wireless microphone users 

accessing spectrum that may remain 

allocated for television services may 

seek to transition to different devices, 

including more efficient digital devices, 

or replace older devices, that may 

operate both in the bands likely to 

remain allocated for television or in 

other bands. The Commission invites 

comment on these transition issues, the 

extent to which they are interrelated, 

and how best to ensure that wireless 

microphone users transition to new, 

more efficient devices to the full extent 

possible. 

26. What types of actions would 

facilitate the transitions that will be 

required in order to accommodate 

different wireless microphone operators’ 

needs over the long term? As the 

Commission considers these various 

transition issues, what lessons might be 

drawn from the transition of wireless 

microphone operations out of the 700 

MHz band following the repurposing of 

that band? How can we best 

communicate the nature of the 

transitions along with the necessary 

actions users must undertake to the 

large community of disparate 

microphone users? What timeframes are 

needed for users of various size and 

sophistication to plan for, purchase, and 

install new systems? How is this 

affected by users’ decisions to remain in 

the TV bands or to migrate to other 

bands and types of microphones? 

27. What actions should the 

Commission, wireless microphone 

manufacturers and distributors, and 

organizations representing wireless 

microphone users take to facilitate a 

smooth transition out of the repurposed 

600 MHz Band, and to promote the use 

of more efficient devices to the extent 

possible, including devices that operate 

outside of the TV bands? For instance, 

should users be encouraged to transition 

their operations to new devices that 

meet their needs in a more efficient 

manner, such as digital devices? Is there 

a particular role that the Commission 

should play in helping inform 

consumers of these transitions and the 

types of devices in different bands that 

can accommodate their respective 

needs? 

28. As the Commission considers 

these transition issues, it requests 

information on the timeframes that may 

be necessary for design, manufacture, 

certification, and marketing of new 

wireless microphone devices, such as 

those that would include any technical 

changes that we may adopt in this 

proceeding. What considerations or 

factors affect these timeframes? 

Similarly, the Commission seeks 

comment on the life-cycles and/or 

replacement cycles associated with 

different wireless microphones. What 

are the general life cycles associated 

with different wireless microphones, 

including both high-end microphones 

and consumer devices? What types of 

factors, other than regulatory changes, 

necessitate replacement or otherwise 

affect or influence decisions by 

particular users to purchase new 

equipment? Given that different users 

are continually replacing equipment, 

what steps should the Commission or 

manufacturers be taking now and in the 

future to help address wireless 

microphone users’ needs over the long 

term? 

Operations in Other Countries 

29. The Commission invites comment 

on whether the regulatory schemes for 

wireless microphone operations in other 

countries should inform our approach 

in this proceeding. Are there other 

regulatory models that are particularly 

effective? Would any of those models be 

appropriate for particular bands as we 

consider revisions to our rules? 

Promoting Technological Advances 

30. As the Commission seeks to 

accommodate the needs of wireless 

microphone operators, it also seeks to 

leverage technological advances that can 

help ensure that these needs can be met 

effectively, and in a manner that 

promotes the efficient use of spectrum. 

The Commission explores here the 

kinds of technological advances that 

achieve these goals. 

Advances in Wireless Microphone 

Radio Technologies 

31. Advances in analog and digital 

transmission. The Commission has 

already sought comment on the extent 

to which wireless microphone users 

today use analog or digital devices. Most 

users in the TV bands currently use 

analog devices, though digital devices 

increasingly are being developed and 

sold for operations in the TV bands. In 

other bands, devices today may be only 

analog or digital, or both. The 

Commission seeks to develop a full 

record here regarding technological 

developments in the basic design of 

wireless microphones that can enable 

more efficient wireless microphone 

operations, whether analog or digital, 

and promoting their uses in various 

spectrum bands. 

32. The Commission begins by asking 

for comment on the state of analog and 

digital wireless microphone 

technologies that are available for use 

today. It asks that commenters address 

the state of technologies available in the 

different bands. Are there improvements 

in analog technologies that are enabling 

more efficient uses for various wireless 

microphone applications? What are 

they, and what additional efficiency 

gains are foreseen? What about for 

digital technologies? The Commission 

asks that commenters provide detailed 

information about the kinds of 

improvements in digital technologies 

that are being made with respect to 

microphone’s performance capabilities 

for different types of uses. 

33. In those bands in which both 

analog and digital devices operate, to 

what extent can the use of analog 

devices or digital devices, or some 

combination of the two, affect whether 

the spectrum is being used most 

efficiently to serve wireless microphone 

users’ needs? While the Commission 

recognizes, that analog devices may be 

appropriate or necessary at this time for 

certain types of applications, digital 

devices can be effective for others, and 

we seek comment on the range of 

efficiency gains that may be possible 

depending on whether analog or digital 

devices, or a mix of the two, are used. 

34. In particular, the Commission 

requests that commenters provide 

information on the state of analog and 

digital technologies that operate in the 

TV bands, and the extent to which 

operators are using the most efficient 

microphones that can serve their 

particular needs. In earlier proceedings, 

the Commission has noted that the 

number of analog wireless microphones 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69392 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

operating on a six-megahertz television 

channel may be as few as 6–8 

microphones. More recently, 

manufacturers have developed 

microphones that operate more 

efficiently, including analog 

microphones that may allow twice that 

number on a six megahertz channel. The 

Commission asks that commenters 

provide information technological 

advancements that enable more efficient 

analog use. To what extent does the 

number of wireless microphones that 

can be deployed on a channel number 

depend on the power levels used, other 

operational factors, or the specific 

application(s) for which the wireless 

microphone is being used? Similarly, 

how many digital devices can operate 

on a television channel, and what 

operational factors or use factors might 

affect this number? 

35. The Commission also invites 

comment on analog and digital devices 

in other bands, and the numbers of 

wireless microphones that can be 

accommodated by use of those 

particular technologies. In bands where 

analog devices are being used, are they 

necessary in these bands or can digital 

devices be used instead? What steps can 

manufacturers take to make analog and 

digital devices more efficient, if any? 

How much more efficient could these 

devices be, and how many more 

microphones might be able to operate 

on the same amount of spectrum, and 

for what types of uses? Do 

manufacturers have plans to take such 

steps, and if not, why not? 

36. The Commission requests that 

commenters fully address the benefits 

and tradeoffs associated with use of 

analog and digital technologies. In 

earlier proceedings on the TV bands, 

wireless microphone manufacturers 

have indicated that analog devices may 

be necessary for certain types of uses 

(e.g., those with need for high quality 

audio, with lower latency). The 

Commission seeks to develop a full 

record on this issue, and seek comment 

on the extent to which this may 

continue to be the case. For what types 

of applications are analog devices 

necessary or appropriate? For what 

types of operations are digital devices 

well suited? To what extent are 

improvements in digital technologies 

(e.g., reductions in latency, 

improvements in fidelity) enabling more 

wireless microphone applications to be 

effectively served through digital 

technologies? 

37. Are there rule changes that the 

Commission can adopt generally, or 

with respect to operations in particular 

bands, that would help promote more 

efficient use of spectrum by wireless 

microphone operations, whether analog 

or digital? For instance, are there 

technological standards for wireless 

microphone devices that should be 

adopted, such as the European 

Telecommunications Standards Institute 

(ETSI) standards for analog and digital 

emission masks, that would help 

promote more efficient use? Should 

such standards apply to particular 

operations in particular bands, or be 

adopted more generally across bands? 

As more efficient standards are 

developed, what actions should the 

Commission take to ensure that these 

standards are utilized by wireless 

microphone manufacturers in the future 

or that our rules are updated where 

necessary or appropriate? 

38. To the extent more efficient analog 

or digital devices can effectively serve 

the needs of particular users, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

best to encourage wireless microphone 

users to employ these more efficient 

technologies. Is the transition to more 

efficient devices already occurring? 

Have users been migrating to the use of 

more efficient wireless microphones, 

and if so how and why? Are 

manufacturers and distributors taking 

steps to promote the transition to use of 

more efficient wireless microphones in 

cases in which those microphones 

would be effective in meeting the needs 

of the particular users? What role 

should manufacturers and distributors 

play in this respect? 

39. Considering that use of more 

efficient wireless microphones is an 

important component of 

accommodating wireless microphone 

users’ needs in the future, what actions 

should the Commission take to 

encourage or promote the use of more 

efficient technologies? Should it require 

the use of digital technologies for 

certain types of uses, and if so, by what 

mechanisms would we accomplish that? 

Should we phase out the certification or 

sale of inefficient wireless microphone 

technologies, and if so, how would we 

define ‘‘inefficient,’’ and in what bands 

and on what timetable? 

40. Use of general purpose wireless 

standards. The past several decades 

have seen widespread development and 

deployment of ‘‘general purpose’’ 

wireless technology standards that may 

be used for a wide variety of end-user 

applications. For example, the 802.11 

family of standards serves as the basis 

of Wi-Fi technologies in the 2.4, 5 GHz 

bands, and other bands; the DECT 

standard provides for digital audio 

transmission in the 1920–1930 MHz 

band; and the LTE standard serves, 

increasingly, as a basis for broadband 

transmissions in several different 

licensed spectrum bands. The 

Commission inquires about the extent to 

which these, and other, general purpose 

technologies are now, or will be in the 

future, suitable for use in the wireless 

microphone context. The Commission is 

specifically interested to understand 

what kinds of use cases are appropriate 

for general-purpose wireless 

technologies and which are not. To 

what extent do general purpose 

technologies increase the ability of 

wireless microphones to share spectrum 

with other kinds of applications (e.g., in 

the Wi-Fi bands, discussed in Section 

III.C., of the NPRM), thereby potentially 

increasing the quantity of spectrum 

available for wireless microphones? 

Could the use of such technologies 

potentially improve performance and 

reduce cost of wireless microphone 

equipment? Should the Commission 

endeavor to promote the use of general 

purpose wireless technologies by 

wireless microphone users? What are 

the tradeoffs? 

Other Technological Advancements 

41. The Commission seeks comment 

on other technological developments 

that could promote more opportunities 

for accommodating wireless 

microphone operations in different 

bands over the longer term. 

Developments in these areas are not 

mutually exclusive. 

42. Equipment with replaceable 

components. The Commission seeks 

comment on the development of 

replaceable components (e.g., modules) 

for the transmitters and receivers in the 

wireless microphone systems that 

operate on specific frequencies and can 

be exchanged with different 

components that operate on other 

frequencies available for wireless 

microphone operations. The use of such 

components potentially could reduce 

the costs to consumers to the extent 

changes need to be made in the way 

they operate their microphones in the 

future, e.g. in the event that the certain 

frequencies are no longer available to 

them, or if they update their equipment 

to newer, more efficient devices that 

may be capable of dynamically using 

the spectrum. Do wireless microphones 

today incorporate modular radio 

components? Do manufacturers 

contemplate including this kind of 

modularity in future models? To what 

extent would such components mitigate 

the costs of replacing wireless 

microphones that may no longer be 

permitted on certain frequencies? To 

what extent do they add new costs? If 

manufacturers are not including these 

component features, why not? Are there 

performance tradeoffs associated with 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69393 

respect to including such components? 

What steps, if any, should the 

Commission take to promote the use of 

such microphones in certain bands, 

such as the TV bands? 

43. Tunability of Equipment within 

Bands. The Commission ask for 

comment on the extent to which 

equipment is designed to be tunable 

within a band. Which types of 

microphones are tunable for which 

types of users? Are tunable microphones 

marketed only to more sophisticated 

users? What costs are associated with 

designing a tunable wireless 

microphone system? Do manufacturers 

anticipate developing more tunable 

microphones in the future? The 

Commission requests that commenters 

explain their considerations when 

determining whether or not to design 

tunable microphones. 

44. Multi-Band Equipment. The 

Commission invites comment on the 

extent to which manufacturers are, or in 

the future will be, developing wireless 

microphones that can operate in more 

than one spectrum band. What kinds of 

technical or other issues are raised, and 

to what extent would these issues vary 

to the bands may not be adjacent or 

nearby? For instance, to what extent 

might this raise design issues (e.g., 

antenna, battery, or other component 

issues)? Could these devices help ensure 

that users have devices that can meet 

their needs when operating at locations 

where the availability of spectrum in 

different bands may vary? Could 

development of such devices promote 

economies of scale? Could they help 

ensure that users purchasing such 

devices would be more assured of 

having access to the spectrum resources 

they need? If there were multi-band 

devices, could this allow greater 

reliability that the microphones could 

address users’ needs depending on the 

particular locations where those 

wireless microphones were needed? 

What are the tradeoffs with regard to 

developing such devices? 

45. Use of databases. Wireless 

microphone technologies today do not 

use a database as a mechanism for 

indicating to the wireless microphone 

user that particular frequencies in a 

particular area were available, such as at 

particular locations that were not being 

used by other users with priority over 

the wireless microphone users. White 

space devices operating in the TV bands 

must access a database to determine that 

spectrum is available for their 

operations and that they would not 

potentially be interfering with other 

users at specified locations and times. 

Would wireless microphone systems 

potentially benefit from the ability to 

access to a database? Could requiring 

use of a database for gaining access to 

spectrum in a particular band or 

identifying particular locations and 

times where they may operate without 

causing interference to other users in 

the band help to mitigate or eliminate 

the concerns of other users in the band 

that wireless microphone operations 

might cause harmful interference to 

these other users? What might be the 

costs and benefits of developing and 

using a database, and would these differ 

depending on the needs of particular 

types of wireless microphone users? 

46. Electronic key or similar 

mechanisms. Are there particular 

technologies, such as an ‘‘electronic 

key’’ or similar mechanism, that would 

ensure that a wireless microphone 

device be able to access and operate 

only on particular frequencies at 

particular locations and times, but 

nowhere else, thus eliminating the 

potential for harmful interference to 

other users (such as other users with 

primary or superior spectrum rights are 

particularly sensitive to harmful 

interference) and by so doing provide 

additional opportunities for wireless 

microphone operations in bands? Are 

there other approaches that would 

effectively limit wireless microphone 

operation to particular locations, thus 

protecting other operators from harmful 

interference? The Commission seeks 

broad comment on the development and 

use of these types of mechanisms and 

the tradeoffs or practicalities associated 

with them. Are there particular 

scenarios or bands in which use of these 

mechanisms could provide additional 

opportunities to access spectrum? 

47. Use of other technologies that 

promote opportunities to access 

additional spectrum. The Commission 

seeks comment on other technological 

advancements that could promote 

greater opportunities for wireless 

microphones to share use of spectrum in 

different bands. Are there technological 

advances that are currently available or 

contemplated that better enable wireless 

microphones to adjust dynamically to a 

particular interference environment, 

either automatically or through 

coordination, to promote more efficient 

use among the wireless microphones or 

among wireless microphones and other 

users in the band? For instance, could 

devices that include sophisticated 

dynamic power variability capabilities 

help promote more intensive use of the 

spectrum resource in a given area? 

Would these more dynamic capabilities 

enable wireless microphones to vary or 

adjust power levels to minimize or 

eliminate interference to other users in 

a particular setting, or facilitate more reuse of the available spectrum? The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether technological advances along 

these lines could both facilitate more 

efficient use of the spectrum while also 

helping to ensure that they do not cause 

harmful interference to other users of 

the spectrum. Are there technologies 

that could enable certain wireless 

microphone applications to operate on 

spectrum licensed to wireless providers, 

subject to agreements reached with such 

providers? Are there other technological 

advancements that could help 

accommodate the various different 

wireless microphone users’ needs over 

the longer term? What are they? Are 

there actions the Commission should 

take to promote these developments so 

that they occur in a timely fashion? 

Operations in Specific Bands 

48. In this section, the Commission 

examines opportunities for wireless 

microphone operations in different 

spectrum bands—both those in which 

wireless microphones currently are 

authorized to operate and other bands 

that may hold potential for 

accommodating wireless microphone 

uses, whether in the near or longer term. 

VHF/UHF Television Bands 

49. As set forth in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, the current VHF/UHF 

television bands (channels 2–51, except 

channel 37) will be reorganized 

following the upcoming incentive 

auction. As a result of this auction, the 

amount of spectrum allocated for 

television services will be reduced and 

repacked, some of the current TV bands 

spectrum will be designated for 600 

MHz Band guard bands (including the 

duplex gap), and other TV bands 

spectrum will be repurposed for 600 

MHz Band wireless services. These 

revisions will affect wireless 

microphone operations, which currently 

operate throughout in existing TV 

bands, in several ways. The Commission 

seeks comment on wireless microphone 

operations with respect to each of these 

bands—the TV bands, the 600 MHz 

Band guard bands, and the 600 MHz 

Band being repurposed for wireless 

services. 

Discussion 

50. In this section, the Commission 

seeks comment on Part 74 rule revisions 

that we can make to accommodate 

licensed wireless microphone (and 

other LPAS) operations in the VHF and 

UHF spectrum in the repacked TV 

bands that will continue to be available 

for TV broadcast services following the 

incentive auction. We also invite 

comment on how best to facilitate the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69394 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

smooth transition of wireless 

microphones out of the repurposed 600 

MHz Band following the incentive 

auction. 

51. In this proceeding, the 

Commission does not address certain 

issues relating to wireless microphone 

operations in the TV bands and in the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band since these 

matters will be addressed instead in the 

part 15 proceeding. In particular, we do 

not here address the rules for 

unlicensed wireless microphone 

operations in the TV bands and the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band, which will 

be addressed as part of the part 15 

proceeding. Similarly, the Commission 

does not address in this proceeding, the 

technical rules for operations of 

unlicensed wireless microphones in the 

guard bands, including the duplex gap. 

Nor does it address here the technical 

rules for licensed wireless microphone 

operations in the duplex gap, since the 

technical issues relating to their 

operations are intertwined with the 

technical issues concerning unlicensed 

operations in the duplex gap and 

protection of licensed operations 

outside of the duplex gap. Finally, the 

Commission will address revisions 

pertaining to the white spaces databases 

in our part 15 proceeding. 

TV Bands 

52. In this proceeding, the 

Commission invited comments on 

potential revisions to the existing rules 

for part 74 wireless microphones (and 

other LPAS) operations in the spectrum 

that will remain allocated for TV 

services following the repacking 

process. Specifically, it invites comment 

on revisions to the technical rules for 

LPAS operations on the VHF band; on 

permitting licensed LPAS operations on 

channels in locations closer to the 

television stations (including within the 

DTV contour), without the need for 

coordination, provided that the 

television signal falls below specified 

technical thresholds; on adoption of the 

ETSI emission mask standard for analog 

and digital wireless microphones; and 

general comment on other potential 

revisions concerning licensed LPAS 

operations in the TV bands. 

VHF Band Revisions 

53. Background. Under the existing 

technical rules for LPAS operations 

under part 74, licensed wireless 

microphone users that operate on a 

secondary basis in the VHF band 

(channels 2–13) operate generally under 

the same technical rules as for 

operations in the UHF bands. However, 

with respect to power levels, VHF band 

operations are restricted to no more than 

50 mW, well below the 250 mW levels 

permitted for operations in the UHF 

bands. The Commission notes that 

several manufacturers have developed 

wireless microphones that make use this 

VHF spectrum. Our understanding, 

however, is that licensees make only 

limited use of this band for wireless 

microphone operations due to the 

limited power levels permitted. 

