Improving Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters, 26983-26996 [2011-11135]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26983-26996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11135]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 22, 24, 27, 90 and 95

[WT Docket No. 10-4; FCC 11-53]


Improving Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on revisions to its rules to help fill gaps 
in wireless coverage and expand broadband in rural and difficult-to-
serve areas, and protect wireless networks from harm. The development 
and deployment of well-designed signal boosters holds great potential 
to empower consumers in rural and underserved areas to improve their 
wireless coverage in their homes, at their jobs, and when they travel 
by car, recreational vehicle, or boat.

DATES: Submit comments on or before June 24, 2011, and reply comments 
on or before July 25, 2011. For additional information concerning 
proposed information collections contained in this document, contact 
Judith-B.Herman

[[Page 26984]]

at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at Judith.B-Herman@fcc.gov.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-4; 
FCC 11-53, by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Jones, Mobility Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-1327, or e-mail at 
joyce.jones@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') in WT Docket No. 10-4, FCC 10-53, 
adopted on April 5, 2011, and released on April 6, 2011. The full text 
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 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: https://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available 
to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov. or 
by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

I. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules-Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

    1. This rulemaking shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented generally is required. Other requirements 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    2. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 1.419, interested parties may file comments 
and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page 
of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's 
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(tty).
    3. Parties should send a copy of their filings to Joyce Jones, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 6404, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to joyce.jones@fcc.gov. Parties 
shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best 
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to 
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
    4. Documents in WT Docket No. 10-4 will be available for public 
inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, 
telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, 
e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com.
    5. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY). Contact 
the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments 
(accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) 
by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    6. This document contains a proposed or a modified information 
collection. Accordingly, we seek comment on the impact of this NPRM on 
information collections, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Introduction

    7. In this document, the Commission initiates a proceeding to 
facilitate the development and deployment of well-designed signal 
boosters, which hold great potential to empower consumers in rural and 
underserved areas to improve their wireless coverage in their homes, at 
their jobs, and when they travel by car, recreational vehicle, or boat. 
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a new regulatory 
framework authorizing individuals and entities to operate ``consumer 
signal boosters'' provided the devices comply with: (1) All applicable 
technical and radiofrequency (RF) exposure rules, and (2) a set of 
parameters aimed at preventing and controlling interference and rapidly 
resolving interference problems should

[[Page 26985]]

they occur. A consumer signal booster is any signal booster operated by 
(or for the benefit of) consumers on spectrum being used to provide 
subscriber-based services, e.g., voice communications, texting, using a 
broadband connection to access e-mail or the Internet. The Commission 
also proposes revisions to the rules governing signal boosters used for 
private land mobile services.
    8. In addition, the Commission addresses three petitions for 
rulemaking filed by Bird Technologies, Inc. (filed Aug. 18, 2005), the 
DAS Forum (a membership section of PCIA--the Wireless Infrastructure 
Association) (filed Oct. 23, 2009) (DAS Forum), and Wilson Electronics, 
Inc. (filed Nov. 3, 2009), and a petition for declaratory ruling filed 
by Jack Daniel DBA Jack Daniel Company (filed Sept. 25, 2008), all of 
which relate to signal boosters.