54. Discussion. The Commission seeks 

comment on the current uses of the VHF 

television channels for wireless 

microphone operations, and the 

potential for expanding use of this 

spectrum for wireless microphone 

operations in the future. Are there 

technical impediments to making 

greater use of this spectrum for wireless 

microphones? 

55. In particular, the Commission 

invites comment on whether it should 

revise the power limits for LPAS 

operations in the VHF band to conform 

to those applicable for LPAS devices in 

the UHF television band? What would 

be the benefits or risks associated with 

making such revisions? Due to the 

propagation characteristics of this band, 

would allowing higher power limits 

raise concerns regarding potential 

interference to TV stations operating in 

the VHF bands or the wireless video 

assist devices that operate in the upper 

VHF band? Would the minimum cochannel separation distance of 4 

kilometer from the contour need to be 

increased? If so, to what distance? Or 

could a tiered requirement be 

implemented, such as where wireless 

microphones operating at 50 mW or less 

could comply with the 4 kilometer 

separation distance, while higher power 

operations would have to comply with 

a greater separation distance? The 

Commission asks that commenters 

explain fully the benefits or risks, 

including the kinds of wireless 

microphone operations that would be 

facilitated by such changes. 

56. The Commission also invites 

comment on any other rule revisions 

concerning use of the VHF television 

spectrum that would facilitate more use 

of this spectrum for wireless 

microphone operations. It asks that 

commenters provide specifics about any 

proposals, and address the benefits and 

risks associated with such changes. 

Licensed Co-Channel Operations Closer 

Than Specified Separation Distances 

57. In this proceeding, the 

Commission seeks to develop a more 

extensive record on whether it should 

permit licensed wireless microphone 

operations on a co-channel basis closer 

than the generally applicable separation 

distances set forth in our rules, without 

the need for coordination, provided that 

certain specified conditions at the 

locations where the wireless 

microphone operations would take 

place. Our goal is to provide more 

opportunities for licensed wireless 

microphone operations in the spectrum 

that will continue to be allocated for 

television services where the wireless 

microphone operations would not cause 

harmful interference to TV operations. 

Permitting such operations could help 

ensure that licensed operators have 

access to more channels, particularly in 

indoor locations. 

58. The Commission proposes to 

allow LPAS licensees to operate cochannel with television closer to the 

television station than provided by the 

separation distance rules, including 

inside the DTV contour, in those 

locations in which the co-channel TV 

signal is below a specified threshold, 

which would indicate that the over-theair TV signal unlikely to be received or 

receivable. Provided that an appropriate 

TV signal threshold were established, 

we believe that such a rule serve to 

ensure that wireless microphone 

operations could have access to 

additional channels in the TV bands 

spectrum without causing harmful 

interference to any over-the-air 

television viewers at those particular 

locations. 

59. If the Commission takes this 

approach, what would the suitable TV 

signal threshold be? One commenter in 

the incentive auction proceeding 

proposed that the suitable threshold 

would be ¥80 dBm over 200 kHz. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

threshold, or any other suitable 

threshold. It asks that commenters 

provide technical analyses of the 

threshold that they propose that we 

adopt. 

60. In addition, the Commission 

requests comment on whether, apart 

from establishing such a TV signal 

threshold, it should adopt any other 

safeguards to ensure that licensed 

wireless microphone operators comply 

with this threshold and do not 

otherwise cause harmful interference to 

TV reception. The Commission notes at 

the outset that because we would limit 

these types of operations to licensed 

wireless microphone users, we would 

expect such users to have the requisite 

wireless microphone systems, as well as 

technical and operational abilities, to be 

able to determine the level of the cochannel TV signals at a given location, 

and thus would be able to comply with 

any threshold rule that we adopted. Is 

this a reasonable expectation? To what 

extent would a wireless microphone 

operation require a low TV signal to be 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69395 

able operate effectively on a co-channel 

basis? Should we require licensed 

wireless microphone users to register 

their co-channel operations in the TV 

bands databases, which could provide 

information to any television licensee 

concerned about possible harmful 

interference? Are there other actions we 

should take? 

61. As an alternative approach, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should permit co-channel licensed 

wireless microphone operations in 

indoor venues, such as in theaters or 

music auditoriums. Could an 

appropriate approach towards indoor 

operations be developed that would also 

effectively preclude harmful 

interference to any potential TV viewers 

at indoor locations? For instance, could 

certain locations be readily identified 

where wireless microphone operations 

can be permitted, provided of course 

that they are operated consistent with 

applicable technical requirements, 

including power limits and out-ofbound emissions requirements? Or, 

considering that in order to operate 

effectively wireless microphones need 

access to channels that are sufficiently 

interference-free, is it reasonable to 

expect that co-channel wireless 

microphone operations would only take 

place in indoor locations on channels 

with relatively low or effectively nonexistent TV signal, and thus conclude 

that such operations would not be likely 

to effectively harm TV viewers? Some 

commenters in the incentive auction 

proceeding suggested that such 

operations may already take place 

without incident. As the Commission 

explores this approach, it seeks 

comment on the benefits or downsides 

of allowing licensed wireless 

microphone operations at indoor 

locations, or at specified types of indoor 

locations. The Commission asks that 

commenters provide any technical 

analysis bases for their 

recommendations. 

62. The Commission also invites 

comment on other approaches that it 

should take on expanding wireless 

microphone operations on a co-channel 

basis closer to television station 

operations. Again, commenters 

proposing any alternative approaches 

should provide technical analyses to 

support their approaches, and discuss 

the benefits of such an approach and 

how their approaches would not cause 

harmful interference to channels that 

would be used for wireless microphone 

operations. 

Adoption of ETSI Emission Mask 

Standards for Analog and Digital 

Wireless Microphones 

63. To promote more efficient use of 

the available channels in the spectrum 

in the TV bands spectrum, the 

Commission proposes revising the 

emission masks applicable to wireless 

microphones and LPAS devices, both 

with respect to analog and digital 

wireless microphones, to comply with 

the applicable ETSI standards for analog 

and digital wireless microphones that 

operate over 200 kHz channels. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

to require that emissions from analog 

and digital unlicensed wireless 

microphones comply with the emission 

masks in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 

422–1, Electromagnetic compatibility 

and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); 

Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 

3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: 

Technical characteristics and methods 

of measurement. The Commission 

believes that requiring wireless 

microphones to meet these tighter 

emission requirements will protect 

authorized services in adjacent bands 

from harmful interference, and will 

improve spectrum sharing by wireless 

microphones. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

64. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on the benefits of 

requiring unlicensed wireless 

microphones to comply with the ETSI 

limits, and whether these benefits 

would outweigh the costs. To what 

extent would adoption of the standards 

improve the efficiency of wireless 

microphone operations? If so, in what 

ways? To what extent would more 

microphones, whether analog or digital, 

be able to make use of the TV bands 

spectrum? Are these limits necessary to 

protect authorized services in adjacent 

frequency bands? To what extent would 

compliance with the proposed limits 

improve spectrum sharing by wireless 

microphones? To what extent have 

wireless microphone manufacturers 

developed wireless microphones that 

already comply with these standards? 

Would equipment manufacturers have 

difficulty in complying with these 

limits? Would a requirement to meet the 

ETSI standard affect the cost of a 

wireless microphone system? 

65. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether we should specify 

separate emission masks for analog and 

digital microphones, or whether a single 

mask is sufficient. For example, ETSI 

EN 300 422–1 suggests that its mask for 

digital microphones could also be used 

for analog microphones. If we were to 

decide to adopt these standards, how 

quickly should we require new devices 

to comply with the new standards? 

Because the ETSI emission masks are 

defined only over a frequency range of 

plus or minus one megahertz from the 

wireless microphone carrier frequency, 

we seek comment on the emission limits 

that should apply outside of this 

frequency range. For example, should 

this limit be the same as the emission 

limits at the outer edges of the ETSI 

masks (¥90 dBc)? Is some other limit 

more appropriate? 

66. In addition to the ETSI standards, 

or as an alternative, are there other 

technical standards that the 

Commission should adopt to promote 

more efficient use of the spectrum 

available for wireless microphone 

operations in the TV bands? If so, the 

Commission asks that commenters 

explain the bases for adoption of these 

standards, along with the associated 

benefits or potential costs. How quickly 

should the Commission require that 

wireless microphones comply with such 

standards? 

Other TV Bands Revisions 

67. The Commission also seeks 

comment generally on whether the 

Commission should adopt any other 

rule revisions for operations of wireless 

microphones in the TV bands spectrum 

that would facilitate more effective and 

efficient operations in these bands in a 

manner that would be consistent with 

the secondary status of LPAS operations 

in the band. To the extent that 

commenters contend that other rule 

revisions would be appropriate, the 

Commission asks that commenters 

provide detailed information on reasons 

for the proposed changes and the types 

of specific rules that they advocate. 

Eligibility for Licensed Operations in 

the Duplex Gap 

68. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the 

Commission provided that broadcasters 

and cable programming networks using 

wireless microphones on a licensed 

basis would be able to obtain 

interference protection from unlicensed 

devices in a portion of the duplex gap 

at specified times and locations, on an 

as-needed basis. The Commission is 

addressing the technical issues 

concerning licensed wireless 

microphone operations in the duplex 

gap in the companion part 15 

proceeding. 

69. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should expand eligibility 

for licensed wireless microphone 

operations in the duplex gap to include 

all of the entities eligible for part 74 

LPAS licenses in the TV bands. Would 

expanding eligibility to those entities 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69396 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

eligible for part 74 LPAS licenses in the 

TV bands create problems for 

broadcasters or cable programming 

networks operating on this spectrum, or 

would these different users for the most 

part operate at different locations, such 

that their operations would not likely 

interfere with each other? 

Transition Out of the 600 MHz Band 

Repurposed for Wireless Services 

70. The Commission seeks comment 

on how best to facilitate a smooth 

transition as wireless microphone and 

other LPAS users cease their operations 

on the repurposed 600 MHz Band 

frequencies no later than the end of the 

post-auction transition period (i.e., 39 

months after the issuance of the 

Channel Reassignment PN). Achieving a 

smooth transition will involve actions 

by the Commission, by manufacturers 

and distributors of wireless 

microphones, and by the various 

wireless microphone operators 

themselves, both licensed and 

unlicensed users. Although the specific 

UHF band frequencies that will be 

repurposed for 600 MHz Band wireless 

services will not be known until 

following the incentive auction, 

beginning preparation for transition as 

soon as possible will contribute to a 

smoother transition. 

71. The Commission also seeks 

comment on steps it should take to 

facilitate a smooth transition in which 

wireless microphone operations vacate 

the repurposed spectrum in the 600 

MHz Band. The Commission asks for 

comment on the extent to which 

consumer education and outreach can 

help to achieve this goal, and the means 

by which information can be made 

available to wireless microphone users 

in order to inform them of the need to 

vacate the band. The Commission also 

requests that commenters address 

whether labeling requirements, such as 

point of sale disclosure, can help to 

facilitate the transition. In addition, it 

proposes revising our rules to prohibit 

certification of part 74 wireless 

microphones that operate in repurposed 

600 MHz Band spectrum beginning nine 

months after the release of the Channel 

Reassignment PN, and to prohibit the 

manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, 

or shipment of such wireless 

microphones in the 600 MHz band in 

the United States, 18 months after the 

release of the Channel Reassignment 

PN. Finally, we propose to modify by 

rule LPAS licenses with frequencies that 

will be in the repurposed 600 MHz band 

and to delete these frequencies from 

LPAS licenses because they will not be 

available for such use after the end of 

the transition. 

72. In addition to the specific issues 

the Commission raise, comments should 

discuss how particular steps will 

promote ready access to the repurposed 

spectrum by 600 MHz Band wireless 

licensees, while at the same time 

providing for an orderly transition 

process for secondary and unlicensed 

users that currently are serving various 

important consumer needs using this 

spectrum. 

Consumer Education and Outreach; 

Disclosure Requirements 

73. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to inform users of wireless 

microphones on the steps necessary to 

prevent interference to new wireless 

operations in the 600 MHz spectrum, 

consistent with the Commission’s goals 

expressed in the Incentive Auction R&O. 

The Commission anticipates that there 

will be a need for significant education 

and outreach directed at wireless 

microphone users that must commence 

well before the auction and continue for 

a number of years beyond the end of the 

39-month transition period. These 

education and outreach efforts must be 

undertaken by the Commission, 

manufacturers, wireless microphone 

users groups, and relevant trade 

publications and other possible sources 

of information for wireless microphone 

users. As a companion to these efforts 

to educate consumer awareness on 

developments concerning the operation 

of wireless microphones, the 

Commission also proposes requiring 

that written disclosures accompany new 

devices at the point of sale to provide 

further education to wireless 

microphone users on the devices’ 

operations. 

74. Consumer Education and 

Outreach. The commission seeks 

comment on the consumer education 

and outreach efforts that should be 

employed to educate wireless 

microphone users, particularly 

unlicensed users operating in the 

repurposed 600 MHz band. Our goals 

are to make information available so 

users are aware that they must cease 

operating their wireless microphones on 

the repurposed 600 MHz Band no later 

than the end of the transition period 

(i.e., 39 months after the release of the 

Channel Reassignment PN); to set in 

motion a process so they are aware of 

relevant factors concerning the 

operation of wireless microphones that 

are currently in use; and to establish a 

means for users to locate additional 

spectrum and equipment for their 

operations. A successful consumer 

education and outreach campaign will 

involve the Commission staff working 

with a broad group of interested entities, 

including wireless microphone 

manufacturers, wireless microphones 

users, and user representatives. 

75. Given that a portion of the UHF 

spectrum that is currently used and 

available for wireless microphone 

operations may no longer be available 

following the incentive auction, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

wireless microphone users can be 

provided access to information on the 

specific frequencies and the geographic 

areas of repurposed spectrum that will 

no longer be available for wireless 

microphone use at the end of the 

transition. What specific information 

should be provided to wireless 

microphone users to ensure that they 

know the requirements for operating in 

the repurposed spectrum during the 

transition period and the need to exit 

the band by the end of the transition? 

Although the Channel Reassignment PN 

will provide information on the 

spectrum that will be repurposed and 

no longer available for wireless 

microphones, first the Commission 

seeks comment on what steps can be 

taken to provide wireless microphone 

users with information on the transition 

prior to the auction. For example, it 

seeks comment on whether explanations 

could be provided on the Commission’s 

Web site and on the Web sites of 

manufacturers that would explain the 

steps required under the Commission’s 

rules to vacate the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band, and any information on 

alternative spectrum that is currently 

available outside of this spectrum, as 

well any additional spectrum bands that 

may become available for wireless 

microphone operations beyond those 

already provided for in the rules. 

76. What other means should be 

employed to provide wireless 

microphone users notice of the 

repurposed spectrum that will be 

assigned to new wireless licensees, 

including the specific frequencies in the 

UHF spectrum and the geographic 

locations that will no longer be available 

for wireless microphone operations? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it would it be beneficial for 

wireless microphone users to have 

access to a database that identifies 

spectrum in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band. For example, should some form of 

online mapping tool be made available 

to allow users to enter the location and 

operating frequencies of a wireless 

microphone and determine whether it 

operates in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band? In the event that a database or 

similar approach is adopted, the 

Commission seeks comment on who 

should be responsible for developing 

and maintaining (hosting) it, including 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69397 

who should be responsible for its cost. 

Commenters should provide 

quantitative and qualitative data on 

costs and benefits of their proposals. 

77. Further, should the Commission 

work with wireless microphone 

manufacturers to obtain information on 

models of wireless microphones that the 

Commission could list on its Web site? 

For example, this information could 

include a list of all models of wireless 

microphones sold in the U.S., and all 

wireless microphone models that 

operate in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band, as well as where on the device or 

in its product literature the user could 

look to determine the frequencies on 

which it is capable of operating. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

making this type of information 

publically available would help to 

facilitate a smooth transition from the 

600 MHz Band. It also seeks comment 

on the costs and benefits of this 

approach, as well as alternative 

approaches. 

78. In addition to steps that may 

involve manufacturers, the Commission 

seeks comment on what steps other 

parties associated with the sale and 

operation of wireless microphones may 

be able to take to provide users with 

information relevant to the transition. 

These other parties may include: 

Wireless microphone distributors and 

retailers; parties that lease or manage 

wireless microphones; trade 

associations and user groups, including 

those that have participated in 

Commission proceedings concerning 

wireless microphones; organizations 

that host Web sites and publish 

information that addresses wireless 

microphone operations and use or are 

reasonably expected to have significant 

numbers of wireless microphone users 

among their members and readers; and 

engineering and industry associations or 

other groups with members that use or 

operate wireless microphones. 

Involvement in education and outreach 

by these parties will be essential, given 

users’ investment in wireless 

microphone equipment and the 

upcoming changes regarding wireless 

microphone use, including the 

requirement that they vacate the 600 

MHz Band. Further, it is important that 

education and outreach extend to 

information concerning any newlyallocated spectrum for wireless 

microphone operations and the 

potential for users to opt for a suite of 

wireless microphones operating in 

different spectrum bands and with 

different capabilities, depending on the 

user’s specific requirements. The 

Commission notes that wireless 

microphone users can encompass a 

wide range of entities, including both 

licensed and unlicensed users, and 

parties with differing levels of wireless 

microphone needs and expertise 

covering many different applications. 

Based on these considerations, it is 

likely that the need for information on 

the various spectrum bands that will be 

available for wireless microphone 

operations, and the conditions specific 

to each, will be vital. The Commission 

seeks comment on these matters, and on 

what steps can be taken to assure that 

the information to educate users on the 

transition will be commensurate with 

the appropriate needs and levels of 

expertise of all users. 

79. The Commission seeks comment 

on what additional information it 

should make available for wireless 

microphone users, including 

Commission-issued consumer ‘‘fact 

sheets’’ and ‘‘frequently asked 

questions’’ (FAQ’s) which would 

address, among other matters, 

information on operation in the 600 

MHz Band, the reason for the need to 

operate on frequencies outside of that 

band following the transition, the 

availability of other frequency bands for 

wireless microphone use, and the need 

to comply with Commission rules. The 

Commission further seeks comment on 

how to release or distribute these 

materials in order to most effectively 

and efficiently reach the target audience 

of wireless microphone users. 

80. The Commission seeks comment 

on the specific actions that wireless 

microphone manufacturers, distributors, 

retailers and other entities comprising 

the wireless microphone community 

should take to inform the wide range of 

wireless microphone users about the 

ongoing developments concerning 

wireless microphone use—particularly 

the need to vacate the repurposed 600 

MHz Band, the timetable for doing so, 

and the conditions for operating in the 

band during the transition period. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

and to what extent these entities can 

make this type of information available, 

including, as appropriate, by posting it 

on their Web sites, including it in all 

sales literature, or taking other steps to 

inform current or potential wireless 

microphone users of matters concerning 

the operation of their devices. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether manufacturers would consider 

rebates, equipment trade-ins, or similar 

programs to facilitate the transition, and 

what effect the 39-month transition 

period would have on a decision to 

implement such a program. In addition, 

we seek comment on the economic costs 

and benefits of adopting consumer 

outreach measures. 

81. Disclosure Requirements. The 

Commission proposes to revise its 

point-of-sale disclosure requirement 

that the Commission adopted in the 

Wireless Microphone Report and Order 

in order to provide information to 

wireless microphone users that may 

have to purchase or lease new 

equipment so that they can vacate the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band. In the TV 

Bands Wireless Microphones Report and 

Order, the Commission adopted a pointof-sale requirement to help assure that 

consumers were informed of their rights 

and obligations if they chose to operate 

wireless microphones and other low 

power auxiliary stations in the core TV 

bands (defined in the rule as channels 

2–51, excluding channel 37). 

Specifically, the Commission adopted a 

requirement for manufacturers and 

distributors of wireless microphones 

that operate in the core TV bands to 

provide a written disclosure informing 

consumers of the requirements for 

operating devices in that spectrum and 

to display the disclosure at the point of 

sale and on their Web sites. The 

Commission also provided that persons 

who manufacture or market wireless 

microphones destined for export and 

capable of operating in the 700 MHz 

Band must include labeling stating that 

the devices cannot be used in the 

United States. 

82. The Commission proposes to 

revise the existing point-of-sale 

disclosure requirement in order to 

facilitate a smoother transition in which 

wireless microphone users are informed 

of the need to vacate the repurposed 600 

MHz Band, while fully understanding 

their rights and obligations during the 

transition period and at the end of the 

transition period. With regard to sales of 

wireless microphones that are capable 

of operating in repurposed spectrum, it 

proposes to require that such sales 

include point-of-sale disclosures that 

inform buyers that they are buying a 

microphone that cannot be used in 

certain frequencies following the 

transition. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how point-of-sale 

disclosures could be designed to 

effectively address any ban on 

manufacturing and marketing of 

wireless microphones that are capable 

of operating in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band. The Commission proposes that 

the revised point-of-sale disclosures 

should direct buyers to the 

manufacturer’s toll free telephone 

number or the manufacturer’s Web site 

where the buyer can obtain more 

detailed information on the extent to 

which the microphone may be affected 

by repurposing the600 MHz Band. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69398 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Should it retain the existing language in 

the point-of-sale disclosure requirement 

that includes the Commission’s toll free 

number and the Commission’s Web site 

where users can obtain additional 

information on the operation of wireless 

microphones during the transition 

period and after the transition period? 

What other information should be 

included in the disclosure? 

83. The Commission proposes that the 

effective date for any disclosure 

requirement, including a point-of-sale 

requirement, which it may adopt in 

connection with this or a related 

proceeding, shall be 18 months after the 

release of the Channel Reassignment 

PN—which will mark the effective date 

of channel reassignments based on the 

repacking process, specify any specific 

channel assignments for television 

stations that will continue to broadcast, 

and start the clock running on the postauction transition period—or should 

some other date be used instead? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

particular factors that should enter into 

this determination. It notes that in 

adopting the current disclosure 

requirement, the Commission stated that 

it would remain in effect until the 

effective date of the final rules adopted 

in response to the 2010 TV Bands 

Wireless Microphones FNPRM. 

Post-Auction Prohibition of the 

Certification, Manufacture, or 

Marketing of LPAS Devices Operating 

on the 600 MHz Band 

84. All wireless microphones that 

now operate in the TV bands are 

certified as compliant with Part 74, 

Subpart H of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission decided in the 

Incentive Auction R&O that all wireless 

microphones that operate in the portion 

of the TV bands that will be repurposed 

for licensed wireless services may 

continue to operate in that spectrum 

during the post-auction transition 

period but must cease those operations 

no later than 39 months after release of 

the Channel Reassignment PN. At the 

end of the post-auction transition, 

licensed microphones will be permitted 

to operate in a portion of the duplex 

gap, and unlicensed wireless 

microphones will be permitted to 

operate in the guard bands and duplex 

gap. 

85. Because of these future changes in 

the permitted operating frequency range 

for wireless microphones, plus the rule 

changes for these devices that we 

propose in the NPRM and in the Part 15 

NPRM, the Commission need to 

establish cutoff dates for the 

certification, manufacturing, and 

marketing of wireless microphones in 

the repurposed spectrum to ensure that 

manufacturers cease making and 

marketing equipment that cannot be 

legally used after a certain date. Cutoff 

dates will encourage manufacturers to 

concentrate on developing wireless 

microphones that operate in compliance 

with new part 74 and part 15 rules. 

Because similar technical requirements 

would apply to both licensed and 

unlicensed wireless microphones, the 

Commission proposes to apply to both 

the same transition rules for 

certification, manufacturing, and 

marketing. This approach would be the 

least disruptive to wireless microphone 

manufacturers and users. The NPRM 

addresses these issues for licensed 

wireless microphones, and the Part 15 

NPRM addresses these issues for 

unlicensed wireless microphones. 

86. Because wireless microphones 

will no longer be authorized to operate 

in the 600 MHz Band beyond 39 months 

after the release of the Channel 

Reassignment PN, the Commission 

proposes revising its rules to prohibit 

the certification, manufacture, import, 

sale, lease, offer for sale or lease, or 

shipment (collectively, ‘‘manufacture or 

marketing’’) of wireless microphones 

devices intended for use in the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band in the 

United States. The Commission 

proposes taking this action pursuant to 

its authority under section 302(a) of the 

Communications Act. 

87. The Commission proposes this 

prohibition to ensure that wireless 

microphones will vacate the 600 MHz 

spectrum by the end of the transition. 

This action would be consistent with 

Commission actions when it required 

wireless microphones to cease operating 

in the former TV bands that were 

repurposed for 700 MHz Band wireless 

services and prohibited the 

manufacturer and marketing of wireless 

microphones intended for use in the 700 

MHz Band. The Commission is 

concerned that without this prohibition 

there may be greater potential for 

unauthorized use in the repurposed 600 

MHz Band, given the difficulty in 

educating users about the scope of the 

devices’ operations and problems we 

may otherwise encounter in enforcing a 

requirement that all wireless 

microphones users leave the band by 

the end of the transition. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. It notes, however, that some 

frequencies may not be cleared 

nationwide as a result of the incentive 

auction, creating some impaired blocks 

in the 600 MHz Band. The Commission 

proposes that parties may no longer 

submit applications to certify part 74 

wireless microphones that operate in 

repurposed TV spectrum beginning nine 

months after the release of the Channel 

Reassignment PN. It also proposes that 

we will not certify wireless 

microphones under part 74 that would 

operate in the 600 MHz guard bands or 

the unlicensed portion of the duplex 

gap. The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. In particular, it seeks 

comment on the appropriateness of the 

proposed cutoff dates. Should we 

provide longer or shorter time periods? 

Should we also require that, in any 

event, parties may not submit 

applications to certify wireless 

microphones that operate in repurposed 

TV spectrum later than 24 months after 

the effective date of the service rules we 

adopt in this proceeding, and 

microphones that do not comply with 

the new rules may not be manufactured 

and marketed later than 33 months after 

the effective date of the service rules the 

Commission adopts in this proceeding? 

88. The Commission also proposes 

that the effective date of any prohibition 

on manufacturing or marketing these 

devices will be 18 months after the 

release of the Channel Reassignment 

PN. The Commission notes that the 

particular frequencies that will need to 

be vacated will not be known until the 

release of the Channel Reassignment 

PN, although parties have been on 

notice since at least 2012 that wireless 

microphones may have to transition out 

of portions of the 600 MHz Band. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

extent to which manufacturers and 

other entities have already begun to 

educate current and potential wireless 

microphone users about the potential 

for a transition out of the 600 MHz 

Band. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on the economic costs 

and benefits of different effective dates 

for the proposed prohibition on 

manufacturing or marketing. 

89. Finally, to the extent that the 

Commission determines to prohibit 

such manufacture or marketing, we 

propose that any such ban would not 

apply to devices manufactured in the 

United States solely for export. It seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

Modification of LPAS Licenses To 

Remove Authorization for Operations 

on the 600 MHz Band 

90. Pursuant to our authority under 

Section 316 of the Communications Act, 

the Commission proposes to modify 

existing LPAS licenses, to the extent 

necessary, to delete frequencies 

identified as repurposed for the 600 

MHz Band in the Channel Reassignment 

PN, effective on the date that the postauction transition period ends. The 

Commission has already taken action in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69399 

the TV Bands Wireless Microphones 

Second Report and Order adopted 

earlier this year to ensure that any LPAS 

licenses granted between the effective 

date of that order and the end of the 

post-auction transition period would be 

subject to the condition that operation 

in the repurposed 600 MHz Band must 

cease by the end of the post-auction 

transition period. 

91. The Commission’s proposed 

actions in the instant proceeding would 

similarly modify, to the extent 

necessary, all other LPAS licenses 

granted prior to the effective date of TV 

Bands Wireless Microphone Second 

Report and Order that authorize 

operations on frequencies that will be 

repurposed for the 600 MHz Band. In 

addition, the Commission proposes that 

following these license modifications, 

the LPAS licenses will continue to 

include authorization to use all 

frequencies currently included in those 

licenses other than the repurposed 600 

MHz Band. Finally, we propose that if 

a licensed user must cease operations of 

a wireless microphone prior to the end 

of the post-auction transition period 

(i.e., because it causes harmful 

interference to any 600 MHz licensee’s 

operations), the license relating to that 

wireless microphone will be modified 

automatically without Commission 

action to delete the authorization to 

operate on the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band, effective on the date that 

operations are required to cease. 

92. The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals, and on the extent to 

which their adoption would promote 

the public interest by facilitating the 

clearing of all licensed wireless 

microphone operations from the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band by the end 

of the transition period. 

26.100–26.480 MHz, 161.625–161.775 

MHz, 450–451 MHz, and 455–456 MHz 

Bands 

93. The Commission seeks comment 

on the current use of these bands for 

wireless microphone operations, and 

the future for more expansive use of 

these bands. What particular types of 

wireless microphones are used in the 

bands, and for which types of 

applications are they best suited. 

Considering the small bandwidths 

available in each of these bands, what 

kinds of limitations are there on the 

types of applications that can be served 

using these bands? How many 

microphones can operate on these bands 

using today’s technologies? Are there 

technological advances that may 

promote more intensive use? The 

Commission seeks comment on any 

potential revisions that it should make 

to facilitate the use of these bands for 

wireless microphone operations. 

88–108 MHz FM Band 

94. Background. Over the years there 

have been some wireless microphone 

operations in the 88–108 MHz FM band 

on an unlicensed basis. As discussed, 

wireless microphone operations on this 

spectrum was permitted before wireless 

microphones were authorized to access 

any channels in the TV bands. Wireless 

microphones that comply with the rules 

for unlicensed device operations in this 

band, as sets forth in § 5.239 of our part 

15 rules, may operate on no more than 

a 200 kHz bandwidths with low 

emissions (field strength of emissions 

must not exceed 250 microvolts/meter 

at 3 meters). 

95. Discussion. To what extent do 

wireless microphone users continue to 

make use of this band for their 

operations? If so, for what types of 

wireless microphone applications? To 

what extent will use of the spectrum in 

this band be useful for accommodating 

wireless microphone users’ needs in the 

future? Are there any rule revisions that 

would facilitate use of this spectrum 

while also preserving these channels for 

use by the primary FM broadcast 

services? The Commission asks that 

commenters proposing any rule 

revisions submit technical information 

in support of their proposals, as well as 

analysis of the benefits of such revisions 

and likely impact on FM broadcasters. 

169–172 MHz Band 

96. Background. Under the 

Commission’s part 90 rules, entities 

eligible to hold a Public Safety Pool or 

Industrial/Business Pool license may 

operate wireless microphones on a 

secondary basis on certain frequencies 

in the 169–172 MHz band, which is 

allocated primarily for federal use. 

Specifically, these rules permit wireless 

microphones to be operated on only 

eight frequencies: 169.445 MHz, 169.505 

MHz, 170.245 MHz, 170.305 MHz, 

171.045 MHz, 171.105 MHz, 171.845 

MHz, and 171.905 MHz. The emission 

bandwidth may not exceed 54 kHz, the 

frequency stability of the microphones 

must limit the total emission to within 

± 32.5 kHz of the assigned frequency, 

and operations may not exceed an 

output power level of 50 milliwatts. 

Entities eligible to operate wireless 

microphones under the part 90 rules 

include a variety of users, including 

those eligible to hold LPAS licenses 

under part 74 as well as many other 

entities, including: state and local 

government entities; commercial 

entities in general; educational, 

philanthropic or ecclesiastical 

institutions; clergy; hospitals; clinics; 

and medical associations. 

97. Wireless microphone operations 

are not protected from other licensed 

operations in the band and must not 

cause interference to any government or 

non-government operations, and 

wireless microphone license 

applications are subject to government 

coordination. The federal systems in the 

band are required to be capable of 

narrowband operations on 12.5 kHz 

channels. The other non-federal 

licensed operations in the band, which 

also are secondary to the federal 

allocation in the band, operate on 

narrowband channels and include: (1) 

operations by licensees on 36 specified 

assignable channels, no larger than 

11.25 kHz, between 169.425 MHz and 

171.925 MHz, for the purpose of 

transmitting hydrological or 

meteorological data: (2) operations by 

licensees on 9 assignable channels, no 

larger than 11.25 kHz, between 170.425 

MHz and 172.375 MHz, for forest 

firefighting and conservation purposes 

(four assignable east of the Mississippi 

River and five assignable west of the 

Mississippi River); and (3) operations 

assignable on one 11.25 kHz channel for 

public safety activities; and remote 

pickup broadcast stations on one 12.5 

kHz channel at 170.15 MHz in certain 

parts of the country. 

98. In the 2010 TV Bands Wireless 

Microphones R&O and FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether it should revise these part 90 

rules to facilitate broader wireless 

microphone use in these frequencies. 

Some commenters in that proceeding 

suggested that operating in this band 

may offer additional opportunities for 

some licensed wireless microphone 

operations, though several indicated 

that wireless microphone operations 

under these rules may not currently 

provide a viable option for all wireless 

microphone users, particularly where 

‘‘premium professional audio quality’’ is 

required. One comment also indicated 

that the few available frequencies were 

insufficient except for small users. 

99. In this proceeding, the 

Commission requests information about 

the current use of spectrum in the 169– 

172 MHz band for wireless microphone 

operations, and it requests comment on 

the potential for more expansive and 

intensive use of this spectrum. In 

particular, the Commission ask for 

comments on different ways in which 

the spectrum in the band could be used 

for wireless microphone operations 

without interfering with the federal 

operations, and the other secondary 

services that may use portions of this 

band at particular locations. The 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69400 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Commission also inquires about the 

technical rules that we should adopt 

were we to authorize additional wireless 

microphone use of this band. 

100. Commenters should provide 

information about how this spectrum is 

currently used by wireless microphones 

and describe the specific uses and 

applications for such devices under part 

90. In particular, the Commission asks 

that commenters address why relatively 

few entities are licensed to operate 

wireless microphones in this band. To 

what extent, for instance, does the 

relatively narrow bandwidth permitted 

under Part 90 (with 54 kHz emission 

mask limitation) affect the audio quality 

and the types of usage on those 

frequencies when compared with part 

74 LPAS systems in the TV bands 

(permitting as much as 200 kHz)? 

101. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether and what steps it 

could take to make the existing 

frequencies a more viable option for 

more wireless microphone users. The 

applicable technical rules are over thirty 

years old, and the Commission seeks 

comment on the extent of subsequent 

technical improvements in wireless 

microphone technology in this band. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the technical specifications of current 

microphones in this band and what rule 

changes would be necessary to enable 

improved fidelity to support additional 

wireless microphone applications. 

102. Commenters should also discuss 

the potential for future wireless 

microphone use in these frequencies, as 

well as how revisions could make this 

spectrum more useful for wireless 

microphone applications. Since the 

current channels available for 

microphones include four sets of 

channels that are close to each other, 

one possible action we might take 

would be to allow wireless microphone 

licensees to combine each of the 

neighboring sets of channels with each 

other, making four channels with larger 

bandwidth available for wireless 

microphone operations. For instance, 

the authorizations for operating on 

channels 169.445 MHz and 169.505 

MHz could be combined, allowing for 

operations across the two channels over 

a bandwidth of approximately 120 kHz, 

with the center frequency being at 

169.475 MHz. Would allowing these 

channels to be combined to this larger 

bandwidth accommodate additional 

wireless microphone uses, and do 

commenters support such action? 

Commenters also should discuss 

whether such a revision would increase 

the likelihood of interference to federal 

use or other secondary non-federal use 

of the spectrum, and whether the rules 

also should include additional 

provisions to protect these other users. 

103. Another approach would be to 

make as much of the 169–172 MHz band 

as possible available for wireless 

microphone use on a secondary basis. 

Secondary operations are not normally 

coordinated with primary operations. 

Given the relatively low power of 

wireless microphones and the limited 

nature of their use we believe the risk 

to primary services is relatively small 

except perhaps in rare instances of 

operation in close proximity. 

Nevertheless, are there certain 

circumstances where coordination with 

the federal government or other 

incumbent services may be appropriate? 

What impact might this have on 

wireless microphone operations in the 

band, as well as on other operations in 

the band? Alternatively, should certain 

areas be excluded for licensed wireless 

microphones operating in this band? In 

considering this possible expansion of 

wireless microphone use across the 

band, the Commission notes that there 

are many locations, or many frequencies 

at particular locations, where the 

spectrum is not being used either by the 

federal government or by other 

secondary users. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether wireless 

microphone licensees should be 

allowed to operate on channels of 

bandwidths up to 200 kHz (if available 

at particular locations), the same as 

permitted in the TV bands, and in 

addition should be required to comply 

with the ETSI standards that we are 

proposing to adopt with respect to 

wireless microphone operations under 

the technical rules for LPAS device 

operations in the TV bands and other 

bands. The Commission seeks comment 

on this approach, and whether such an 

approach could be designed in such a 

way as to protect federal and other 

secondary operations from interference 

from wireless microphone operations. 

Under this approach, to what extent 

could certain types or locations of 

wireless microphone use (e.g., indoor 

uses) more easily be accommodated? If 

the Commission were to provide 

authorization for more expansive use by 

wireless microphones licensees, it seeks 

comment on the service rules that we 

should adopt. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the technical rules 

that should apply for wireless 

microphone operations. For instance, 

under this approach, to what extent 

should we adopt other technical 

requirements that would apply to LPAS 

devices that operation in the VHF TV 

bands that currently apply (including 

restricting power to 50 mW, the same as 

permitted wireless microphones 

currently in the 169–172 MHz band), or 

under our proposed revisions for 

operations in the TV VHF band (which 

would permit higher power levels, up to 

250 mW)? 

104. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on any other approaches 

it could take to facilitate wireless 

microphones operations in the 169–172 

MHz band. Commenters proposing other 

approaches should provide the rationale 

for such approaches, including how 

those approaches could be designed to 

protect incumbent operations of other 

services in the band. To the extent that 

the Commission revises technical rules 

to provide more access to spectrum in 

these bands, it asks that manufacturers 

address how quickly new devices might 

be manufactured and made available in 

the marketplace. Are there other 

equipment issues that we should 

address? 