III. Discussion

A. Certification and Use of Consumer Signal Boosters

1. License-by-Rule Framework
    9. The Commission proposes to license the use of signal boosters by 
rule under section 307(e) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 307(e). 
47 U.S.C. 307(e)(1) states in part that, ``[n]otwithstanding any 
license requirement established in this Act, if the Commission 
determines that such authorization serves the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity, the Commission may by rule authorize the 
operation of radio stations without individual licenses in the 
following radio services: (A) Citizens band radio service; * * * '' 
section 307(e) states further that, ``[f]or purposes of this 
subsection, the terms `citizens band radio service', * * * shall have 
the meanings given them by the Commission by rule.'' The Commission 
believes that a license-by-rule framework would be the best approach 
for enabling operation of properly certificated signal boosters, 
particularly because it would obviate the need for burdensome 
individual licensing requirements. The Commission's proposed regulatory 
framework would facilitate operation of signal boosters to enhance 
wireless coverage and access to broadband services, while minimizing 
administrative costs and burdens on the public, Commission licensees, 
and agency staff, thus serving the public interest, convenience and 
necessity.
    10. The Commission tentatively concludes that authorizing the 
operation of properly certificated signal boosters by rule under 
section 307(e) of the Act would further the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity. Signal boosters provide substantial public 
benefits for consumers by improving wireless coverage in rural, indoor, 
and other hard to serve locations where wireless coverage may be 
deficient. However, because the Commission proposes to authorize 
operation of signal boosters on licensed spectrum, the Commission 
further proposes that any such use would be on a secondary, non-
interfering basis, and would have to meet the proposed technical 
parameters of operation, which are designed to prevent, control, and 
quickly resolve any interference should it occur.
2. General Requirements for All Consumer Signal Boosters
    11. Manufacturing Requirements. The Commission proposes that all 
consumer signal boosters must meet all applicable technical 
specifications for the relevant band(s) of operation as they apply to 
mobile units (i.e., not base station technical specifications). The 
applicable rules are 47 CFR 22.355, Public Mobile Services frequency 
tolerance; 47 CFR 22.913, Cellular effective radiated power limits; 47 
CFR 22.917, Emission limitation for cellular equipment; 47 CFR 24.232, 
PCS power and antenna height limits; 47 CFR 24.238, Emission 
limitations for Broadband PCS equipment; 47 CFR 27.50, Miscellaneous 
Wireless Communications Services power and antenna height limits; 47 
CFR 27.53, Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services emission 
limits; 47 CFR 90.205, Private Land Mobile Radio Services power and 
antenna height limits; 47 CFR 90.210, Private Land Mobile Radio 
Services emission masks; 47 CFR 90.219, Private Land Mobile Radio 
Services use of signal boosters; and 47 CFR 90.247, Private Land Mobile 
Radio Services mobile repeater stations. The Commission seeks detailed 
comment on our proposal and proposed rule language set forth below that 
signal boosters must comply with all applicable technical requirements 
for mobile units for the bands they will operate on. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any other technical specifications 
should apply and the costs and benefits of adopting such additional 
technical requirements.
    12. The Commission also proposes that all signal boosters must 
monitor the device's compliance with all applicable technical 
requirements for mobile devices for the band in which they operate 
(e.g. power, out-of-band emissions (OOBE)). The Commission believes 
base station technical limits are not applicable because they would 
allow significantly higher power levels, which are not warranted for 
this service. If it is determined that the device is operating outside 
of the applicable technical parameters, the Commission proposes that 
the device must be capable of shutting itself down automatically within 
ten (10) seconds (or less). The Commission further proposes that the 
device must remain off for at least one (1) minute before restarting. 
If after five (5) restarts, the device is still not operating 
consistent with applicable technical rules, it must shut off and remain 
off until manually restarted by the device operator. The Commission 
also proposes that all signal boosters must detect feedback or 
oscillation (such as may result from insufficient isolation between the 
antennas) and deactivate the uplink transmitter within 10 seconds of 
detection. After such deactivation, the booster must not resume 
operation until manually reset. These built-in technological safeguards 
would minimize the potential for harmful interference to wireless 
networks.
    13. The Commission seeks detailed comment on its proposal and 
proposed rule language set forth below, including the appropriate 
triggers to initiate device shut down. In addition, the Commission 
queries whether signal boosters should monitor for any other parameters 
and, if so, how such monitoring would be accomplished and at what 
additional cost. Further, the Commission seeks specific comment on 
whether the existing technical rules that apply to mobile devices in 
parts 22, 24 and 27 are appropriate for all signal booster devices. Are 
these technical limits adequate to address varying types of signal 
booster installations, e.g., personal use vs. carrier and enterprise 
installations, which are typically professionally installed and 
designed to cover large areas such as office buildings or arenas? The 
Commission notes that signal boosters can be designed for use on both 
the Personal Communications Service (PCS) and Cellular Radiotelephone 
Service bands, but different technical requirements apply to these 
bands; does this create unnecessary design challenges for signal 
booster manufacturers? The Commission also notes that mobile subscriber 
unit power is subject to an effective radiated power (ERP) limit, which 
is appropriate for devices with integrated antennas, while most signal 
boosters do not have integrated antennas. Would transmitter output 
power be a more appropriate power limit measure for signal booster 
devices? The Commission requests detailed comment on the appropriate 
technical

[[Page 26986]]

limits that should apply to signal boosters for each band of operation, 
including the associated costs and benefits.
    14. The Commission also seeks comment on other technical 
requirements that may be necessary to ensure signal boosters do not 
negatively affect carriers' networks. For example, some commenters 
expressed concern that wideband signal boosters generate additional 
radio frequency (RF) noise that can reduce the capacity and reliability 
of the network even when subscriber signals are not amplified. We seek 
detailed comment and analyses on the impact of wideband signal booster 
use on wireless networks. How are these impacts different from 
narrowband signal boosters? How can wideband signal boosters be 
designed to avoid potential problems? Can specific device features 
minimize network impact, e.g., programmability to a specific frequency 
block or powering on only when needed to amplify a signal? 
Specifically, how would such design features affect device cost?
    15. RF Exposure. The Commission proposes to apply the relevant part 
22, 24, 27 or 90 mobile station technical requirements to signal 
boosters. In addition, the Commission proposes to prohibit signal 
boosters that are designed to be used so that the radiating 
structure(s) is/are within 20 centimeters of the user or other persons, 
as defined for portable devices in Sec.  2.1093(b). Thus, the 
Commission proposes to permit only fixed and mobile signal boosters, 
which will be governed by the RF exposure rules regarding how the 
devices are deployed. The RF exposure rules in Sec. Sec.  1.1307 and 
2.1091 of the Commission's rules outline exposure limits, equipment 
authorization requirements, and other regulatory requirements that are 
based on the type of device, how it is deployed or used, the power of 
its transmissions, and the proximity of its antenna and radiating 
structures to a person's body. To maintain RF exposure compliance, the 
operation of signal boosters can be highly dependent on how they are 
installed and operated with respect to the fixed and mobile exposure 
conditions required by Sec. Sec.  1.1307 and 2.1091; therefore, in 
addition to the routine evaluation currently required under Sec.  
2.1091 for parts 22, 24, 27 and 90 devices, clear installation and user 
operating instructions/requirements are proposed to be necessary for 
installers and end users to satisfy RF exposure requirements.
    16. The Commission's existing RF exposure rules have proven 
effective in ensuring compliance for the deployment and use of existing 
signal boosters, and thus the Commission sees no reason to change the 
existing RF exposure requirements. The Commission will, however, 
outline these requirements in a new Sec.  95.1627. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes to maintain its requirement that routine RF 
exposure evaluation is required for signal boosters authorized under 
part 95 that operate under fixed and mobile exposure conditions. The 
Commission proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  1.1307(b) and 2.1091 of its 
rules accordingly. In addition, as required by Sec.  2.1091, 
applications for equipment authorization shall contain a statement 
confirming compliance with the RF exposure limits for both the 
fundamental and unwanted emissions. Further, technical information 
showing the basis for compliance with RF exposure requirements must be 
submitted to the Commission upon request. Since signal boosters 
operating in fixed-mounted configurations are generally deployed 
similarly to subscriber transceiver antennas, the Commission proposes 
to require labeling for these types of signal boosters as similarly 
required for subscriber transceiver antennas in Table 1 of Sec.  
1.1307(b)(1). The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of our 
proposal.
    17. Labeling and Marketing Requirements. The Commission proposes 
that all signal boosters must be labeled and marketed to consumers with 
clear information specifying the legal use of the device. Numerous 
commenters request a marketing and/or labeling requirement for signal 
boosters. Specifically, the Commission proposes that marketing 
materials must include a prominently placed ``consumer disclosure'' 
notifying consumers that the signal booster can only be operated 
consistent with part 95, Subpart M. For example, for signal boosters 
offered online or via direct mail or catalog, the consumer disclosure 
should be prominently displayed in close proximity to the images and 
descriptions of each signal booster. In addition, the Commission 
proposes that all signal booster packaging must prominently display the 
consumer disclosure using a label, either on or otherwise affixed to 
the package. Specifically the Commission proposes that all signal 
boosters marketed on or after six months from the effective date of our 
rules must include the following advisories in 12-point or greater 
typeface (1) in any marketing materials, (2) in the owner's manual, (3) 
on the outside packaging of the device, and (4) on a label affixed to 
the device:

    WARNING. Operation of this device is on a secondary non-
interference basis and must cease immediately if requested by the 
FCC or a licensed wireless service provider.
    In addition to the above, signal boosters intended for fixed 
operation must include the following advisory:
    WARNING. Operation of this device must be coordinated with, and 
information on channel selection and operating power must be 
obtained from, the applicable spectrum licensees authorized in the 
area of deployment. Licensee information is available at https://www.fcc.gov/signalboosters.

    18. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals, including the 
text of our proposed rules set forth below. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether to require manufacturers, retailers, and any 
other entity marketing or selling signal boosters to display the 
consumer disclosure language conspicuously at the point-of-sale and on 
their Web sites. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to 
include enforcement language as part of the consumer disclosure.
    19. Operator Requirements. The Commission also proposes that if a 
signal booster is causing harmful interference as defined in part 2.1 
of its rules, 47 CFR 2.1, the operator of the device must immediately 
cease operations. While the Commission believes that its proposed rules 
will facilitate the development and deployment of robust signal 
boosters which will not harm wireless networks, in the event harmful 
interference does occur, this safeguard confirms that an interfering 
signal booster operator must cease operation. The Commission seeks 
comment on its proposals and proposed rule language set forth below. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how signal 
booster operators should be protected from interference from other 
signal booster operations.
3. Fixed Signal Booster Requirements
    20. The Commission's proposed rules seek to facilitate the 
development of signal boosters which do not cause harmful interference 
to wireless networks. Avoiding harmful interference, however, will 
differ for fixed and mobile signal boosters. Accordingly, in addition 
to the general requirements discussed above, the Commission proposes 
additional and separate requirements for fixed and mobile signal 
boosters.
    21. The Commission proposes to require all operators of fixed 
consumer signal boosters to coordinate frequency selection and power 
levels with applicable carrier(s) prior to operation.

[[Page 26987]]