944–952 MHz Band and Adjacent 941– 

944 MHz and 952–960 MHz Bands 

105. Under current rules, broadcasters 

and broadcast network entities already 

are permitted to operate wireless 

microphones and other LPAS devices in 

8 megahertz of spectrum in the 944–952 

MHz band on a licensed basis. In this 

section, the Commission seeks comment 

generally on LPAS operations in the 

944–952 MHz band, and it proposes to 

adopt the ETSI standards for analog and 

digital wireless microphone operations 

and to expand eligibility for licensed 

LPAS operations to include the same 

additional entities that currently are 

eligible to operate LPAS devices on a 

licensed basis in the TV bands. The 

Commission also proposes to permit 

LPAS operations on a licensed basis in 

portions of the two spectrum bands 

immediately adjacent to the 944–952 

MHz band (941–944 MHz and 952–960 

MHz bands), which potentially could 

enable licensed wireless microphone 

users access to up to nineteen megahertz 

of spectrum across the 941–960 MHz 

frequencies, depending of course on the 

availability of unused spectrum across 

these frequencies. 

944–952 MHz Band 

106. The Commission requests that 

commenters provide information about 

the current uses of this band for 

licensed wireless microphone 

operations, as well as the potential for 

more intensive use of this band for these 

operations among the other broadcast 

services that use the band. How 

extensively do LPAS licensees make use 

of this 8-megahertz band, and in what 

types of locations? How much spectrum 

is available for wireless microphone 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69401 

uses in the band, considering that the 

other authorized services are point-topoint operations are at fixed locations? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

both outdoor and indoor uses. For what 

types of wireless microphone operations 

is that band used? What are the 

advantages and disadvantages of using 

this band for wireless microphone 

operations? 

107. Similarly, the Commission 

requests comment on the potential for 

more intensive use of this band in the 

future. Considering that less spectrum 

may be available for wireless 

microphone operations in the UHF 

television bands, do licensees expect to 

make greater use of this band in this 

band, including migration particular 

types of uses to this spectrum when 

they are spectrum-constrained in the TV 

bands? If so, for what types of 

applications? Do the propagation 

features associated with this spectrum 

band, and its relatively close proximity 

to the UHF television band, facilitate 

particular types of wireless microphone 

applications? For instance, is this band 

particularly well-suited for high-quality 

uses? What are the potential limitations 

on the use of this band for licensed 

wireless microphone operations? 

Commenters should provide whatever 

information they believe may be helpful 

to the Commission as we evaluate the 

role that this band can play in helping 

accommodate the various needs of 

wireless microphone users over the near 

and long term. 

108. In our discussion of licensed 

LPAS operations in the TV Bands, the 

Commission proposes to adopt the ETSI 

emission mask standards both for analog 

and digital microphones. Here, the 

Commission proposes adopting those 

standards for LPAS operations in the 

944–952 MHz Band. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

109. In addition to seeking comment 

on use of this band by existing 

licensees, the Commission proposes 

expanding eligibility in the 944–952 

MHz band to include additional classes 

of wireless microphone users, in 

particular all of the other entities 

eligible for operation of LPAS devices in 

the TV bands on a licensed basis, which 

have wireless microphone needs similar 

to those of broadcasters and broadcast 

network entities and merit license status 

in the TV bands. Considering that these 

other entities are sophisticated users, 

and often already coordinate their 

wireless microphone operations in the 

TV bands with broadcasters, the 

Commission believes that such users 

should be able to effectively work with 

broadcasters when accessing spectrum 

at different locations. Expanding 

eligibility for these uses potentially 

could help ensure that entities that 

merit licensee protection in the TV 

bands, and may have access to less TV 

bands spectrum following the incentive 

auction, have access to additional 

spectrum that they may need for their 

licensed operations. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

expand eligibility to include a subset of 

these other TV bands LPAS licensees, or 

some other group of entities? If so, for 

what reasons? 

110. Are there technical limitations 

and other considerations we should 

weigh when assessing expansion of 

licensee eligibility in this band? Would 

expansion have the effect of limiting the 

spectrum at particular locations 

available for use by broadcasters? 

Alternatively, would the likely 

operations of these LPAS wireless 

microphones by different users at 

different locations help ensure that the 

low power, short-range operations 

would not overlap or cause interference 

among LPAS operations? Considering 

the technical characteristics of the fixed 

Aural Broadcast Auxiliary (STL and 

ICR) stations, and noting that these fixed 

services currently share use of the band 

with LPAS operations, what additional 

safeguards, if any, would be needed to 

insure that these fixed Aural Broadcast 

Auxiliary stations are protected if 

additional, non-broadcast classes of 

users are added to the band? 

941–944 MHz Band and 952–960 MHz 

Band 

111. 941–944 MHz band. Most of this 

three megahertz—the two and a half 

megahertz between 941.5–944 MHz—is 

available for licensing for Private and 

Common Carrier Fixed Microwave 

Services. Broadcast auxiliary stations 

licensed prior to November 21, 1984 

(including STL and ICR) may continue 

to operate in the 942–944 MHz band on 

a co-primary basis. After applicants 

were given the opportunity to file 

applications and to resolve disputes 

over frequency pairs internally and then 

by lottery, subsequent licenses were 

obtained on a first-come-first-servedbasis, operating in different parts of this 

spectrum on channels that range from 

25 kHz to 200 kHz in bandwidth. The 

Commission has issued approximately 

820 licenses in this 941.5–944 MHz 

portion, where the vast majority are for 

Private Operational Fixed Point to Point 

Microwave Service, with some for Aural 

Broadcast Auxiliary Service (including 

STL and ICR), and a few for Common 

Carrier Fixed Point to Point Microwave 

Service. Fixed point-point links in these 

bands are typically used for long 

distance low data-rate links between 

locations that have line of sight 

capability. They employ directional 

antennas and operate with fairly high 

effective isotropic radiated power. 

Receive antennas are also directional, 

affording some rejection of unwanted 

signals off-axis from the main lobe of 

the antenna. 

112. The other portion, the half 

megahertz between 941–941.5 MHz, is 

authorized for MAS operations. The 

MAS authorizations involve discrete 

portions of the 941–941.5 MHz band 

that is paired with spectrum in the 932– 

932.5 MHz band; more particularly, 

these paired blocks consist of thirty-six 

12.5 kHz channel pairs (25 kHz total per 

pair) and one paired 50 kHz channel 

(100 kHz total per pair) in the 932.0– 

932.5 MHz and 941.0–941.5 MHz bands. 

The Commission designated twenty of 

the thirty-six 12.5 kHz channel pairs in 

these bands for public safety and/or 

private internal use. Five of these 

twenty are reserved for public safety 

services (as defined in Part 90), and the 

other fifteen are available for both 

private internal and traditional public 

safety services. With respect to the 

remaining channels consisting of 

sixteen 12.5 kHz paired channels and 

one 50 kHz paired channel (a total of 

0.250 megahertz of spectrum in 941– 

941.5 MHz), the Commission has issued 

licenses on a geographic basis through 

a system of competitive bidding without 

any user restrictions, and these 

licensees are permitted to provide both 

fixed and mobile services on a coprimary basis. The 941.0 -941.5 MHz 

portion of the band is designated for 

communications from MAS master 

stations to remote stations; 

consequently, transmission from the 

master station is generally omnidirectional, generally within a 25-mile 

radius, to many remote stations. The 

rules for MAS operations were adopted 

by the Commission in 1999. MAS 

historically has been used by the power, 

petroleum, and security industries for 

various alarm, control, interrogation and 

status reporting requirements as well as 

by the paging industry, and the 

licensing scheme adopted by the 

Commission attempted to accommodate 

these past and present uses. In the 941– 

941.5 MHz portion, there are 1,340 

geographically-based MAS licenses and 

1,175 site-based MAS licenses. 

113. 952–960 MHz band. Similarly, 

most of this eight megahertz of 

spectrum—6.8 megahertz of spectrum 

between 952.85–956.25 MHz and 

956.45–959.85 MHz—is licensed for 

Private Operational Fixed Microwave 

Service (including business industrial 

and public safety) authorized under part 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69402 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

101. The Commission has issued 

approximately 2,850 Private Operational 

Fixed Point to Point Microwave Service 

licenses authorizing operations in the 

952–960 MHz band. 

114. The remaining portions of the 

band are authorized for MAS operations 

in three distinct portions, totaling 1.2 

megahertz. Specifically, the MAS bands 

are divided into two groups with 

differing licensing and service 

characteristics. The first, commonly 

known as the 928/952/956 bands, 

include sixty-eight 12.5-kilohertz (kHz) 

channel pairs (25 kHz total per pair) in 

the 928–928.85 and 952–952.85 MHz 

bands (a total of 850 kilohertz in the 

952–960 MHz band), and sixteen 

unpaired 12.5-kHz channels in the 

956.25–956.45 MHz band (200 kHz 

total). These bands are reserved for 

‘‘private internal services,’’ which are 

defined as those where licensees use 

their authorized frequencies purely for 

internal business purposes or public 

safety communications, and not for any 

for-hire (for-profit) or non-profit costshared application. The Commission 

awarded licenses to these bands on a 

first-come, first-served, site-by-site 

basis. The Commission has issued 

approximately 10,000 site-based MAS 

licenses in these bands. 

115. The second MAS band, 

commonly known as the 928/959 MHz 

bands, consists of twelve 12.5 kHz 

channel pairs (25 kHz total per pair) in 

the 928.85–929 and 959.85–960 MHz 

bands (300 kHz total). The Commission 

licensed these bands on a geographic 

basis through a system of competitive 

bidding for use by for-profit CMRS and 

paging network incumbents. There are 

484 geographically-based MAS licenses 

and approximately 120 site-based MAS 

licenses in this band. In addition, 

approximately 50 licenses permit part 

22 paging operations in the 959.85–960 

MHz band on a grandfathered basis. 

116. In the MAS Report and Order, 

the Commission adopted flexible rules 

that permit licensees to conduct pointto-point and point-to-multipoint 

operations, and also to provide fixed or 

mobile services on a co-primary basis in 

the geographically licensed portions of 

the bands. The MAS Report and Order 

also grandfathered incumbent 

operations in the 928/952/956 MHz 

bands, and permitted those operations 

to expand services subject to the 

Commission’s rules on interference 

protection and co-channel spacing. 

Although a system of geographic 

licenses using Economic Areas (EAs) 

awarded via auction now overlays the 

928/959 bands and part of the 932/941 

bands, we permitted incumbent 

licensees to remain in the in the 928/

959 band indefinitely, but we did not 

permit any expansion of their services. 

The Commission expected that 

interference from these ‘‘grandfathered’’ 

operations would be minimal, given that 

they were subject to a co-channel 

mileage separation based on an assumed 

25-mile service area. 

117. The Commission proposes 

making unused portions of the 941–944 

MHz and the 952–960 MHz bands 

available for licensed wireless 

microphone operations on a secondary 

basis, generally under the rules 

applicable for LPAS operations in the 

944–952 MHz band. The Commission 

requests that commenters provide 

information about the potential 

availability of unused spectrum in these 

bands at locations where wireless 

microphones are used, and the extent to 

which it is suitable and could 

effectively be used for wireless 

microphone operations. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

particular rules that it should adopt to 

facilitate wireless microphone 

operations in this spectrum that would 

also ensure that incumbent operations 

are not harmed. The Commission invites 

comment on the benefits of permitting 

such operations, as well as any specific 

concerns about how such operations 

might affect currently authorized users 

in these bands. 

118. The Commission first seeks 

comment on whether there are potential 

benefits to making these bands available 

for wireless microphone operations to 

the same entities licensed for LPAS 

operations in the 944–952 MHz band. 

Considering the mix of services and 

licensees that currently operate in 

different segments in various portions of 

these bands, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there nonetheless 

are many locations in these bands where 

spectrum is unused, potentially 

available, and in sufficient bandwidth 

(e.g., 200 kHz) suitable for wireless 

microphone uses similar to their uses in 

the TV bands and 944–952 MHz band. 

The Commission requests that 

commenters supporting wireless 

microphone operations in these bands 

explain fully how access to the available 

spectrum in these bands would be 

important for accommodating wireless 

microphone needs in the coming years, 

both in the near and longer term. Would 

the fact that this spectrum is adjacent to 

the 944–952 MHz band make this 

spectrum particularly suitable or 

involve valuable synergies (e.g., same 

spectrum propagation, more readily 

available equipment, more efficient 

management of wireless microphone 

operations, etc.)? And would the types 

of uses suitable for these bands be the 

same as for the 944–952 MHz band 

discussed? 

119. Given that wireless microphones 

operate at low power over short 

distances, the Commission believes they 

are not likely to cause interference to 

the types of fixed or mobile operations 

that operate at higher power in these 

bands. Thus, it believes that wireless 

microphones should be able to co-exist 

and share access to the spectrum in 

these bands with incumbent services on 

a secondary basis without causing 

harmful interference. The Commission 

seeks comment. As this issue is 

considered, the Commission requests 

comment on how it can design rules for 

wireless microphone operations in these 

bands to enable effective sharing. Would 

users of wireless microphones often 

seek to operate in locations that overlap 

with existing services, or would they 

operate in other places not served by 

those operations? 

120. Considering the different services 

and service rules that apply to portions 

of these bands, the Commission seeks 

comment on permitting wireless 

microphone operations on each of these 

portions. With the mix of point-to-point 

and point-to-multipoint services already 

operating in these bands, are there 

specific sub-bands that would be more 

suitable than others for sharing with 

wireless microphones? 

121. With respect to those portions of 

the spectrum available for licensing for 

fixed microwave services other than 

MAS, which constitutes the majority of 

the spectrum in these bands, how much 

spectrum is unused by these fixed 

services at locations that could be 

effectively used for wireless microphone 

operations? To what extent can 

potential wireless microphone users 

determine the availability of suitable 

spectrum at particular locations? What 

issues and factors should we take into 

account to make spectrum available for 

wireless microphone operations while 

protecting the incumbent fixed services 

that operate in these bands? 

122. The Commission similarly 

inquires about making the portions of 

the spectrum in these bands that are 

authorized for MAS operations also 

available for wireless microphone 

operations. For instance, considering 

that many MAS systems are used by 

utilities for Supervisory Control and 

Data Acquisition (SCADA) operations, 

we seek comment on whether these 

existing users operate in the same 

general geographic areas as wireless 

microphone users, or whether the 

wireless microphone operations would 

be separated geographically because 

these are different types of uses? Given 

the nature of MAS operations, how 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69403 

much spectrum is unused and available 

for wireless microphone operations? Are 

there practical considerations, including 

the fact that there is only a relatively 

small amount of spectrum in discrete 

segments potentially unused and 

available, that would make authorizing 

wireless microphone operations more 

problematic or less practical in these 

bands? If so, are there ways in which the 

Commission could effectively address 

these concerns? Would the spectrum 

associated with the geographic area 

MAS licenses be suitable for wireless 

microphones, and if so could wireless 

microphone operations be 

accommodated on this spectrum 

through leasing arrangements with the 

existing market-based licensees? What 

other factors should we consider when 

determining whether and how to permit 

wireless microphone operations in these 

MAS portions? 

123. The Commission also seeks 

specific comment on designing rules 

that would be necessary to address any 

interference concerns with incumbent 

operations that could arise. If it were to 

authorize wireless microphone 

operations in these bands, to what 

extent are protections necessary to 

prevent harmful interference to 

incumbent operations from the low 

power, short-range wireless microphone 

operations? Would certain types of 

services, such as fixed microwave 

services, generally not be prone to 

interference? Would other types of 

operations be more susceptible to 

interference, such as certain MAS 

operations involving SCADA 

operations, and would those operations 

benefit from rules that would provide 

protection (e.g., rules to specify 

minimum separation distances or 

creation of protection zones)? What 

specific technical requirements or 

limitations should we place on wireless 

microphone operations in the bands? 

On frequencies licensed for SCADA 

operations that involve transmissions 

between master stations and outdoor 

remotes, should we place limitations on 

power levels used by wireless 

microphones or limit wireless 

microphones to indoor uses? The 

Commission asks commenters to 

provide technical analyses to support 

their positions on these issues. 

124. The Commission asks that 

commenters propose any specific 

technical rules that would apply to 

wireless microphone operations in these 

bands. As indicated, the Commission 

proposes permitting wireless 

microphones to operate under the 

technical rules for LPAS operations that 

apply to operations in the 944–952 MHz 

band (e.g., power limits, maximum 

bandwidth, Out of Band Emissions 

(OOBE)), which would include the ETSI 

standards that we propose to apply to 

such operations. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal, and whether 

these rules should apply in whole or in 

part with respect to these bands, or 

portions of these bands, and if not, why 

not? Commenters should explain and 

provide technical analyses on these 

issues. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the equipment issues that 

would pertain to wireless microphone 

operations in these bands, including the 

certification process. Commenters also 

should address any equipment issues 

pertaining to wireless microphone 

operations in these bands. What is the 

potential availability of equipment for 

operations in these bands? Realizing 

that it may depend on the particular 

rules, how long might it take for 

manufacturers to develop equipment 

that operates in these bands? Would the 

availability of devices operating in the 

adjacent 944–952 MHz band help speed 

development and distribution of these 

devices? To the extent that 

manufacturers may need to modify 

equipment designed for the 944–952 

MHz band, or use equipment designed 

for use in other bands, what are the 

constraints on such modifications, and 

how long would it take to bring such 

modified equipment to market? As 

regards certification, should 

manufacturers be able to certificate 

equipment under the same rules and 

procedures for LPAS devices that 

operate in the 944–952 MHz band, or do 

they need to develop new equipment for 

these bands that would be certificated in 

a different manner? 

Unlicensed Operations in the 902–928 

MHz, the 2.4 GHz, and the 5 GHz Bands 

125. The 902–928 MHz, 2.4 GHz 

(2400–2483.5 MHz), and 5 GHz (5725– 

5850 MHz) bands generally permit 

operations of unlicensed devices 

pursuant to two part 15 rules, §§ 15.247 

and 15.249. Earlier this year, the 

Commission consolidated the rules for 

the digitally modulated devices that 

operate in the 5 GHz band under 

§ 15.407. Wireless microphones are 

among the devices that operate on an 

unlicensed basis in these bands under 

these rules. 

126. Wireless microphones operating 

in these bands pursuant to § 15.247, like 

other unlicensed devices operating 

under this rule, are required to operate 

as spread spectrum transmitters, and are 

limited to frequency hopping systems 

and systems using digital modulation. 

Digitally modulated systems must use a 

minimum bandwidth of 500 kHz but are 

not required to hop frequencies. Both 

frequency hopping and digitally 

modulated systems are permitted to use 

output powers of up to 1 watt, however, 

most devices use lower power for 

various design reasons, such as 

conserving battery life. Spread spectrum 

modulation reduces the power density 

of the transmitted signal at any 

frequency, thereby reducing the 

possibility of causing interference to 

other signals occupying the same 

spectrum. Similarly, at the receiver end, 

the power density of interfering signals 

is minimized, making spread spectrum 

systems relatively immune to 

interference from outside sources. 

127. Wireless microphones operating 

in these bands pursuant to § 15.249, as 

with any other unlicensed device 

operation, is permitted subject to the 

field strength limits specified in this 

section. There are no requirements for 

devices operating under this provision 

to hop frequencies or use a minimum 

transmit bandwidth, and there are no 

maximum bandwidth or transmission 

duration limits. Devices operating under 

this rule could be either analog or 

digital devices. Many types of devices 

operate under this rule section 

including cordless telephones, video 

transmitters, wireless speaker and 

headphone systems, and automated 

utility meter reading equipment. 

128. Section 15.407 provides general 

technical requirements for unlicensed 

national information infrastructure (U– 

NII) devices that operate in the 5 GHz 

band. The recently revised § 15.407 

rules are intended to better ensure that 

unlicensed 5 GHz band devices do not 

cause harmful interference to authorized 

Federal and non-Federal users in these 

bands and to eliminate a loophole in the 

former rules that allowed devices to be 

certified under the § 15.247 rules and 

then modified to operate as U–NII 

devices without complying with all of 

the technical requirements of the U–NII 

rules. 

902–928 MHz Band 

129. The Commission seeks to 

develop a full record on the current and 

potential uses of the 902–928 MHz band 

for various wireless microphone uses. It 

ask that commenters provide 

information on devices currently in the 

marketplace that serve such needs. To 

what extent are these devices digital, 

operating as spread spectrum devices 

under the technical rules set forth in 

§ 15.247, or analog or digital operating 

under § 15.249 requirements? What 

specific types of applications are these 

devices best suited, and what are the 

limitations on the types of applications 

for which they may be used? To what 

extent can devices operating in this 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69404 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

band address the needs, for instance, of 

non-professional users? The 

Commission asks that commenters 

provide relevant technical data 

regarding performance features (e.g., 

with respect to latency, voice fidelity, 

etc.) that inform and may affect the 

suitability of these devices for particular 

types of applications. To what extent is 

the effectiveness of the applications 

dependent on the operating 

environment (e.g., outdoor or indoor 

uses)? Are wireless microphone users 

whose needs can effectively be 

addressed through devices that operate 

in this band migrating their operations 

from other bands, such as the TV bands, 

to this band? What are manufacturers 

and those marketing wireless 

microphone devices promoting use of 

devices that use this band? 

130. Have there been technological 

advances that have improved the ability 

of these devices to co-exist and share 

use of the band with the other users that 

also have access to the band? If so, what 

types? What kinds of advancements 

might be anticipated in the future that 

could increase the use of this band for 

wireless microphone applications? 

131. To the extent devices operating 

in this band are effective in meeting 

wireless microphone applications, 

should manufacturers and those 

marketing wireless microphones do 

more to promote use of devices that 

operate in this band, or to indicate that 

devices operating in this band may be 

effective in addressing their needs that 

historically have operated in the TV 

bands? What steps, if any, should the 

Commission take to promote more use 

of this band for wireless microphone 

applications? 

2.4 GHz Band 

132. As with our discussion on the 

902–928 MHz band, the Commission 

also seeks to develop a full record on 

the current and potential uses of the 2.4 

GHz band for various wireless 

microphone uses. It asks that 

commenters provide information on 

devices currently in the marketplace, 

and the extent are these devices digital, 

operating as spread spectrum devices 

under the technical rules set forth in 

§ 15.247, or analog or digital operating 

under § 15.249 requirements. For what 

types of specific applications are 2.4 

GHz wireless microphones best suited, 

and what limitations are associated with 

their use, including any that may result 

from the nature of signal propagation in 

the band. To what extent can devices 

operating in this band address the needs 

of non-professional users? As above, we 

ask that commenters provide relevant 

technical data regarding performance 

features (e.g., with respect to latency, 

voice fidelity, etc.) that inform and may 

affect the suitability of these devices for 

particular types of applications. What 

types of operating environment (e.g., 

outdoor or indoor uses) affect their 

effectiveness for specific applications? 

How are manufacturers and those 

marketing wireless microphone devices 

promoting use of devices that use this 

band? 

133. The Commission also asks that 

commenters discuss technological 

advances that have improved the ability 

of these devices to co-exist and share 

use of the band with the other users that 

operate in the band. Are advancements 

anticipated that could increase the use 

of this band for wireless microphone 

applications? Finally, to the extent 

devices operating in this band are 

effective in meeting wireless 

microphone applications, should more 

be done to promote use of devices that 

operate in this band? 

5 GHz Band 

134. The Commission also asks that 

commenters provide information on the 

current and potential uses of this band 

for different types of wireless 

microphone operations. To what extent 

are devices that function as wireless 

microphones operating in this band 

today, and for what kinds of 

applications? Considering the available 

bandwidth, the propagation features 

associated with this spectrum, and other 

relevant factors, for what types of 

applications is this band well-suited? 

What types of users are most likely to 

make use of wireless microphones in 

this band? In what types of operational 

environments do these devices work 

best? Are there technological advances 

forthcoming that could create more 

opportunities for using this spectrum for 

wireless microphone applications? 

Should more be done to promote use of 

this band for wireless microphone 

applications? 

1920–1930 MHz Unlicensed PCS Band 

135. Currently the major use of the 

1920–1930 MHz band is for unlicensed 

cordless telephones that operate under 

part 15 of the Commission’s rules many 

manufacturers make wireless 

microphones using this spectrum. 

136. The Commission invites 

comment on the current and potential 

uses of the 1920–1930 MHz UPSC band 

for wireless microphone applications. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

current uses of the band for wireless 

microphones, including the types of 

purposes for which they are used as 

well as the types of venues in which 

they are used. How many microphones 

generally can be deployed at the same 

time in a particular area? To the extent 

that wireless microphones operating in 

this band may not be sufficient for highend, professional broadcast, music, or 

theater uses, are there other types of 

uses for which they provide effective 

wireless microphone communications 

capabilities? What is the range of audio 

capabilities for wireless microphone 

devices that operate in this band under 

our rules? For instance, are there 

potential advances in technology, such 

as improvements in the digital protocol 

to better enable high quality audio? In 

sum, the Commission invites comments 

generally on the types of applications 

for which wireless microphones using 

this band may be best suited. Should the 

Commission consider any technical 

revisions that could make this band 

more useful for wireless microphone 

applications without adversely affecting 

operations of other users in the band? 

1435–1525 MHz Band 

137. The Commission proposes, as 

one option, making the 1.4 GHz band 

spectrum available for use by wireless 

microphones on a secondary licensed 

basis, and seek comment. Because of the 

importance of ensuring that the AMT 

systems are protected against harmful 

interference, and given that most 

wireless microphone operations can be 

accommodated within other spectrum, 

the Commission proposes that use of 

this band be limited to licensed 

professional users at specified locations 

and times, and include specified 

safeguards designed to protect AMT use 

of the band. The Commission seeks 

comment on how and under what 

conditions this band can be shared, and 

on the types of applications best suited 

for this band. 

138. Our proposal to allow wireless 

microphones to operate in this spectrum 

is based on several critical factors. We 

recognize that professional use for 

certain large events (e.g., major sports or 

theater productions) often involve use of 

more than 100 wireless microphones. 

Where these have previously operated 

in the TV bands, there is no assurance 

that sufficient spectrum will remain to 

accommodate this extent of use, nor is 

it certain that the other provisions for 

wireless microphones could 

accommodate such use. Limiting the 

licensing for these types of applications, 

which are typically associated with 

specific locations, should make sharing 

of the spectrum manageable. Although 

we would authorize such use on a 

secondary basis, in this instance we 

believe that frequency coordination 

with federal and non-federal users is 

critical and is consistent with the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69405 

practice that already has been used for 

special temporary authority in this 

band, although on a more limited basis. 

In addition, the Commission believes it 

is necessary to ensure that a mechanism 

must be established to ensure that 

wireless microphone systems marketed 

for use in this spectrum can only be 

operated after successful coordination, 

such as through an electronic key or 

other means. The Commission also 

seeks to ensure that any wireless 

microphones operating in this spectrum 

are spectrally efficient and frequency 

agile when sharing the spectrum. The 

Commission discusses these topics in 

detail below. Where it asks general 

questions they should be viewed 

through the prism of these principles. 

139. Generally, as the Commission 

considers authorizing wireless 

microphone operations in the 1.4 GHz 

band on a secondary use basis, what 

issues should it consider when 

evaluating the compatibility of wireless 

microphone operations in the same 

band as AMT? What limitations might 

the Commission consider imposing to 

ensure that wireless microphone 

operations would not cause harmful 

interference to AMT? 

140. To what extent is the 1.4 GHz 

spectrum suited for wireless 

microphone operations? What type of 

wireless microphone uses might be best 

suited to operate in this band, and what 

types of uses would be less well-suited 

or unsuitable? How would proponents 

of access to this spectrum plan to make 

use of the band for wireless microphone 

operations? What are the technical 

advantages and disadvantages of using 

1.4 GHz band spectrum for wireless 

microphone operations, in terms of 

signal propagation, types of operations 

that could be deployed, battery power, 

form factors, body absorption, or other 

aspects that would inform the types of 

wireless microphone uses to which the 

spectrum might be put? 

141. The Commission proposes that 

wireless microphone operations be 

secondary, and thus must protect the 

primary AMT services that operate in 

the band. As it considers the 

appropriate framework for wireless 

microphone operations in the band, we 

note that the Commission already has 

permitted secondary, low power shortrange devices to share use of another 

band where AMT operations were 

primary when in 2012 it authorized 

Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) 

devices to operate in the 2360–2390 

MHz portions of the 2360–2400 MHz 

band. In permitting MBAN devices to 

share access to that spectrum, the 

Commission was careful in developing 

rules that limited the locations where 

MBAN systems could operate and in 

designing a coordination process that 

would ensure that primary AMT 

operations would be protected from 

interference. 

142. As a general matter, the 

Commission proposes only limited use 

of the 1.4 GHz band for wireless 

microphone applications. While it seeks 

to provide wireless microphone users in 

need of additional spectrum resources 

with access to the 1.4 GHz band 

spectrum to help accommodate those 

needs, at the same time the Commission 

is not proposing to open this particular 

band either for widespread or for 

itinerant uses throughout the nation. 

Given the paramount need to protect 

AMT operations, the Commission is 

proposing only limited access for 

wireless microphone operations. In 

particular, it proposes that wireless 

microphone uses be restricted to 

specific fixed locations, such as large 

venues (whether outdoor or indoor), 

where there may a need to deploy large 

numbers of microphones, e.g., 100 or 

more. In addition, the Commission 

proposes allowing operations at those 

locations only at specified times. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals. 

143. Prior coordination with AFTRCC 

will be required. The Commission seeks 

to develop appropriate rules that will 

ensure through this process that 

wireless microphone operations will not 

cause interference to the primary AMT 

operations in the band. In particular, it 

seeks comment on coordination 

mechanisms that can ensure that 

wireless microphone operations only 

occur at the locations and times where 

authorized through the coordination 

process, and would be effective in 

preventing the use of these devices at 

any other location or time without 

authorization. 

144. As noted, the Commission 

authorized MBAN devices to operate on 

a secondary basis in the 2360–2390 

MHz band provided that they register 

the devices and follow a coordination 

framework. With regard to registration, 

MBAN device operators are required to 

register each device with the frequency 

coordinator and provide specified 

information—including the specific 

frequencies to be used, the location of 

the devices, the power levels used, and 

point of contact information regarding 

the entity responsible for the MBAN 

device operations. The Commission 

codified certain coordination 

procedures as well. These begin with 

the initial determination of whether the 

MBAN location is within line-of-site of 

AMT operations, and the potential 

interference risks that would be 

associated with MBAN operations at 

that location. The Commission also 

provided the frequency coordinators 

with significant flexibility to work out 

mutually agreeable coordination 

agreements and MBAN devices’ 

operating parameters at particular 

locations. The Commission recognized 

that specific tools, such as electronic 

keys, could be useful to coordinators as 

they sought to achieve mutually 

agreeable coordination agreements, and 

required that MBAN devices cease 

transmission in the absence of a control 

message. At the same time, the 

Commission did not codify 

requirements for an electronic key and 

relied on frequency coordinators to 

work out the MBAN operating 

parameters through their agreements as 

needed. To what extent are the rules for 

MBAN operations appropriate with 

regard to permitting wireless 

microphone use in the 1.4 GHz band at 

specified locations, frequencies, and 

times, pursuant to specified operational 

parameters? The Commission asks that 

commenters explain in detail the 

coordination procedures that they assert 

should apply with regard to operations 

in the 1.4 GHz band. 

145. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the extent to which the 

Commission might prescribe particular 

tools to ensure that wireless 

microphones operate only at the 

locations and times authorized, and not 

anywhere else. For instance, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring that the wireless microphone 

systems, which often are moved from 

one location to another (e.g., when used 

to cover different events), could only 

operate through use of an automatic 

mechanism (such as an electronic key, 

and location-awareness capability, or 

similar mechanisms) that would serve to 

prevent wireless microphones from 

operating unless on approved 

frequencies in the 1.4 GHz band at the 

approved location/venue(s) during 

approved time(s). What kind of 

technologies can achieve this purpose in 

an effective manner? If we were to adopt 

such a requirement, should the 

authorized operations be enabled only 

through permission granted by the FCC 

or an FCC-certified entity once AFTRCC 

has concurred with the particular 

wireless microphone operations? Are 

there other means of coordinating 

operations that would ensure that the 

microphones only operate where and 

when authorized? The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposals, 

including how an automatic mechanism 

might be included within design of a 

wireless microphone system. In 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

addition, the Commission invites 

comment on whether it should adopt 

point-of-sale restrictions that would 

enable only entities licensed to operate 

in this band to obtain the devices. 

146. In keeping with the types of 

wireless microphone operations that the 

Commission envisions for this band, it 

proposes limiting eligibility to 

professional users, including 

broadcasters, professional television and 

cable programmers, and professional 

sound engineering companies, and 

operators at major venues that manage 

and coordinate wireless microphone 

operations, i.e., the entities eligible for 

licensed LPAS operations in the TV 

bands. The Commission invites 

comment on this proposal. 

147. To the extent the Commission 

decides to authorize wireless 

microphone operations in this band, it 

seeks comment on the technical rules 

that would apply to devices that would 

use the band. Commenters should 

submit detailed discussions of 

recommendations for the applicable 

technical rules. In designing technical 

rules, what types of technical concerns 

should we consider and address to 

ensure that the primary AMT operations 

protected? The Commission requests 

detailed information about the type(s) of 

wireless microphone equipment that 

could use the band. What power levels 

and bandwidths should we permit for 

wireless microphones? To what extent 

should we permit certain devices 

already on the market today to access 

the band? Should the technical rules be 

the similar to wireless microphones that 

operate in other bands? 

148. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on adopting the 

technical rules for LPAS device 

operations in the TV bands, as well as 

the ETSI standards that it is proposing 

to adopt for those devices. To what 

extent are some or all of these technical 

standards appropriate for wireless 

microphones operating in the 1.4 GHz 

band? The Commission asks that 

commenters provide any relevant 

technical information supporting their 

positions. 

149. To preserve maximum flexibility 

for wireless microphone operations in 

the band, should the Commission 

consider requiring wireless 

microphones to have the capability of 

tuning across the band? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

requiring wireless microphones that are 

designed to operate in the 1.4 GHz band 

to have modular transmitting 

components that, if necessary, could be 

replaced to enhance frequency agility. 

How long would it take to develop 

devices that would operate consistent 

with the proposals we discussed above? 

Should there be an interim process for 

permitting wireless microphone 

operations in the band as any necessary 

new devices are being made? In 

addition, the Commission invites 

comment on the certification process 

that should be employed. 

150. Consistent with its proposal, the 

Commission envisions adding a 

secondary mobile except aeronautical 

mobile service allocation to the 1435– 

1525 MHz band for limited use under 

the service rules it adopts for the band. 

The Commission also request comment 

on any other regulatory or technical 

issues that would be relevant to our 

consideration of whether to authorize 

wireless microphone operations in the 

1.4 GHz band. Commenters should 

provide detailed bases and explanations 

for their proposals and views. 

3.5 GHz Band 

151. In the 3.5 GHz Band FNPRM 

adopted in April 2014, the Commission 

sought comment on a three-tiered 

authorization framework that would 

allow different types of users to access 

portions of the 3550–3650 MHz Band. 

To the extent that the band was not 

being used by incumbent users (primary 

operations, including incumbent federal 

users and grandfathered Fixed Satellite 

Service earth stations) under the 

Incumbent Access tier, the Commission 

proposed making spectrum available 

through the Priority Access and General 

Authorized Access (GAA) tiers outside 

of the specified geographic exclusion 

zones. The Commission also invited 

comment on whether to allow certain 

users (‘‘Contained Access Users’’) to 

receive interference protection for their 

device operations within the confines of 

their facilities on a portion (up to 20 

megahertz) of the frequencies included 

in the GAA tier. 

152. The Commission notes the 

comments have been filed in the 3.5 

GHz band proceeding (GN Docket No. 

12–354) on potential uses of this band 

by wireless microphone users. Shure 

indicated that the GAA tier, for 

instance, could potentially support 

certain wireless applications, and 

asserted that were the Commission to 

establish a class of ‘‘Contained Access 

Users’’ then indoor wireless microphone 

use should qualify for such access. 

153. All of the issues regarding the 

policies and rules for operations in the 

3.5 GHz proceeding will be decided in 

that proceeding, based on the record in 

that proceeding, and the Commission is 

not seeking comment in this instant 

proceeding on those issues. 

Nonetheless, considering that the 

Commission is seeking to develop a 

comprehensive understanding of the 

potential landscape for different types of 

wireless microphone operations in 

different bands, it seeks general 

comment on whether and how wireless 

microphone operations potentially 

could be employed in the 3.5 GHz band 

to help accommodate particular needs 

of users. Without prejudging the specific 

rules that the Commission may adopt in 

the 3.5 GHz proceeding, the 

Commission invites comment on any 

impact the proposed rules for the 3.5 

GHz band would have on the broader 

aims of this proceeding. If 3.5 GHz 

spectrum were made available, how 

much of a wireless microphone 

operator’s needs could potentially be 

accommodated in this band, for 

instance, given the propagation 

characteristics of the band? If operations 

were permitted in this band, to what 

extent might this band potentially serve 

as a supplement spectrum resource for 

certain types of uses? To the extent that 

rules for the 3.5 GHz band are adopted 

that can help meet wireless microphone 

users’ needs, how long might it take for 

user equipment to be developed and 

available for use? To avoid a bifurcated 

record on issues related to the 3.5 GHz 

band, the Commission asks that 

commenters submit any comments on 

these issues in this docket as well as in 

the 3.5 GHz band proceeding. 

6875–7125 MHz Band 

154. The Commission proposes to 

permit licensed wireless microphone 

operations on available channels in this 

band, on a secondary basis, for entities 

that are eligible to hold BAS or CARS 

licenses, and seek comment. 