 For purposes of this proceeding, the term ``fixed signal booster'' 
refers to a signal booster that is operated at a fixed location, e.g., 
office building, tunnel, garage, home. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal and its proposed rules, including whether there are other 
requirements specific to fixed signal boosters that it should mandate. 
For example, is coordination sufficient to address the power control 
concerns of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) carriers or should all 
signal boosters be equipped with dynamic power control capabilities? 
What would be needed to accomplish sufficient dynamic power control and 
at what cost? In addition, what type of coordination should be required 
for temporary or emergency deployment of signal boosters? Further, how 
should the coordination process accommodate a carrier's subsequent 
network changes? The Commission notes that, as drafted, its proposed 
rule would permit fixed, outdoor installation of signal boosters. The 
Commission recognizes, however, that such outdoor installations may 
pose additional installation challenges for achieving adequate antenna 
attenuation, among other things. Accordingly, the Commission queries 
whether additional safeguards are necessary for fixed, outdoor signal 
booster installations, such as a professional installation requirement?
    22. The Commission recognizes that there may be instances where a 
service provider may not timely respond to coordination requests. The 
Commission thus seeks comment on how to administer a coordination 
requirement that balances the need for timely coordination with the 
resulting burdens on carriers. The Commission seeks detailed comment on 
how the coordination should be structured, including whether to impose 
specific timelines for responding to a coordination request and what 
dispute resolutions procedures are necessary in the event the parties 
cannot reach a coordination agreement.
4. Mobile Signal Booster Requirements
    23. In order to prevent mobile signal boosters from causing harmful 
interference to wireless networks, different safeguards are necessary. 
Unlike fixed devices, mobile signal boosters cannot reasonably be 
coordinated with nearby carrier base stations in advance. In lieu of 
that coordination, the Commission seeks to ensure that mobile signal 
boosters only operate when needed, and cease operations when they are 
unnecessary. The Commission therefore proposes to require a signal 
booster operating in a mobile environment to power down or shut down as 
the device approaches the base station with which it is communicating. 
If implemented in signal boosters, such a safeguard could protect a 
service provider's network by mitigating excess noise to base stations 
from signal boosters that are operating but not needed. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal and proposed rules set forth below, 
including how this concept would be implemented and enforced. Could the 
devices simply turn off when not needed or could a dynamic power 
control similar to that used by mobile phones be implemented in a 
signal booster? Commenters should address the technical, operational 
and economic challenges to such an approach.
    24. While powering down or shutting down will reduce noise at the 
base station with which the device is communicating, a signal booster 
can also introduce noise to other carriers' base stations (the ``near-
far problem''). For example, a signal booster communicating with 
Carrier ``A,'' far from carrier A's base station may be near Carrier 
``B's'' base station and introduce excessive noise to Carrier B. In 
this vein, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it should 
address this problem. How best can a mobile signal booster prevent 
noise generation with base stations with which it is not communicating? 
For example, should the Commission only permit carrier-specific signal 
boosters for mobile applications, or should it require that mobile 
signal boosters be tethered to the phone or only be approved if they 
have a docking station to ensure amplification of only the desired 
signal of the operator? If such protection is necessary, how should it 
be accomplished? Specifically, how will additional design features 
influence device cost? Are there other potential problems that 
manufacturers should address? Several commentators also suggest that 
mobile signal boosters include some form of automatic gain control to 
avoid base station overload. The Commission seeks comment on whether we 
should require devices to have automatic gain control and how that 
should be accomplished.
5. Other Proposals
    25. Four parties--AT&T, CTIA, the Wireless Association, the DAS 
Forum, and Wilson Electronics, Inc.--submitted alternate proposals 
which may facilitate the development of well-designed, properly 
operating and installed signal boosters while controlling, preventing 
and, if necessary, resolving interference to wireless networks. The 
Commission carefully examined these proposals and, where appropriate, 
incorporated specific elements from these proposals where they appeared 
narrowly tailored to address carriers' concerns about network 
reliability and management, into the Commission's overall proposal. The 
Commission seeks comment on these four proposals, including whether 
additional elements of these proposals should be included in the 
Commission's comprehensive proposal for signal boosters. For example, 
the Commission notes that there appears to be some commonality between 
the proposals submitted by AT&T, CTIA, and Wilson regarding the need 
for signal boosters to include a form of remote shut-off capability. 
Should the Commission include remote shut-off capability among the 
safeguards in its proposed framework and how should it be implemented? 
In addition, should such a shut-off feature be subject to a 
quantitative or qualitative standard, e.g., reasonable network 
management? Also, should the Commission require boosters to incorporate 
location detection features as suggested by some commenters? Further, 
the Commission seeks detailed comment on the impact of signal booster 
use on network-based E-911 systems, including how manufacturers might 
implement CTIA's proposal to require signal boosters to include a 
mechanism for relaying accurate E-911 location information. The 
Commission also encourages comment on other safeguards not currently 
included in its proposal or the alternate proposals that could promote 
signal booster use. Commenters advocating additional safeguards should 
address the costs and benefits of such additional features.
6. Treatment of Existing Signal Boosters
    26. The Commission recognizes that there are signal boosters being 
operated today by CMRS licensees or others, which will not meet the 
requirements we propose in the NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on 
how such boosters should be treated. Further, should the Commission 
sunset the use of existing signal boosters which do not meet its 
proposed safeguards or grandfather certain existing signal boosters? In 
addition, to the extent the Commission determines to grandfather 
certain signal boosters and adopts a signal booster registration 
requirement, it queries whether grandfathered devices should also be 
subject to such a requirement. The Commission notes that nothing in 
this item affects the ability of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau to 
investigate and take appropriate action to resolve instances

[[Page 26988]]

of interference caused by signal boosters.
    27. At the same time, the Commission seeks to provide an orderly 
transition to signal boosters that meet any new requirements developed 
in this proceeding, and minimize public confusion about whether 
particular devices are legal for use going forward. The Commission 
proposes a two-step approach to achieving these goals. First, the 
Commission proposes that, beginning 30 days after the effective date of 
final rules in this proceeding, all applications for equipment 
authorization must show that the device meets the new rules. Second, 
the Commission proposes that, beginning six months from the effective 
date of its rules, all signal boosters marketed or sold in the United 
States must meet its proposed safeguards. This approach encourages 
manufacturers to quickly transition to devices that meet the new rules, 
providing near-term equipment options for licensees and consumers. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including whether these 
timeframes are reasonable.