Considering the existing fixed and 

mobile services in the band that 

currently operate in different portions of 

this band, and the likelihood of 

significant areas of unused spectrum 

throughout this band that potentially 

could be made available for relatively 

low power, short-range wireless 

microphone operations, the Commission 

request comment on whether access to 

this spectrum could help accommodate 

certain types of wireless microphone 

applications without interfering with 

existing services. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the applicable rules 

that should apply, were we to decide to 

grant such authorization. 

155. To what extent would access to 

the 7 GHz band help address needs of 

wireless microphone operators? 

Considering the propagation features or 

other factors associated with this 

spectrum, what types of wireless 

microphone applications may be wellsuited for operations in this band? 

Given that BAS and CARS licensees 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69407 

already use the 7 GHz spectrum for 

certain types of video applications and 

programming production, would there 

be synergies in permitting wireless 

microphone operations that could 

supplement those existing applications? 

How much spectrum in the 7 GHz band 

may be potentially available at those 

kinds of locations, whether indoors or 

outdoors, where users may have need 

for wireless microphones? 

156. What particular rules would 

facilitate wireless microphone 

operations in the band while also 

protecting existing services? Could we 

make spectrum in any part of the 7 GHz 

band available for wireless microphone 

operations on a secondary, noninterfering basis, under rules drawn 

from the LPAS technical rules for 

operations in the TV bands or on the 

944–952 MHz band? To what extent 

would low power wireless microphone 

operations pose the potential of 

interfering with any of the current mix 

of fixed and mobile BAS services and 

private and commercial fixed 

microwave that operate in the band? 

157. Alternatively, should the 

Commission consider making certain 

portions of the 7 GHz band available for 

wireless microphone operations, both as 

a means to facilitate wireless 

microphone operations as well as to 

preclude any possibility of harmful 

interference to existing operations? For 

instance, are there certain 25-megahertz 

channels, or smaller-sized portions of 

such channels, that we should make 

available for wireless microphone 

operations, and if so, how much and 

where? Would some channels or 

portions of channels be preferable for 

wireless microphone operations? As 

noted, while BAS and CARS are 

authorized to operate on the entire 25 

megahertz in a channel, FS services may 

operate on 5, 8.33, and 25 megahertz 

channels. Are there opportunities for 

wireless microphone operations on 

portions of particular channels to the 

extent not being used by incumbent 

licensees at a given location? For 

instance, if an incumbent licensee were 

using only 5 or 8.33 megahertz 

channels, could wireless microphones 

operate on some balance of that 25- 

megahertz channel without interfering 

with existing services? Are there 

particular segments in the 7 GHz band 

that would be more suitable, such as the 

25 megahertz segments that are 

currently reserved for BAS use 

nationwide? Are other channels or 

portions of channels more suitable, and 

if so should we take steps to restrict 

additional authorizations in that 

spectrum or otherwise open that 

spectrum for wireless microphone uses? 

If commenters have specific ideas about 

whether certain portions of the 7 GHz 

band should be made available, the 

Commission asks that they submit a full 

discussion of which portions, and how 

that might affect any existing BAS, 

CARS, or FS authorized in those 

portions of the band. 

158. To what extent should 

coordination of wireless microphone 

operations be required? Should we 

require formal or informal coordination 

of operations? We also seek comment on 

whether wireless microphone users 

could share operations among 

themselves on the same private-sector, 

frequency-coordinated basis that exists 

for the use of BAS mobile shared 

spectrum. 

159. The Commission is proposing 

that any wireless microphone 

operations in these bands be licensed to 

entities eligible for BAS or CARS 

licensees. It generally would expect that 

these are the entities that may wish to 

operate wireless microphones in the 

band for some of their productionrelated services. The Commission also 

believes that licensing wireless 

microphone operations to these entities 

would help address interference or 

coordination concerns that may arise 

when making use of the 7 GHz band 

spectrum. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

alternative proposals. 

160. The Commission also invites 

comment on the technical rules that 

would apply to wireless microphone 

operations in the band. In particular, it 

seeks comment on whether the 

technical rules should be modeled on 

those that apply to LPAS operations, 

including the ETSI standards that we 

are proposing. The Commission asks 

that commenters provide information on 

any proposed rules and the rationale for 

adopting such rules. Commenters 

should also address any potential 

interference concerns that could arise. If 

we were to allow wireless microphone 

operations in the band, would any 

incumbent operations need geographic 

exclusion zones? Apart from exclusion 

zones, is there interference criteria that 

could facilitate sharing? What OOBE 

limits would be appropriate to protect 

incumbent services in the bands directly 

adjacent to wireless microphone 

operations? Considering the propagation 

characteristics in the 7 GHz band and 

recognizing that operation in this band 

typically requires line of sight between 

the transmitter and receiver, would 

limiting wireless microphones to indoor 

use create greater sharing possibilities? 

The Commission asks commenters to 

provide technical analyses to support 

their position on these issues. 

161. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on equipment 

availability for wireless microphones in 

these bands. Does wireless microphone 

equipment already exist for these 

bands? How much time would 

manufacturers need to develop new 

equipment for these bands? 

Ultra-Wideband 

162. Background. The Commission’s 

rules for ultra-wideband (UWB) 

unlicensed devices are set forth in part 

15, subpart F. UWB devices operate by 

employing very narrow or short 

duration pulses that result in very large 

or wideband transmission bandwidths. 

UWB technology enables development 

of an array of applications, including 

imaging systems, vehicular radar 

systems, and communications and 

measurement systems. Operating 

pursuant to the technical rules set forth 

in part 15, UWB devices can use 

spectrum occupied by existing radio 

services without causing harmful 

interference, thereby permitting scarce 

spectrum resources to be used more 

efficiently. 

163. Wireless microphones operating 

under these rules would be required to 

operate pursuant to the UWB rules for 

communications systems, which permit 

operations in the 3.1–10.6 GHz band. 

Under the UWB rules, these devices 

must be designed to ensure that 

operation can occur indoors only, or 

must consist of hand-held devices that 

may be employed for such activities as 

peer-to-peer operation. The Commission 

notes that at least one wireless 

microphone manufacturer has 

developed and markets wireless 

microphones that operate under these 

rules. 

164. The Commission seeks comment 

on the current and potential uses of 

UWB devices for wireless microphone 

applications. Recognizing that UWB 

operates across a number of frequencies, 

the Commission asks commenters to 

discuss the ways in which UWB devices 

could be used effectively for wireless 

microphone uses. Are there particular 

uses for which wireless microphones 

operating under UWB rules are well 

suited, such as indoor and/or shortrange operations? What are the benefits 

and constraints associated with the 

UWB rules, including the wide 

bandwidths associated with operations 

and the propagation aspects related to 

operating in these high frequency 

bands? Are manufacturers promoting 

the use of UWB wireless microphones 

for particular applications? Finally, we 

invite comment regarding steps that the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). 

2See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

3See id. 

4See Expanding the Economic and Innovation 

Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 

Auctions, GN Docket No. 12–268, Report and Order 

(FCC 14–50), 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6704 para. 316 

(adopted May 15, 2014) (Incentive Auction R&O) 

(stating the Commission’s intent to initiate a 

proceeding to explore steps to accommodate the 

long-term needs of wireless microphone users). 

When we use the term ‘‘wireless microphones’’ in 

this proceeding, we collectively refer to wireless 

microphones and related audio devices. 

5See, e.g., Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through 

Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12–268, Report 

and Order (FCC 14–50), 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6696 

para. 300 (adopted May 15, 2014) (Incentive 

Auction R&O). 

6See generally Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through 

Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12–268, Report 

and Order (FCC 14–50), 29 FCC Rcd 6696–6704 

paras. 299–316; 6844–6847 para. 682–688, (adopted 

May 15, 2014) (Incentive Auction R&O). 

7See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6567 

paras. 299–315. 

8See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6567 

paras. 682–688. 

9 Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6567 

para. 316. 

Commission should take to facilitate use 

of UWB devices for wireless 

microphone uses. 

Other Potential Bands 

165. In this section, the Commission 

invites comment on whether there are 

other bands not currently available for 

wireless microphone operations that 

may be useful in helping their use. The 

Commission seeks comment on bands 

that might offer opportunities both in 

the nearer term and over the longer 

term. 

166. For instance, in 2008 the Public 

Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) filed 

a petition for rulemaking to create a 

general wireless microphone service in 

the 2020–2025 MHz band. PISC argued 

that, as a result of the Commission’s 

proposal to license the 2175–2180 MHz 

band on an unpaired basis, the 2020– 

2025 MHz band could be allocated for 

wireless microphones on a primary 

basis and free of white space devices 

and interference. Would this band be 

suitable for wireless microphone use? If 

so, the Commission asks that 

commenters address the technical 

suitability of this five megahertz band, 

the potential equipment availability, 

and other issues that would have to be 

addressed. The Commission also asks 

commenters to address how a decision 

to permit wireless microphones to 

operate in the 2020–2025 MHz band 

would impact or be affected by the 

Commission’s earlier decision to 

allocate those five megahertz for nonfederal fixed and mobile service. 

167. To the extent that commenters 

propose additional bands for 

consideration, we ask that they provide 

a full explanation for the proposal. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the ways in which the 

band or bands could be helpful in 

accommodating wireless microphone 

operations while advancing the 

Commission’s spectrum management 

goals, including promoting efficient use 

of spectrum. 

Procedural Matters 

Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

168. The NPRM contains proposed 

new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and OMB to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the PRA. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act, the 

Commission seeks specific comment on 

how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

169. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM.1

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 on the first page of 

this NPRM. The Commission will send 

a copy of the NPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA).2 In addition, the NPRM and 

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register.3

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

170. This proceeding is initiated to 

explore additional steps we can take to 

accommodate the needs of wireless 

microphone users over the coming years 

by ensuring that they have access to 

available spectrum resources that they 

need.4 Wireless microphones play an 

essential role in enabling broadcasters 

and other video programming networks 

to serve consumers, including helping 

to cover breaking news and broadcasting 

live sports events. They are used to 

significantly enhance event productions 

in a variety of settings—including 

theaters and music venues, film studios, 

conventions, corporate events, houses of 

worship, and internet webcasts. They 

also have become integral to creating 

high quality content that consumers 

demand and value, and as part of that 

content production process contribute 

substantially to our economy.5 Recent 

actions by the Commission, and in 

particular the repurposing of broadcast 

television band spectrum for wireless 

services set forth in the Incentive 

Auction R&O, will significantly alter the 

regulatory environment in which 

wireless microphones operate 6 and we 

see an urgent need to assess new 

options for wireless microphone users 

going forward. 

171. Wireless microphone users rely 

heavily on access to unused channels in 

the television band to provide their 

important services. Following the 

incentive auction, with the repacking of 

the television band and the repurposing 

of current television spectrum for 

wireless services, there will be fewer 

frequencies in the UHF band available 

for use for wireless microphone 

operations. In taking several steps in the 

Incentive Auction R&O to accommodate 

wireless microphone operations— 

including providing more opportunities 

to access spectrum on the channels that 

will remain allocated for television postauction and making the 600 MHz Band 

guard bands available for wireless 

microphone operations—the 

Commission also recognized that the 

reduction of total available UHF band 

spectrum will require many wireless 

microphone users to make adjustments 

over the next few years regarding the 

spectrum that they access and the 

equipment they use.7 To help ensure 

that wireless microphone users could 

make these adjustments, the 

Commission provided that users could 

continue to access spectrum repurposed 

for wireless services for a substantial 

period of time as they transition affected 

services to alternative spectrum.8 The 

Commission promised to initiate this 

proceeding to explore steps that it can 

take to address wireless microphone 

users’ longer term needs, including 

accessing spectrum resources in 

additional frequency bands.9

Legal Basis 

172. The proposed action is 

authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a) 301, 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e) and 332 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157(a), 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69409 

10 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

11 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

12 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). 

13Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). 

14See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(6). 

15See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently 

Asked Questions,’’ http://www.sba.gov/sites/

default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf (last visited 

May 2, 2014; figures are from 2011). 

16 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 

17National Center for Charitable Statistics, The 

Nonprofit Almanac (2012). 

18 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 

19U.S. Census Bureau, Government Organization 

Summary Report: 2012 (rel. Sep. 26, 2013), http:// 

www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf (last visited 

May 2, 2014). 20FCC, Universal Licensing System (ULS), 

available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/

index.htm?job=home (last visited May 13, 2014). 21 47 CFR 74.801. 22U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334220 &search=2012 

(last visited May 6, 2014). 23 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220. 24U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0731SG3, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: General Summary: 

Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by 

Employment Size: 2007 (NAICS code 334220), 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/

jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

31SG3. The number of ‘‘establishments’’ is a less 

helpful indicator of small business prevalence in 

this context than would be the number of ‘‘firms’’ 

or ‘‘companies,’’ because the latter take into account 

the concept of common ownership or control. Any 

single physical location for an entity is an 

establishment, even though that location may be 

owned by a different establishment. Thus, the 

numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of 

businesses in this category, including the numbers 

of small businesses. 

25 Id. An additional 17 establishments had 

employment of 1,000 or more. 

26U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

334290 Other Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334290&search=2012 

(last visited May 6, 2014). 

27 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334290. 

28U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0731SG3, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: General Summary: 

Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by 

Employment Size: 2007 (NAICS code 334290), 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/

jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

31SG3&prodType=table (last visited May 6, 2014). 

The number of ‘‘establishments’’ is a less helpful 

indicator of small business prevalence in this 

context than would be the number of ‘‘firms’’ or 

‘‘companies,’’ because the latter take into account 

the concept of common ownership or control. Any 

single physical location for an entity is an 

establishment, even though that location may be 

owned by a different establishment. Thus, the 

numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of 

businesses in this category, including the numbers 

of small businesses. 

29 Id. There were no establishments that had 

employment of 1,000 or more. 

30U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

515120 Television Broadcasting, (partial definition), 

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code=515120&search=2012 (last visited 

May 6, 2014). 

301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), and 

332. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

173. 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.10 The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 11 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.12 A small 

business concern is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA.13

174. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, 

affect small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. We therefore 

describe here, at the outset, three 

comprehensive, statutory small entity 

size standards.14 First, nationwide, 

there are a total of 28.2 million small 

businesses, according to the SBA.15 In 

addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’16 Nationwide, as of 2012, there 

were approximately 2,300,000 small 

organizations.17 Finally, the term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’18 Census Bureau data for 

2012 indicate that there were 90,056 

local governments in the United 

States.19 Thus, we estimate that most 

governmental jurisdictions are small. 

175. LPAS Licensees. There are a total 

of more than 1,200 Low Power 

Auxiliary Station (LPAS) licenses in all 

bands and a total of over 600 LPAS 

licenses in the UHF spectrum.20

Existing LPAS operations are intended 

for uses such as wireless microphones, 

cue and control communications, and 

synchronization of TV camera signals. 

These low power auxiliary stations 

transmit over distances of 

approximately 100 meters.21

176. Low Power Auxiliary Device 

Manufacturers: Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’22 The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees.23

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year.24 Of this 

total, 912 establishments had 

employment of less than 500, and an 

additional 10 establishments had 

employment of 500 to 999.25 Thus, 

under this size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

177. Low Power Auxiliary Device 

Manufacturers: Other Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing communications 

equipment (except telephone apparatus, 

and radio and television broadcast, and 

wireless communications 

equipment).’’ 26 The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees.27

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 452 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year.28 Of this 

total, 448 establishments had 

employment below 500, and an 

additional 4 establishments had 

employment of 500 to 999.29 Thus, 

under this size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

178. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound. These establishments operate 

television broadcasting studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the 

public.’’ 30 The SBA has created the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69410 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

31 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated 

for inflation in 2010). 32See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 

2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/

Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 33We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs 

slightly from the FCC total given. 34 ‘‘[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other 

when one concern controls or has the power to 

control the other or a third party or parties controls 

or has to power to control both.’’ 13 CFR 

21.103(a)(1). 35See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 

2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/

Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 36See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6). 37See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station 

Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 

2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/

Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 

38U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, http:// 

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code=517110&search=2012 (last visited 

May 5, 2014). 39U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes, at 

28 (2014), http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/

files/size_table_01222014.pdf. 40See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 

2007 Economic Census of the United States, Table 

No. EC0751SSSZ5, Establishment and Firm Size: 

Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 

2007, NAICS code 517110, http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

51SSSZ5 (last visited May 7, 2014). 41 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined 

that this size standard equates approximately to a 

size standard of $100 million or less in annual 

revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 

Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order 

and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC 

Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995). 42 Industry Data, National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association, https://

www.ncta.com/industry-data (last visited May 6, 

2014); R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 

2010, ‘‘Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ p. C–2 

(data current as of December, 2008). 

43 47 CFR 76.901(c). 

44The number of active, registered cable systems 

comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and 

Licensing System (COALS) database on Aug. 28, 

2013. A cable system is a physical system integrated 

to a principal headend. 

45 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 

1–3. 

46 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC 

Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition 

of Small Cable Operator, DA 01–158 (Cable 

Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001). 

47R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 

2006, ‘‘Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,’’ pages A– 

8 & C–2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren 

Communications News, Television & Cable 

Factbook 2006, ‘‘Ownership of Cable Systems in the 

United States,’’ pp. D–1805 to D–1857. 

48The Commission does receive such information 

on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals 

a local franchise authority’s finding that the 

operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 

pursuant to 76.901(f) of the Commission’s rules. See 

47 CFR 76.909(b). 

following small business size standard 

for Television Broadcasting firms: those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts.31 The Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

commercial television stations to be 

1,388.32 In addition, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access 

Pro Television Database on March 28, 

2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 

commercial television stations (or 

approximately 73 percent) had revenues 

of $14 million or less.33 We therefore 

estimate that the majority of commercial 

television broadcasters are small 

entities. 

179. We note, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included.34 Our estimate, 

therefore, likely overstates the number 

of small entities that might be affected 

by our action because the revenue figure 

on which it is based does not include or 

aggregate revenues from affiliated 

companies. In addition, an element of 

the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that 

the entity not be dominant in its field 

of operation. We are unable at this time 

to define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific 

television station is dominant in its field 

of operation. Accordingly, the estimate 

of small businesses to which rules may 

apply does not exclude any television 

station from the definition of a small 

business on this basis and is therefore 

possibly over-inclusive to that extent. 

180. In addition, the Commission has 

estimated the number of licensed 

noncommercial educational (NCE) 

television stations to be 396.35 These 

stations are non-profit, and therefore 

considered to be small entities.36

181. There are also 2,414 low power 

television stations, including Class A 

stations and 4,046 television translator 

stations.37 Given the nature of these 

services, we will presume that all of 

these entities qualify as small entities 

under the above SBA small business 

size standard. 

182. Cable Television Distribution 

Services. Since 2007, these services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ 38 The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: All 

such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees.39 Census data for 2007 

shows that there were 3,188 firms that 

operated for the duration of that year.40

Of those, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 

employees, and 44 firms had more than 

1,000 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

such firms can be considered small. 

183. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide.41

Industry data indicate that of 

approximately 1,100 cable operators 

nationwide, all but ten are small under 

this size standard.42 In addition, under 

the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000 

or fewer subscribers.43 Current 

Commission records show 4,945 cable 

systems nationwide.44 Of this total, 

4,380 cable systems have fewer than 

20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems 

have 20,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard, we estimate that most cable 

systems are small entities. 

184. Cable System Operators. The 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for small cable system operators, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ 45 The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate.46

Industry data indicate that of 

approximately 1,100 cable operators 

nationwide, all but ten are small under 

this size standard.47 We note that the 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million,48 and therefore we 

are unable to estimate more accurately 

the number of cable system operators 

that would qualify as small under this 

size standard. 

185. Direct Broadcast Satellite 

(‘‘DBS’’) Service. DBS service is a 

nationally distributed subscription 

service that delivers video and audio 

programming via satellite to a small 

parabolic ‘‘dish’’ antenna at the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69411 

49See 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517110). 

50 Id. 

51See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. 

EC0751SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series— 

Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of 

Firms for the United States: 2007 (NAICS code 

517110), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5. 

52See Annual Assessment of the Status of 

Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video 

Programming, Fifteenth Annual Report, MB Docket 

No. 12–203, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10507, para. 27 

(2013) (‘‘15th Annual Report’’). 

53As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS 

operator and the second largest MVPD, serving an 

estimated 19.8% of MVPD subscribers nationwide. 

See 15th Annual Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 687, Table 

B–3. 

54As of June 2012, DISH Network is the second 

largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, 

serving an estimated 13.01% of MVPD subscribers 

nationwide. Id. As of June 2006, Dominion served 

fewer than 500,000 subscribers, which may now be 

receiving ‘‘Sky Angel’’ service from DISH Network. 

See id. at 581, para. 76. 

55U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

515210 Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/

naics/naicsrch?code=515210&search=2012 (last 

visited Mar. 6, 2014). 

56See 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 515210). 

57See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. 

EC0751SSSZ1, Information: Subject Series— 

Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of 

Establishments for the United States: 2007 (NAICS 

code 515210), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ1. 

58U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334220&search=2012 

(last visited Mar. 6, 2014). 

59 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 334220). 

60See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0731SG3, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: General 

Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and 

Industries by Employment Size: 2007 (NAICS code 

334220), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SG3. 

61 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 334310). 

62See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0731SG3, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: General 

Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and 

Industries by Employment Size: 2007 (NAICS code 

334310), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SG3. 

63U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012 

(last visited Mar. 6, 2014). 

64 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517210). 

65U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 (NAICS code 517210), http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

51SSSZ5. 

subscriber’s location. DBS, by 

exception, is now included in the SBA’s 

broad economic census category, Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers,49 which 

was developed for small wireline firms. 

Under this category, the SBA deems a 

wireline business to be small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees.50 To gauge 

small business prevalence for the DBS 

service, the Commission relies on data 

currently available from the U.S. Census 

for the year 2007. According to that 

source, there were 3,188 firms that in 

2007 were Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with 

less than 1,000 employees, and 44 

operated with more than 1,000 

employees. However, as to the latter 44 

there is no data available that shows 

how many operated with more than 

1,500 employees. Based on this data, the 

majority of these firms can be 

considered small.51 Currently, only two 

entities provide DBS service, which 

requires a great investment of capital for 

operation: DIRECTV and EchoStar 

Communications Corporation 

(‘‘EchoStar’’) (marketed as the DISH 

Network).52 Each currently offers 

subscription services. DIRECTV 53 and 

EchoStar 54 each report annual revenues 

that are in excess of the threshold for a 

small business. Because DBS service 

requires significant capital, we believe it 

is unlikely that a small entity as defined 

by the SBA would have the financial 

wherewithal to become a DBS service 

provider. 

186. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. The broadcast 

programming is typically narrowcast in 

nature (e.g., limited format, such as 

news, sports, education, or youthoriented). These establishments produce 

programming in their own facilities or 

acquire programming. The programming 

material is usually delivered to a third 

party, such as cable systems or directto-home satellite systems, for 

transmission to viewers.55 The SBA size 

standard for this industry establishes as 

small any company in this category 

which receives annual receipts of $38.5 

million or less.56 Based on U.S. Census 

data for 2007, a total of 659 

establishments operated for the entire 

year.57 Of that 659, 197 operated with 

annual receipts of $10 million or more. 

The remaining 462 establishments 

operated with annual receipts of less 

than $10 million. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of establishments operating in this 

industry are small. 

187. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ 58 The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: All such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees.59

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 

establishments in this category that 

operated for part or all of the entire year. 

Of this total, 912 had less than 500 

employees and 17 had more than 1000 

employees.60 Thus, under that size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

188. Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing. The SBA has classified 

the manufacturing of audio and video 

equipment under in NAICS Codes 

classification scheme as an industry in 

which a manufacturer is small if it has 

fewer than 750 employees.61 Data 

contained in the 2007 U.S. Census 

indicate that 492 establishments 

operated in that industry for all or part 

of that year. In that year, 488 

establishments had fewer than 500 

employees; and only 1 had more than 

1000 employees.62 Thus, under the 

applicable size standard, a majority of 

manufacturers of audio and video 

equipment may be considered small. 

189. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite). The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in operating and 

maintaining switching and transmission 

facilities to provide communications via 

the airwaves. Establishments in this 

industry have spectrum licenses and 

provide services using that spectrum, 

such as cellular phone services, paging 

services, wireless Internet access, and 

wireless video services.’’ 63 The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). The size standard for that 

category is that a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees.64 For this 

category, census data for 2007 show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated for 

the entire year.65 Of this total, 1,368 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 15 had employment of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69412 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

66 Id. Available census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with 1000 

employees or more. 

67See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. 

68See id. 

69U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334220&search=2012 

(last visited Mar. 6, 2014). 

70 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 334220). 

71U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0731SG3, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: General 

Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and 

Industries by Employment Size: 2007 (NAICS code 

334220), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SG3. 

72 47 CFR part 95. 

73The Citizens Band Radio Service, General 

Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, 

Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry 

Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, 

Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio 

Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, 

subpart C, subpart B, subpart H, subpart I, subpart 

G, and subpart J, respectively, of part 95 of the 

Commission’s rules. See generally 47 CFR part 95. 

74 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS Code 517210). 

75U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 (NAICS code 517210), http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

51SSSZ5. 

76 Id. Available census data do not provide a more 

precise estimate of the number of firms that have 

employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 

largest category provided is for firms with 1000 

employees or more. 

77U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

512110 Motion Picture and Video Production, 

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code=512110&search=2012 (last visited 

Mar. 6, 2014). 

78 13 CFR 121.201, 2012 NAICS code 512110. 

79U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series—Establishment and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United 

States: 2007 (NAICS code 512110), http://

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

51SSSZ5. 

80See id. 

81 13 CFR 121.201, 2012 NAICS code 515112. 

82U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 

515112 Radio Broadcasting, http://

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/

naicsrch?code=515112&search=2012 (last visited 

Mar. 6, 2014). 

83See n.14. 

1000 employees or more.66 Similarly, 

according to Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, PCS, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (‘‘SMR’’) 

Telephony services.67 Of these, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees.68 Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

190. Manufacturers of Unlicensed 

Devices. In the context of this FRFA, 

manufacturers of Part 15 unlicensed 

devices that are operated in the UHF– 

TV band (channels 14–51) for wireless 

data transfer fall into the category of 

Radio and Television and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ 69 The SBA has developed 

the small business size standard for this 

category as firms having 750 or fewer 

employees.70 According to Census 

Bureau data for 2007, there were a total 

of 939 establishments in this category 

that operated for the entire year.71 Of 

this total, 912 had less than 500 

employees and 17 had more than 1000 

employees. Thus, under that size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

191. Personal Radio Services/Wireless 

Medical Telemetry Service (‘‘WMTS’’). 

Personal radio services provide shortrange, low power radio for personal 

communications, radio signaling, and 

business communications not provided 

for in other services. The Personal Radio 

Services include spectrum licensed 

under part 95 of our rules.72 These 

services include Citizen Band Radio 

Service (‘‘CB’’), General Mobile Radio 

Service (‘‘GMRS’’), Radio Control Radio 

Service (‘‘R/C’’), Family Radio Service 

(‘‘FRS’’), Wireless Medical Telemetry 

Service (‘‘WMTS’’), Medical Implant 

Communications Service (‘‘MICS’’), Low 

Power Radio Service (‘‘LPRS’’), and 

Multi-Use Radio Service (‘‘MURS’’).73

There are a variety of methods used to 

license the spectrum in these rule parts, 

from licensing by rule, to conditioning 

operation on successful completion of a 

required test, to site-based licensing, to 

geographic area licensing. Under the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

make a determination of which small 

entities are directly affected by the rules 

adopted. Since all such entities are 

wireless, we apply the definition of 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite), pursuant to which a 

small entity is defined as employing 

1,500 or fewer persons.74 For this 

category, census data for 2007 show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated for 

the entire year.75 Of this total, 1,368 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 15 had employment of 

1000 employees or more.76 Thus under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of personal 

radio service and WMTS providers are 

small entities. 

192. However, we note that many of 

the licensees in these services are 

individuals, and thus are not small 

entities. In addition, due to the mostly 

unlicensed and shared nature of the 

spectrum utilized in many of these 

services, the Commission lacks direct 

information upon which to base a more 

specific estimation of the number of 

small entities under an SBA definition 

that might be directly affected by our 

action. 

193. Motion Picture and Video 

Production. The Census Bureau defines 

this category as follows: ‘‘This industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in producing, or producing and 

distributing motion pictures, videos, 

television programs, or television 

commercials.’’ 77 The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: all 

such businesses having $30 million 

dollars or less in annual receipts.78

Census data for 2007 show that there 

were 9,478 establishments that operated 

that year.79 Of that number, 9,128 had 

annual receipts of $24,999,999 or less, 

and 350 had annual receipts ranging 

from not less than $25,000,000 to 

$100,000,000 or more.80 Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of such 

businesses can be considered small 

entities. 

194. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA 

defines a radio broadcast station as a 

small business if such station has no 

more than $38.5 million in annual 

receipts.81 Business concerns included 

in this industry are those ‘‘primarily 

engaged in broadcasting aural programs 

by radio to the public.’’ 82 According to 

review of the BIA Publications, Inc. 

Master Access Radio Analyzer Database 

as of November 26, 2013, about 11,331 

(or about 99.9 percent) of 11,341 

commercial radio stations have 

revenues of $35.5 million or less and 

thus qualify as small entities under the 

SBA definition. The Commission notes, 

however, that, in assessing whether a 

business concern qualifies as small 

under the above definition, business 

(control) affiliations 83 must be 

included. This estimate, therefore, likely 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69413 

84U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 

443142 Electronics,http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/

sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=443142&search=2012 

NAICS Search (last visited May 6, 2014). 

85 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 443142. 

86U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 

Subject Series: Retail Trade, Estab & Firm Size: 

Summary Statistics by Sales Size of Firms for the 

United States: 2007, NAICS code 443142 (released 

2010), http://www2.census.gov/econ2007/EC/

sector44/EC0744SSSZ4.zip (last visited May 7, 

2014). Though the current small business size 

standard for electronic store receipts is $30 million 

or less in annual receipts, in 2007 the small 

business size standard was $9 million or less in 

annual receipts. In 2007, there were 11,214 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire year. Of 

this total, 10,963 firms had annual receipts of under 

$5 million, and 251 firms had receipts of $5 million 

or more but less than $10 million. Id. 

87 Id. An additional 33 firms had annual receipts 

of $50 million or more. 

88 47 CFR 15.711(b)(3). 

89See Section III.C.8, above (discussion of use of 

an electronic key when accessing the 1.4 GHz 

band). 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. 

195. In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. The Commission is unable at 

this time to define or quantify the 

criteria that would establish whether a 

specific radio station is dominant in its 

field of operation. Accordingly, the 

estimate of small businesses to which 

rules may apply does not exclude any 

radio station from the definition of a 

small business on this basis and 

therefore may be over-inclusive to that 

extent. Also, as noted, an additional 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity must be 

independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and the 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

196. Radio, Television, and Other 

Electronics Stores. The Census Bureau 

defines this economic census category 

as follows: ‘‘This U.S. industry 

comprises: (1) Establishments known as 

consumer electronics stores primarily 

engaged in retailing a general line of 

new consumer-type electronic products 

such as televisions, computers, and 

cameras; (2) establishments specializing 

in retailing a single line of consumertype electronic products; (3) 

establishments primarily engaged in 

retailing these new electronic products 

in combination with repair and support 

services; (4) establishments primarily 

engaged in retailing new prepackaged 

computer software; and/or (5) 

establishments primarily engaged in 

retailing prerecorded audio and video 

media, such as CDs, DVDs, and 

tapes.’’ 84 The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for 

Electronic Stores, which is: All such 

firms having $32.5 million or less in 

annual receipts.85 According to Census 

Bureau data for 2007, there were 11,358 

firms in this category that operated for 

the entire year.86 Of this total, 11,323 

firms had annual receipts of under $25 

million, and 35 firms had receipts of 

$25 million or more but less than $50 

million.87 Thus, the majority of firms in 

this category can be considered small. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

197. Use of databases. The NPRM 

seeks comment on the use of use of 

databases. Wireless microphone 

technologies today do not use a database 

as a mechanism for indicating to the 

wireless microphone user that particular 

frequencies in a particular area were 

available, such as at particular locations 

that were not being used by other users 

with priority over the wireless 

microphone users. White space devices 

operating in the TV bands must access 

a database to determine that spectrum is 

available for their operations and that 

they would not potentially be 

interfering with other users at specified 

locations and times.88 Would wireless 

microphone systems potentially benefit 

from the ability to access to a database? 

Could requiring use of a database for 

gaining access to spectrum in a 

particular band or identifying particular 

locations and times where they may 

operate without causing interference to 

other users in the band help to mitigate 

or eliminate the concerns of other users 

in the band that wireless microphone 

operations might cause harmful 

interference to these other users? What 

might be the costs and benefits of 

developing and using a database, and 

would these differ depending on the 

needs of particular types of wireless 

microphone users? 

198. Use of other technologies that 

promote opportunities to access 

additional spectrum. We seek comment 

on other technological advancements 

that could promote greater opportunities 

for wireless microphones to share use of 

spectrum in different bands. 

199. Are there technological advances 

that are currently available or 

contemplated that better enable wireless 

microphones to adjust dynamically to a 

particular interference environment, 

either automatically or through 

coordination, to promote more efficient 

use among the wireless microphones or 

among wireless microphones and other 

users in the band? For instance, could 

devices that include sophisticated 

dynamic power variability capabilities 

help promote more intensive use of the 

spectrum resource in a given area? 

Would these more dynamic capabilities 

enable wireless microphones to vary or 

adjust power levels to minimize or 

eliminate interference to other users in 

a particular setting, or facilitate more reuse of the available spectrum? We invite 

comment on whether technological 

advances along these lines could both 

facilitate more efficient use of the 

spectrum while also helping to ensure 

that they do not cause harmful 

interference to other users of the 

spectrum. 

200. Are there particular technologies, 

such as an ‘‘electronic key’’ or similar 

mechanism, that would ensure that a 

wireless microphone device be able to 

access and operate only on particular 

frequencies at particular locations and 

times, but nowhere else, thus 

eliminating the potential for harmful 

interference to other users (such as other 

users with primary or superior spectrum 

rights are particularly sensitive to 

harmful interference) and by so doing 

provide additional opportunities for 

wireless microphone operations in 

bands? 89 Are there other approaches 

that would effectively limit wireless 

microphone operation to particular 

locations, thus protecting other 

operators from harmful interference? We 

seek broad comment on the 

development and use of these types of 

mechanisms and the tradeoffs or 

practicalities associated with them. Are 

there particular scenarios or bands in 

which use of these mechanisms could 

provide additional opportunities to 

access spectrum? 

201. Other technological advances. 

Are there other technological 

advancements that could help to ensure 

that the various different wireless 

microphone users’ needs are 

accommodated over the longer term? 

What are they? Are there actions the 

Commission should take to promote 

these developments so that they occur 

in a timely fashion? 

202. In this proceeding, the 

Commission invites comment on 

potential revisions to the existing rules 

for Part 74 wireless microphone (and 

other LPAS) operations in the spectrum 

that will remain allocated for TV 

services following the repacking 

process. Specifically, we invite 

comment on revisions to the technical 

rules for LPAS operations on the VHF 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69414 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

90 Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd 6704–05 

para. 316. 

91 In addition to initiating the 39-month transition 

period, the Channel Reassignment PN will identify 

the new channel assignments for full power and 

Class A television stations that have been 

reassigned to different channels resulting from the 

incentive auction and the repacking process. See 

Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6782 para. 

525. 92Elsewhere in the NPRM, we seek comment on 

whether a number of other spectrum bands should 

be allocated for wireless microphone use. See 

Sections III.C.5, III.C.8, and III C.10, above. 93As part of the transition of wireless 

microphones from the 700 MHz band, the 

Commission made available a list of many wireless 

microphones that operated on the 700 MHz band, 

as provided by a number of manufacturers. See 

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/wirelessmicrophones-manufacturers-equipment-list. 

Wireless microphone users could look at this 

information and determine if their devices were 700 

MHz wireless microphones and thus could not be 

used after the transition deadline, or given 

information to contact the Commission for 

additional assistance if the manufacturer of their 

devices was not listed. 

band; on permitting licensed LPAS 

operations on channels in locations 

closer to the television stations 

(including within the DTV contour), 

without the need for coordination, 

provided that the television signal falls 

below specified technical thresholds; on 

adoption of the ETSI emission mask 

standard for analog and digital wireless 

microphones; and general comment on 

other potential revisions concerning 

licensed LPAS operations in the TV 

bands. 

203. Consumer Education and 

Outreach. We seek comment on the 

consumer education and outreach 

efforts that should be employed to 

educate wireless microphone users, 

particularly unlicensed users operating 

in the repurposed 600 MHz band. Our 

goals are to make information available 

so users are aware that they must cease 

operating their wireless microphones on 

the repurposed 600 MHz Band no later 

than the end of the transition period 

(i.e., 39 months after the release of the 

Channel Reassignment PN); to set in 

motion a process so they are aware of 

relevant factors concerning the 

operation of wireless microphones that 

are currently in use; and to establish a 

means for users to locate additional 

spectrum and equipment for their 

operations. A successful consumer 

education and outreach campaign will 

involve the Commission staff working 

with a broad group of interested entities, 

including wireless microphone 

manufacturers, wireless microphones 

users, and user representatives. 