B. National Signal Booster Clearinghouse

    28. While the technical and operational safeguards the Commission 
proposes reduce the likelihood that interference will occur, in the 
event it does occur, there may be benefits to requiring signal booster 
operators to register their devices prior to use. For example, a 
national signal booster clearinghouse could hasten interference 
resolution by providing licensees with a quick resource for identifying 
nearby signal boosters and points of contact. Similarly, a 
clearinghouse could be useful to identify sources of interference for 
future network changes. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether signal booster operators should be required to register their 
devices with a national clearinghouse prior to operation. Further, the 
Commission seeks detailed comment on how a clearinghouse could be 
structured and what information should be required. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on how a clearinghouse could be administered, 
by whom, and whether there are technical or programmatic features that 
could aid compliance with a registration requirement, e.g., signal 
boosters could be equipped with features that would prevent operation 
until properly registered. Commenters should also address the costs and 
benefits of a registration requirement.
    29. While recognizing the potential benefits of signal booster 
registration, the Commission is mindful of the burden a registration 
requirement might create for consumers. The Commission thus seeks 
comment on practical measures it might adopt to minimize or eliminate 
consumer burdens. For example, should certain types of devices be 
excluded from registration, e.g., consumer versus professionally 
installed devices? Likewise, should any registration requirement be 
limited to fixed signal boosters because their precise locations are 
known and registration would allow licensees to quickly identify all 
fixed boosters in a particular area in the event interference is 
observed at a base station? Finally, the Commission queries whether, 
given the transient nature of the location of mobile signal boosters, 
registration would be effective in helping to identify and prevent 
interference from signal boosters.

C. Signal Boosters for Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service 
Operations

    30. Regarding Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR), non-
consumer signal boosters operated by licensees, the Commission proposes 
revisions to the technical and operational requirements aimed at 
preventing interference. Specifically, the Commission proposes to:
     Retain the Class A (narrowband) and Class B (wideband) 
regulatory distinctions and permit private land mobile fixed (Class A 
and B) and mobile (Class A only) devices.
     Make clear that Class B devices must be limited to 
confined areas such as buildings, tunnels, parking structures, etc., 
but allow Class B signal boosters to be connected to external antennas 
that can communicate with base stations.
     Seek comment on whether to relax or otherwise improve the 
power and emission limits for Class A and Class B devices.
     Seek comment on whether to require part 90 PLMR, including 
700 MHz public safety broadband (non-consumer) devices, to also meet 
the technical and coordination requirements for consumer signal 
boosters.
     Seek comment on the impact of the proposed rules on public 
safety vehicular external antennas and whether additional flexibility 
should be afforded to such uses.

The Commission encourages commenters to address the costs and benefits 
of the Commission's proposals as well as any alternatives proposed by 
commenters.
1. Commercial vs. Private Part 90 Signal Booster Operation
    31. Part 90 services include both subscriber-based services and 
PLMR, which warrant different approaches for signal booster operation. 
In order to promote regulatory parity, the Commission proposes to apply 
the same technical and operational requirements to all consumer signal 
boosters. Thus, the Commission proposes that part 90 consumer signal 
booster operators must comply with proposed Sec.  95.1600 et seq. of 
its rules. In addition, however, given the unique characteristics of 
part 90 licensing, the Commission also proposes that part 90 consumer 
signal booster operators must comply with existing technical 
requirements for part 90 signal boosters and any new requirements we 
may adopt in the course of this proceeding. PLMR signal booster 
operators will continue to be required to comply with existing part 90 
signal booster requirements and any new requirements the Commission may 
adopt in the course of this proceeding. The Commission seeks comment on 
its approach, including the costs and benefits, but query whether some 
or all of the technical and regulatory framework proposed above for 
consumer signal boosters should be applied to part 90 PLMR signal 
boosters.
2. Part 90 Signal Booster Classifications
    32. The Commission proposes to maintain the Class A (narrowband) 
and Class B (wideband) distinctions for signal boosters in part 90. 
Class A signal boosters allow part 90 licensees with interleaved 
channels to meet their own needs without affecting neighboring 
licensees. In addition, the record demonstrates a demand and need for 
Class B signal boosters where proper installation and licensee 
coordination can avoid interference. The Commission believes that 
maintaining the Class A and Class B signal booster distinction affords 
licensees the flexibility to deploy signal boosters to fill in dead 
spots in coverage, extend coverage into buildings and obstructed areas, 
and provide extended range for public safety entities in rural areas 
with poor signal coverage. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal 
and takes this opportunity to seek comment on further distinctions, 
definition changes, or operational requirements for Class A and Class B 
signal boosters to ensure they are properly deployed and operated in 
the public interest.
3. Part 90 Signal Booster Operation
    33. The Commission believes that Class B signal booster use should 
be

[[Page 26989]]

limited to confined areas such as buildings, tunnels, parking garages 
or other structures where the signal would be contained. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposes to remove the language ``or in remote areas'' 
from Sec.  90.219(d) in order to clarify where Class B signal boosters 
may operate. Class B signal boosters amplify all signals within the 
device's passband, which makes it difficult to coordinate Class B 
signal booster use where different licensees have interleaved 
narrowband channels. Because of this additional level of complexity, 
Class B signal booster use in the part 90 bands should continue to be 
restricted to enclosed areas where the signals can be more easily 
controlled. The removal of the ``or in remote areas'' language should 
also eliminate any confusion regarding the allowable geographic 
locations for Class B signal boosters. Class B boosters can be deployed 
in both urban and rural areas so long as they are installed in a 
confined area; Class B signal booster use is not restricted to rural or 
remote areas. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to structure a reasonable 
transition process for existing Class B signal boosters that do not 
meet its proposed rules. For example, should the Commission temporarily 
grandfather such devices and if so, under what terms and for what 
period of time?
    34. The Commission also proposes to allow Class B signal booster 
operators to pair enclosed, Class B signal boosters with external 
antennas in order to provide a return path to the licensee's base or 
repeater station. Containing a Class B booster's signal completely 
within a structure eliminates the device's primary function--to 
facilitate signals into and out of obstructed areas. This type of 
deployment is used to facilitate public safety communications during 
in-building emergencies and many local jurisdictions require in-
building signal boosters for this purpose. If properly coordinated and 
installed, such in-building signal booster systems can provide an 
important communications link without causing interference. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposal. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on how to facilitate non-licensee use of part 90 PLMR 
Class B signal boosters for in-building emergency communications, 
including whether it should adopt our proposed consumer signal booster 
license-by-rule approach for such use. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether additional safeguards are necessary to control 
interference from in-building signal booster systems. For example, how 
can the return link be coordinated and deployed in confined areas over 
frequency ranges that cover multiple licenses? Should the Commission 
restrict the return link to Class A signal boosters only?
4. Part 90 Mobile Signal Boosters
    35. The Commission's current policy affords part 90 licensees 
flexibility to implement a variety of devices, including mobile signal 
boosters, on their authorized channels as long as technical 
requirements are met and coordinated service boundaries are maintained. 
The Commission proposes to amend its rules to codify this policy and 
explicitly permit part 90 licensees to use mobile signal boosters on 
their assigned frequencies. The Commission recognizes, however, that 
interleaved part 90 channels present additional complications for 
controlling interference due to the number of different licensees that 
could be affected. For these reasons, the Commission does not believe 
wideband, mobile Class B signal boosters should be allowed on 
interleaved part 90 channels. The Commission thus proposes to only 
allow part 90 licensees to operate mobile Class A signal boosters on 
their assigned frequencies. The Commission recognizes that its proposal 
may prevent part 90 mobile consumer signal booster use because of the 
difficulty in designing a Class A mobile signal booster. We seek 
comment on our proposal including how our proposal will affect part 90 
mobile consumer signal booster use. Should part 90 SMR licensees or 
their subscribers be permitted to operate mobile Class B signal 
boosters? Should 700 MHz public safety broadband licensees or their 
public safety users be permitted to operate mobile Class B boosters? 
What additional safeguards or requirements would be necessary to allow 
Class B signal boosters in a mobile environment without increased 
interference potential? Should the Commission permit mobile Class B 
signal boosters if the mobile device is tethered or placed in a docking 
station, such that only the desired mobile signal is amplified?
    36. Mobile Amplifiers. In addition, Jack Daniel asks the Commission 
to clarify that a mobile amplifier is distinct from a mobile signal 
booster. Specifically, Jack Daniel proposes that the Commission define 
mobile amplifiers as ``radio frequency amplifiers that physically 
connect[] to the mobile radio, portable or handset, typically [via] the 
antenna connector.'' Historically, the Commission has treated these 
devices as part 90 transmitters for PLMR public safety and business/
industrial pool licensees and allowed their use so long as they did not 
result in the device operating outside of part 90 technical rules. 
Given this opportunity to review the use of these part 90 amplifiers, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether any restrictions should be 
placed on these devices. For example, should commercial SMR service 
subscribers be permitted to use mobile amplifiers under a different set 
of technical requirements and what should they be? Most SMR subscriber 
radios have integrated antennas so connecting an external antenna may 
not be possible, but the Commission seeks comment on the viability of 
mobile amplifiers for SMR services. Does connecting the amplifier 
directly to the mobile device via a physical connection adequately 
address the interference concerns raised in this proceeding? What 
technical limits should be applied to mobile amplifiers, e.g., should 
the Commission adopt separate power limits other than those that apply 
to part 90 mobile radios generally, should the Commission require 
automatic gain control or other features to ensure these devices do not 
cause interference? Should the Commission require that mobile 
amplifiers be tested with specific radio models to ensure that, when 
combined, the devices together meet applicable technical requirements 
in order to merit certification?
5. Technical and Other Issues for Part 90 PLMR Signal Boosters
    37. Emission Limits for Part 90 Signal Boosters. Commenters state 
that due to the use of narrowband digital modulation techniques since 
the signal booster rules were adopted, today's Class A signal boosters 
are not able to boost discrete digital narrowband channels without 
incurring group delay which could cause intermittent problems with the 
receiver's performance. The Commission believes there may be merit in 
the suggestion by commenters to relax the emission limits for Class A 
signal boosters to allow for consideration of the group delay issue. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment as to what passband technical 
specifications (that could be verified through our equipment 
certification process) should be required for Class A boosters in lieu 
of the current requirement to meet the standard emission masks for 
transmitters. Would it be appropriate to use the 60 kHz passband (at -3 
dB), 150 kHz (at -60 dB) specification proposed by Canam

[[Page 26990]]

Technology, Inc.? Or should the maximum allowable passband be scaled in 
some way to the occupied bandwidth of the channel to be amplified? What 
sort of technical specification would be appropriate to verify the 
linearity and performance characteristics of a Class A signal booster 
to ensure that the out-of-band emissions of boosted signals are not 
degraded by intermodulation products or spurious emissions?
    38. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate emission 
limits for Class B signal boosters. What emission mask sufficient for 
Class B signal boosters? Are Class B signal boosters programmable such 
that the roll off characteristics can be adjusted to apply to the upper 
and lower spectrum boundaries of the licensee's desired spectrum range? 
What other types of emission limitations should be considered for Class 
B signal boosters and how should compliance with these limits be 
measured in the equipment certification process?
    39. Signal booster power limits. While the Commission recognizes 
that increased power limits for Class A signal boosters may facilitate 
more economical distribution systems, such increased power limits come 
with added interference concerns and complexity. A properly engineered 
and installed higher power Class A signal booster could be useful to 
fill in dead spots in outdoor coverage or to more economically cover 
large buildings. However, increasing the power limit would also 
significantly increase the device's interference potential and could 
present RF exposure issues if not carefully deployed. The Commission 
believes more information is needed on this issue before a decision can 
be made. The Commission thus seeks comment on whether part 90 signal 
boosters (both Class A and Class B) should be permitted to increase 
their power levels. What increased power levels are appropriate and 
what additional safeguards should be adopted? If the Commission permits 
Class A signal boosters to operate at higher levels, should such 
operation be limited to fixed applications? Should the Commission 
decrease the power limit for mobile Class A boosters to minimize 
interference potential? The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
the existing power limit remains appropriate for Class B signal 
boosters and whether it is expressed clearly in Sec.  90.219(b) or 
whether the language ``limited to 5 watts ERP for each authorized 
frequency that the booster is designed to amplify'' has created 
confusion.
    40. Equipment authorization for part 90 signal boosters. The 
Commission also takes this opportunity to augment the record on 
additional issues related to signal booster power levels. Specifically, 
a review of the equipment authorization database reveals that signal 
boosters have been certified with a wide range of signal booster power 
levels, many well in excess of 5 watts transmitter output power. This 
is because at the time of equipment authorization, the testing 
authority does not know how the device will be installed, how much 
signal will be lost in cables to outside antennas or the type of 
antenna that will be used. Nor does the testing authority know if the 
device will be installed as a signal booster subject to power limits in 
Sec.  90.219 or as an amplifier that will be connected directly to a 
radio and not subject to the 5 watt ERP limit. Given these practical 
realities, is 5 watt ERP the proper power limit for signal boosters? Is 
ERP the best measure of power for signal boosters? Is the existing 
equipment authorization process sufficient to ensure signal boosters 
are approved in such a way that their operation is consistent with our 
rules? To ensure proper authorization of devices for their intended 
use, should the Commission require documentation or labeling on signal 
amplification devices to describe how the device is to be used under 
our rules? Should the Commission change the way it measures compliance 
for signal boosters to better differentiate between Class A and Class B 
signal boosters or between a signal booster and an amplifier designed 
to connect directly to a radio? While measuring field strength of a 
device would ensure compliance with our rules, it would make it 
difficult for the installer to address the wide range of deployment 
scenarios. The Commission thus seeks comment on other rules or 
techniques that can be used in the equipment authorization process to 
ensure signal boosters are properly operated.
    41. PLMR Signal Booster Registration. PLMR signal booster 
operation, like consumer signal booster use, presents the same 
potential for interference to wireless operations. The Commission thus 
seeks comment whether, consistent with any registration process it may 
adopt for consumer signal booster operators, PLMR signal booster 
operators should also be required to register their signal boosters 
with a national, centralized clearinghouse prior to use. If 
interference from a PLMR booster occurs, the clearinghouse could 
provide other part 90 licensees with a ready resource for identifying 
and rectifying the source of the interference. Further, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether any registration requirement would apply to 
fixed, mobile, or both types of signal boosters.
    42. Other design requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether part 90 PLMR signal boosters, including 700 MHz public safety 
broadband (non-consumer) devices, should be required to implement some 
or all of the safeguards it proposes for consumer signal boosters, such 
as automatic monitoring and shut down capabilities. Are these 
additional safeguards necessary for Class A signal boosters which are 
designed and deployed by the licensee to amplify only their authorized 
channel(s)?
    43. 800 MHz Rebanding. As noted by several commenters, 800 MHz part 
90 frequencies are subject to a rebanding process to resolve 
interference issues related to a mix of interleaved commercial, private 
and public safety channels. Once rebanding is complete, the separation 
of commercial SMR frequencies from part 90 PLMR channels will 
facilitate the deployment of signal boosters with less complication and 
fewer instances of interference. Jack Daniel points out, however, that 
after rebanding, thousands of consumers will likely continue to operate 
existing signal boosters unaware that the signals they are trying to 
amplify have been moved to another spectrum. Accordingly, Jack Daniel 
suggests that we establish a deadline for the removal of these devices 
from service. Jack Daniel acknowledges that implementation of such a 
deadline will require the participation of retailers and manufacturers 
of the products. The Commission seeks comment on the impact of 
rebanding on existing and future uses of part 90 signal boosters. 
Should the Commission establish a sunset date for the operation of 
existing Part 90 Class B signal boosters that operate in the 800 MHz 
band? How should the Commission effectuate such a sunset? Given that 
part 90 consumer operations would likely be limited to the rebanded SMR 
frequencies, should there be different technical requirements for 
signal boosters on those frequencies than for devices that would 
operate in the public safety and business/industrial pool? Recognizing 
the complexities involved in the rebanding process, should the 
Commission exclude part 90 consumer signal boosters from the general 
consumer signal booster license--by-rule framework until after the 
completion of the rebanding process?
    44. Request for forbearance on conflicting regulations to local 
zoning

[[Page 26991]]

laws. Jack Daniel requests that the Commission forbear from adopting 
any regulations that would hinder local zoning decisions that require 
the installation of signal boosters in buildings to facilitate 
communications by public safety first responders. Jack Daniel argues 
that many local governments have adopted or are considering code 
requirements that would require the installation of Class B signal 
boosters in buildings, and that the Commission should not usurp, via an 
assertion of exclusive jurisdiction, local zoning requirements by 
adopting conflicting rules.
    45. The Commission's intent in this proceeding is to facilitate the 
development and deployment of well-designed signal boosters which will 
expand wireless coverage for consumers without harming wireless 
networks. The Commission does not seek to preempt local governments' 
authority to require the installation of signal boosters pursuant to 
fire or other building codes in the context of this proceeding. Any 
such installations, however, are required to comply with the 
Commission's existing rules applicable to signal boosters and will be 
required to comply with any rules which it may adopt in this 
proceeding.
    46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the NPRM provided in section V.F.2. of the item. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    47. The regulatory framework for signal boosters proposed in this 
NPRM is one element in a set of initiatives designed to promote 
deployment of mobile voice and broadband services in the United States. 
Well-designed, properly operating, and properly installed signal 
boosters have the potential to improve consumers' wireless network 
coverage without harming commercial, private, and public safety 
wireless network performance. Malfunctioning, poorly designed, or 
improperly installed signal boosters, however, may harm consumers by 
blocking calls, including E-911 and other emergency calls, and 
decreasing network coverage and capacity. The regulatory framework 
proposed in this NPRM seeks to create appropriate incentives for 
carriers and manufacturers to collaboratively develop robust signal 
boosters that do not harm wireless networks. This, in turn, will 
empower consumers to improve their cell phone coverage as they deem 
necessary. The public interest is best served by ensuring that 
consumers have access to well-designed boosters that do not harm 
wireless networks.
    48. The NPRM proposes a new regulatory framework authorizing the 
operation of ``consumer signal boosters'' provided the devices (1) 
comply with all applicable technical rules, and (2) comply with a set 
of parameters aimed at preventing and controlling interference and 
rapidly resolving interference problems should they occur. We also 
propose certain revisions to our service rules in part 90.
Legal Basis
    49. The proposed action is authorized under Sec. Sec.  4(i), 4(j), 
301, 303(r), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(r), 307.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply
    50. 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. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    51. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. A ``small organization'' is 
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 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.'' 
Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of 
this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' 
Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    52. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were 
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior 
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet 
available for the new category, we will estimate small business 
prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the 
category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless 
firms are small.
    53. The Commission has determined that there are approximately 
241,237 licensees in the Wireless Radio Services affected by this NPRM, 
as of October 1, 2010; the Commission does not know how many licensees 
in these bands are small entities, as the Commission does not collect 
that information for these types of entities. Thus, the Commission 
assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that all prospective licensees are 
small entities as that term is defined by the SBA or by our proposed 
small business definitions for these bands.
    54. 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.

[[Page 26992]]

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.'' The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: all 
such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this 
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had 
employment under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 
999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    55. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on rules and policies 
that will broaden the availability and use of signal boosters to 
enhance wireless coverage for consumers, particularly in rural and 
underserved areas, while ensuring that boosters do not adversely impact 
wireless networks. The NPRM proposes to authorize individuals to use 
fixed and mobile consumer signal boosters by rule under part 95.
    56. Under the Commission's proposal, all consumer signal boosters 
must comply with technical and operational requirements aimed at 
preventing interference to wireless networks, including: complying with 
technical parameters (e.g., power and unwanted emission limits) for the 
applicable spectrum band as well as RF exposure requirements for the 
type of device; automatically self-monitoring operations and shutting 
down if not in compliance with our technical rules; and for mobile 
boosters, powering down, or shutting down, automatically when a device 
is not needed, such as when the device approaches the base station with 
which it is communicating. The NPRM also proposes to require 
manufacturers to market and label consumer signal boosters in a way 
that provides consumers with clear information specifying the legal use 
of the device.
    57. In order to facilitate the near-term availability of new, 
compliant consumer signal boosters, the Commission proposes to require 
applications for equipment authorization to demonstrate compliance with 
the new rules within 30 days of their effective date. Further, the 
Commission proposes to require that devices marketed or sold in the 
United States comply with the new rules within 6 months of their 
effective date.
    58. In addition, under the Commission's proposal, operators of 
consumer signal boosters would be required to immediately cease 
operations upon notification by a licensee or the Commission that the 
device causes harmful interference to wireless network operations. 
Further, operators of boosters operated at a fixed location, such as in 
a building, tunnel or garage, would be required to coordinate frequency 
selection and power levels with the applicable wireless carrier(s) 
prior to operation.
    59. With respect to part 90 PLMR, non-consumer, signal boosters 
operated by licensees, the NPRM proposes revisions to the technical and 
operational requirements aimed at preventing interference. 
Specifically, the Commission proposes to retain the Class A 
(narrowband) and Class B (wideband) regulatory distinctions and permit 
private land mobile fixed (Class A and B) and mobile (Class A only) 
devices. In addition, the NPRM proposes to make clear that Class B 
devices must be limited to confined areas such as buildings, tunnels, 
parking structures, etc., but permits use of external antennas to 
communicate with base stations.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered
    60. The RFA requires an agency to