204. Given that a portion of the UHF 

spectrum that is currently used and 

available for wireless microphone 

operations may no longer be available 

following the incentive auction,90 we 

seek comment on how wireless 

microphone users can be provided 

access to information on the specific 

frequencies and the geographic areas of 

repurposed spectrum that will no longer 

be available for wireless microphone 

use at the end of the transition. What 

specific information should be provided 

to wireless microphone users to ensure 

that they know the requirements for 

operating in the repurposed spectrum 

during the transition period and the 

need to exit the band by the end of the 

transition? Although the Channel 

Reassignment PN will provide 

information on the spectrum that will be 

repurposed and no longer available for 

wireless microphones,91 we first seek 

comment on what steps can be taken to 

provide wireless microphone users with 

information on the transition prior to 

the auction. For example, we seek 

comment on whether explanations 

could be provided on the Commission’s 

Web site and on the Web sites of 

manufacturers that would explain the 

steps required under the Commission’s 

rules to vacate the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band, and any information on 

alternative spectrum that is currently 

available outside of this spectrum, as 

well any additional spectrum bands that 

may become available for wireless 

microphone operations beyond those 

already provided for in the rules.92

205. What other means should be 

employed to provide wireless 

microphone users notice of the 

repurposed spectrum that will be 

assigned to new wireless licensees, 

including the specific frequencies in the 

UHF spectrum and the geographic 

locations that will no longer be available 

for wireless microphone operations? We 

seek comment on whether it would it be 

beneficial for wireless microphone users 

to have access to a database that 

identifies spectrum in the repurposed 

600 MHz Band. For example, should 

some form of online mapping tool be 

made available to allow users to enter 

the location and operating frequencies 

of a wireless microphone and determine 

whether it operates in the repurposed 

600 MHz Band? In the event that a 

database or similar approach is adopted, 

we seek comment on who should be 

responsible for developing and 

maintaining (hosting) it, including who 

should be responsible for its cost. 

Commenters should provide 

quantitative and qualitative data on 

costs and benefits of their proposals. 

206. Further, should the Commission 

work with wireless microphone 

manufacturers to obtain information on 

models of wireless microphones that the 

Commission could list on its Web site? 

For example, this information could 

include a list all models of wireless 

microphones sold in the U.S., and all 

wireless microphone models that 

operate in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band, as well as where on the device or 

in its product literature the user could 

look to determine the frequencies on 

which it is capable of operating.93 We 

seek comment on whether making this 

type of information publically available 

would help to facilitate a smooth 

transition from the 600 MHz Band. 

207. In addition to steps that may 

involve manufacturers, we seek 

comment on what steps other parties 

associated with the sale and operation 

of wireless microphones may be able to 

take to provide users with information 

relevant to the transition. These other 

parties may include: Wireless 

microphone distributors and retailers; 

parties that lease or manage wireless 

microphones; trade associations and 

user groups, including those that have 

participated in Commission proceedings 

concerning wireless microphones; 

organizations that host Web sites and 

publish information that addresses 

wireless microphone operations and use 

or are reasonably expected to have 

significant numbers of wireless 

microphone users among their members 

and readers; and engineering and 

industry associations or other groups 

with members that use or operate 

wireless microphones. Involvement in 

education and outreach by these parties 

will be essential, given users’ 

investment in wireless microphone 

equipment and the upcoming changes 

regarding wireless microphone use, 

including the requirement that they 

vacate the 600 MHz Band. Further, it is 

important that education and outreach 

extend to information concerning any 

newly-allocated spectrum for wireless 

microphone operations and the 

potential for users to opt for a suite of 

wireless microphones operating in 

different spectrum bands and with 

different capabilities, depending on the 

user’s specific requirements. We note 

that wireless microphone users can 

encompass a wide range of entities, 

including both licensed and unlicensed 

users, and parties with differing levels 

of wireless microphone needs and 

expertise covering many different 

applications. Based on these 

considerations, it is likely that the need 

for information on the various spectrum 

bands that will be available for wireless 

microphone operations, and the 

conditions specific to each, will be vital. 

We seek comment on these matters, and 

on what steps can be taken to assure 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69415 

94See TV Bands Wireless Microphones R&O, 25 

FCC Rcd at 687–691 paras. 91–106. 

95See TV Bands Wireless Microphone R&O, 25 

FCC Rcd at 688–689 para. 96; 47 CFR 15.216. The 

required disclosure states: ‘‘Most users do not need 

a license to operate this wireless microphone 

system. Nevertheless, operating this microphone 

system without a license is subject to certain 

restrictions: The system may not cause harmful 

interference; it must operate at a low power level 

(not in excess of 50 milliwatts); and it has no 

protection from interference received from any 

other device. Purchasers should also be aware that 

the FCC is currently evaluating use of wireless 

microphone systems, and these rules are subject to 

change. For more information, call the FCC at 1– 

888–CALL–FCC (TTY: 1–888–TELL–FCC) or visit 

the FCC’s wireless microphone Web site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones.’’ See 47 

CFR 15.216, Appendix. The Commission noted that 

manufacturers and distributors could satisfy the 

disclosure requirement in more than one way, 

including by displaying the text in a prominent 

manner on the product box via a label or sticker; 

displaying the text immediately adjacent to the 

device in a manner clearly associated with the 

device; and, for wireless microphones offered 

online or via direct mail or catalog, displaying the 

text in close proximity to the images and 

descriptions of each wireless microphone. See TV 

Bands Wireless Microphones Report and Order, 25 

FCC Rcd at 689 para. 100. 

96See TV Bands Wireless Microphones R&O, 25 

FCC Rcd at 666 para. 43; see also 47 CFR 74.851(h). 

In the TV Bands Wireless Microphones FNPRM, the 

Commission also sought comment on whether to 

adopt labeling and other marketing restrictions to 

help ensure that devices certificated as low power 

auxiliary stations under part 74 were marketed only 

to parties eligible for a part 74 license. In particular, 

the Commission sought comment on whether to 

require manufacturers to direct marketing of part 

74-certificated devices only to parties eligible to 

operate them; whether to require manufacturers to 

track the parties to whom their products are 

marketed; whether to require manufacturers to 

provide a label visible at the time of purchase or 

instructions in the user manual advising purchasers 

of the requirement to obtain a license; and whether 

to prohibit manufacturers and distributors from 

selling devices certificated under Part 74 unless the 

sale is to a party that has committed in writing that 

it is a bona fide reseller or eligible for a license 

under Part 74. See TV Bands Wireless Microphones 

FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 701–702 paras. 141–144. 

97See infra Section III.C.1.b(iii). 

98See TV Bands Wireless Microphones FNPRM, 

25 FCC Rcd at 689 para. 100. 

that the information to educate users on 

the transition will be commensurate 

with the appropriate needs and levels of 

expertise of all users. 

208. The Commission seeks comment 

on what additional information we 

should make available for wireless 

microphone users, including 

Commission-issued consumer ‘‘fact 

sheets’’ and ‘‘frequently asked 

questions’’ (‘‘FAQ’s’’) which would 

address, among other matters, 

information on operation in the 600 

MHz Band, the reason for the need to 

operate on frequencies outside of that 

band following the transition, the 

availability of other frequency bands for 

wireless microphone use, and the need 

to comply with Commission rules. We 

further seek comment on how to release 

or distribute these materials in order to 

most effectively and efficiently reach 

the target audience of wireless 

microphone users. 

209. The Commission seeks comment 

on the specific actions that wireless 

microphone manufacturers, distributors, 

retailers and other entities comprising 

the wireless microphone community 

should take to inform the wide range of 

wireless microphone users about the 

ongoing developments concerning 

wireless microphone use—particularly 

the need to vacate the repurposed 600 

MHz Band, the timetable for doing so, 

and the conditions for operating in the 

band during the transition period. We 

seek comment on whether and to what 

extent these entities can make this type 

of information available, including, as 

appropriate, by posting it on their Web 

sites, including it in all sales literature, 

or taking other steps to inform current 

or potential wireless microphone users 

of matters concerning the operation of 

their devices. We also seek comment on 

whether manufacturers would consider 

rebates, equipment trade-ins, or similar 

programs to facilitate the transition, and 

what effect the 39-month transition 

period would have on a decision to 

implement such a program. In addition, 

we seek comment on the economic costs 

and benefits of adopting consumer 

outreach measures. 

210. Disclosure Requirements. The 

Commission proposes to revise our 

point-of-sale disclosure requirement 

that the Commission adopted in the 

Wireless Microphone Report and Order 

in order to provide information to 

wireless microphone users that may 

have to purchase or lease new 

equipment so that they can vacate the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band. In the TV 

Bands Wireless Microphones Report and 

Order, the Commission adopted a pointof-sale requirement to help assure that 

consumers were informed of their rights 

and obligations if they chose to operate 

wireless microphones and other low 

power auxiliary stations in the core TV 

bands (defined in the rule as channels 

2–51, excluding channel 37).94

Specifically, the Commission adopted a 

requirement for manufacturers and 

distributors of wireless microphones 

that operate in the core TV bands to 

provide a written disclosure informing 

consumers of the requirements for 

operating devices in that spectrum and 

to display the disclosure at the point of 

sale and on their Web sites.95 The 

Commission also provided that persons 

who manufacture or market wireless 

microphones destined for export and 

capable of operating in the 700 MHz 

Band must include labeling stating that 

the devices cannot be used in the 

United States.96

211. We propose to revise the existing 

point-of-sale disclosure requirement in 

order to facilitate a smoother transition 

in which wireless microphone users are 

informed of the need to vacate the 

repurposed 600 MHz Band, while fully 

understanding their rights and 

obligations during the transition period 

and at the end of the transition period. 

With regard to sales of wireless 

microphones that are capable of 

operating in repurposed spectrum, we 

propose to require that such sales 

include point-of-sale disclosures that 

inform buyers that they are buying a 

microphone that cannot be used in 

certain frequencies following the 

transition. We also seek comment on 

how point-of-sale disclosures could be 

designed to effectively address any ban 

on manufacturing and marketing of 

wireless microphones that are capable 

of operating in the repurposed 600 MHz 

Band.97 We propose that the revised 

point-of-sale disclosures should direct 

buyers to the manufacturer’s toll free 

telephone number or the manufacturer’s 

Web site where the buyer can obtain 

more detailed information on the extent 

to which the microphone may be 

affected by repurposing of 600 MHz 

Band. Should we retain the existing 

language in the point-of-sale disclosure 

requirement that includes the 

Commission’s toll free number and the 

Commission’s Web site where users can 

obtain additional information on the 

operation of wireless microphones 

during the transition period and after 

the transition period? What other 

information should be included in the 

disclosure? 

212. We propose that the effective 

date for any disclosure requirement, 

including a point-of-sale requirement, 

which we may adopt in connection with 

this or a related proceeding, shall be 12 

months after the release of the Channel 

Reassignment PN—which will mark the 

effective date of channel reassignments 

based on the repacking process, specify 

any specific channel assignments for 

television stations that will continue to 

broadcast, and start the clock running 

on the post-auction transition period— 

or should some other date be used 

instead? We seek comment on the 

particular factors that should enter into 

this determination. We note that in 

adopting the current disclosure 

requirement, the Commission stated that 

it would remain in effect until the 

effective date of the final rules adopted 

in response to the 2010 TV Bands 

Wireless Microphones FNPRM.98


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69416 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

99See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

100See, e.g., Sennheiser Reply Comments (Docket 

No. 12–268) at 18. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

213. 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.99

214. In the NPRM we request 

comment on whether, apart from 

establishing such a TV signal threshold, 

we should adopt any other safeguards to 

ensure that licensed wireless 

microphone operators comply with this 

threshold and do not otherwise cause 

harmful interference to TV reception. 

We note at the outset that because we 

would limit these types of operations to 

licensed wireless microphone users, we 

would expect such users to have the 

requisite wireless microphone systems, 

as well as technical and operational 

abilities, to be able to determine the 

level of the co-channel TV signals at a 

given location, and thus would be able 

to comply with any threshold rule that 

we adopted. Is this a reasonable 

expectation? To what extent would a 

wireless microphone operations require 

a low TV signal to be able operate 

effectively on a co-channel basis? 

Should we require licensed wireless 

microphone users to register their cochannel operations in the TV bands 

databases, which could provide 

information to any television licensee 

concerned about possible harmful 

interference? Are there other actions we 

should take? 

215. As an alternative approach, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should permit co-channel licensed 

wireless microphone operations in 

indoor venues, such as in theaters or 

music auditoriums. Could an 

appropriate approach towards indoor 

operations be developed that would also 

effectively preclude harmful 

interference to any potential TV viewers 

at indoor locations? For instance, could 

certain locations be readily identified 

where wireless microphone operations 

can be permitted, provided of course 

that they are operated consistent with 

applicable technical requirements, 

including power limits and out-ofbound emissions requirements? Or, 

considering that in order to operate 

effectively wireless microphones need 

access to channels that are sufficiently 

interference-free, is it reasonable to 

expect that co-channel wireless 

microphone operations would only take 

place in indoor locations on channels 

with relatively low or effectively nonexistent TV signal, and thus conclude 

that such operations would not be likely 

to effectively harm TV viewers? Some 

commenters in the incentive auction 

proceeding suggested that such 

operations may already take place 

without incident.100 As we explore this 

approach, the Commission seeks 

comment on the benefits or downsides 

of allowing licensed wireless 

microphone operations at indoor 

locations, or at specified types of indoor 

locations. We ask that commenters 

provide any technical analysis bases for 

their recommendations. 

216. We also invite comment on other 

approaches that we should take on 

expanding wireless microphone 

operations on a co-channel basis closer 

to television station operations. Again, 

commenters proposing any alternative 

approaches should provide technical 

analyses to support their approaches, 

and discuss the benefits of such an 

approach and how their approaches 

would not cause harmful interference to 

channels that would be used for 

wireless microphone operations. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

217. None. 

Congressional Review Act 

218. The Commission will send a 

copy of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Ordering Clauses 

219. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 

301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e) and 

332 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

157(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 

and 332, the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

220. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 74 

Communications equipment, 

Education, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 74 to read as follows: 

PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, 

AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST 

AND OTHER PROGRAM 

DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES 

Subpart H—Low Power Auxiliary 

Stations 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 74 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 

309, 336 and 554. 

■ 2. Section 74.801 is amended by 

adding the definition for ‘‘Repurposed 

600 MHz Band’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 74.801 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Repurposed 600 MHz Band. 

Frequencies that will be reallocated and 

reassigned for part 27 600 MHz Band 

services as determined by the outcome 

of the auction conducted pursuant to 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions, Report and 

Order, GN Docket No. 12–268 (FCC 14– 

50), 29 FCC 6567 (2014). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 74.832 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 74.832 Licensing Requirements and 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

(d) Cable television operations, 

motion picture and television program 

producers, large venue owners or 

operators, and professional sound 

companies may be authorized to operate 

low power auxiliary stations in the 

bands allocated for TV broadcasting and 

in the 944–952 MHz band. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 74.851 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (i), and adding paragraphs (j) 

through (l) to read as follows: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69417 

§ 74.851 Certification of equipment; 

prohibition on manufacture, import, sale, 

lease, offer for sale or lease, or shipment of 

devices that operate in the 700 MHz Band 

or the 600 MHz Band; labeling for 700 MHz 

or 600 MHz band equipment destined for 

non-U.S. markets; disclosures. 

* * * * * 

(i) Effective nine months after the 

release of the Commission’s Channel 

Reassignment Public Notice issued 

pursuant to Expanding the Economic 

and Innovation Opportunities of 

Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 

Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12– 

268 (FCC 14–50), 29 FCC 6567 (2014), 

certification may no longer be obtained 

for low power auxiliary stations or 

wireless video assist devices that are 

capable of operating in the repurposed 

600 MHz band as defined in § 74.801. 

(j) Effective eighteen months after the 

release of the Commission’s Channel 

Reassignment Public Notice issued 

pursuant to Expanding the Economic 

and Innovation Opportunities of 

Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 

Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12– 

268 (FCC 14–50), 29 FCC 6567 (2014), 

no person shall manufacture, import, 

sell, lease, offer for sale or lease, or ship 

low power auxiliary stations or wireless 

video assist devices that are capable of 

operating in the repurposed 600 MHz 

band as defined in § 74.801. This 

prohibition does not apply to devices 

manufactured solely for export. 

(k) Effective eighteen months after the 

release of the Commission’s Channel 

Reassignment Public Notice issued 

pursuant to Expanding the Economic 

and Innovation Opportunities of 

Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 

Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12– 

268 (FCC 14–50), 29 FCC 6567 (2014), 

any person who manufactures, sells, 

leases, or offers for sale or lease low 

power auxiliary stations or wireless 

video assist devices that are destined for 

non-U.S. markets and that are capable of 

operating in the repurposed 600 MHz 

band as defined in § 74.801, shall 

include labeling and make clear in all 

sales, marketing, and packaging 

materials, including online materials, 

relating to such devices that the devices 

cannot be operated in the U.S. 

(l) Any person, whether such person 

is a wholesaler or a retailer, who 

manufactures, sells, leases, or offers for 

sale or lease low power auxiliary 

stations or wireless video assist devices 

that operate in the repurposed 600 MHz 

band is subject to the disclosure 

requirements in § 15.216 of this chapter. 

■ 5. Section 74.861 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d)(4) and (e)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 74.861 Technical Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Effective as of [date of publication 

of final rule], emissions within the band 

from one megahertz below to one 

megahertz above the carrier frequency 

shall comply with the emission mask in 

Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422–1, 

Electromagnetic compatibility and 

Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless 

microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz 

frequency range; part 1: Technical 

characteristics and methods of 

measurement. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(7) Effective as of [date of publication 

of final rule], emissions within the band 

from one megahertz below to one 

megahertz above the carrier frequency 

shall comply with the emission mask in 

Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422–1, 

Electromagnetic compatibility and 

Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless 

microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz 

frequency range; part 1: Technical 

characteristics and methods of 

measurement. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–26675 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

RIN 0648–XA984 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Listing Determinations for 

Nassau Grouper; Public Hearing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) will hold a public 

hearing in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, in December 2014 for the 

purpose of accepting public comments 

on the proposal to list the Nassau 

grouper (Epinephelus striatus) as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

December 9, 2014, at 7 p.m. Atlantic 

Standard Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Marriott Frenchmans Reef Hotel, 5 

Estate Bakkeroe, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Information about the proposed 

listing of the Nassau grouper under the 

ESA is available at: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_

resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_

consideration/index.html. 

Comments, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–0101, may also be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0101, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Facsimile (fax): 727–824–5309. 

• Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Hand delivery: You may hand 

deliver written information to our office 

during normal business hours at the 

street address given above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office (727) 824–5350; or Lisa Manning, 

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources 

(301) 427–8466. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 2, 2014, we published 

a proposed rule to list the Nassau 

grouper (Epinephelus striatus) as 

threatened under the ESA (79 FR 

51929). While the species still occupies 

its historical range, spawning 

aggregations have been reduced in size 

and number due to fishing pressure. The 

lack of adequate management measures 

to protect these aggregations increases 

the extinction risk of Nassau grouper. 

Based on these considerations, 

described in more detail in the proposed 

rule (79 FR 51929; September 2, 2014), 

we concluded that the Nassau grouper 

is not currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but is likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. 

We are currently soliciting relevant 

information that may inform the final 

listing and designation of critical 

habitat. In particular we seek comments 

containing: (1) Information concerning 

the location(s) and status of any 

spawning aggregations of the species; 

and (2) Information concerning the 

threats to the species; and (3) Efforts 

being made to protect the species 

throughout its current range. See 

ADDRESSES section above for 

information on how to submit 

comments. The public comment period 

on the proposed rule is open until 

December 31, 2014. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS